Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority May 9, 2016
Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major
Transportation Improvement Analysis Preferred Alternative Report
GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
RED LINE / HEALTHLINE EXTENSION MAJOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT
Prepared by:
AECOM 1300 East Ninth Street, Suite 500 Cleveland, OH 44114
May 9, 2016
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Quality information
Document name Prepared for Prepared by Date Reviewed by
Greater Cleveland Preferred Alternative Report K. Sislak 12/23/2015 D. Crider Regional Transit Authority Revision history
Revision Revision date Details Name Position
0 December 23, 2015 All pages K. Sislak Project Manager
1 February 10, 2016 All pages K. Sislak Project Manager
2 May 9, 2016 All pages K. Sislak Project Manager This document has been prepared by AECOM for the sole use of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the RTA. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... i List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... vi 1 Overview ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Final Report ...... 2 1.2 What Is Covered in the Final Report ...... 2 1.3 How Alternatives Were Selected ...... 3 2 Study Process ...... 4 2.1 Defining the Study Area ...... 4 2.2 Consistency with Local, State, and Federal Planning Processes ...... 4 2.3 Alternatives Analysis Process ...... 6 2.4 FTA Project Rating Process ...... 7 2.5 Public Involvement as Part of the Alternatives Analysis Process ...... 9 2.6 Screening and Selection Process ...... 9 3 Purpose and Need ...... 13 3.1 Purpose of the Project ...... 13 3.2 Problems and Needs ...... 14 3.3 Population Trends ...... 15 3.4 Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations ...... 17 Environmental Justice ...... 17 Minority Population ...... 17 Low Income Population ...... 18 Automobile Access ...... 18 Age of Population ...... 20 Educational Attainment ...... 21 Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage ...... 21 3.5 Development Patterns, Land Use and Geographical Constraints ...... 22 3.5.1 Character of the Communities in the Study Area ...... 26 Cleveland (Collinwood) ...... 26 East Cleveland ...... 27 Euclid ...... 27 Lake County Communities ...... 28 3.5.2 Vacant and Abandoned Properties ...... 29 3.5.3 Activity Centers, Attractions and Cultural Resources ...... 31 3.6 Employment Trends and Major Employers ...... 33 3.7 Transportation Conditions ...... 40 3.7.1 Roadways ...... 40 3.7.2 Railroads ...... 44
i
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
3.7.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...... 46 3.7.4 Public Transit ...... 47 RTA Red Line...... 47 RTA HealthLine ...... 49 RTA and Laketran Local and Commuter Bus Routes ...... 53 Transit Centers and Park-N-Rides ...... 56 System and Study Area Ridership Trends ...... 57 3.7.5 Carpooling/Ridesharing Programs ...... 58 3.7.6 Private Bus and Shuttle Services ...... 59 4 Alternatives Definition and Screening ...... 60 4.1 Development of Goals and Objectives ...... 60 4.2 Technology Assessment ...... 62 4.2.1 Local Bus ...... 62 4.2.2 Enhanced Bus ...... 62 4.2.3 Bus Rapid Transit Lite (BRT Lite) ...... 62 4.2.4 Bus Rapid Transit ...... 62 4.2.5 Heavy Rail Rapid Transit (HRT) ...... 63 4.2.6 Diesel-Multiple Unit (DMU) Commuter Rail ...... 63 4.2.7 Rapid+ ...... 63 4.2.8 Summary of Technology Assessment ...... 63 4.3 Alternatives Considered ...... 64 4.3.1 No Build Alternative ...... 64 4.3.2 Do Minimum Alternative ...... 65 4.3.3 Build Alternatives Considered and Dismissed ...... 65 4.3.4 Summary Findings of Alternatives Screening ...... 66 4.3.5 Build Alternatives Advanced and Considered ...... 70 4.3.6 Tier 3 Screening: Business Case ...... 70 5 Financial Analysis ...... 75 5.1 Capital Cost Expenditures ...... 75 5.1.1 Estimates of Probable Capital Cost Expenditures ...... 76 5.1.2 Estimates of Annualized Costs ...... 77 5.2 Operating and Maintenance Cost Expenditures (OPEX) ...... 78 5.3 Sources of Funds ...... 79 5.3.1 Sales and Use Tax ...... 80 5.3.2 Federal and State Grant Assistance...... 81 5.4 Fiscal Capacity and Financial Analysis ...... 82 5.5 Risk and Uncertainty ...... 84 5.5.1 Operating Risks ...... 84 5.5.2 Capital Cost Risks ...... 85 5.6 Financial Analysis Conclusion ...... 85 6 Access and Ridership Estimates ...... 86 6.1 Accessibility ...... 86 6.1.1 Alternative B ...... 86 6.1.2 Alternative E ...... 87
ii
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
6.1.3 Alternative G ...... 87 6.1.4 Hybrid Alternative ...... 88 6.2 Ridership Forecasting Methods and Results ...... 88 6.2.1 Forecasting Methods using the STOPS Model ...... 89 6.2.2 Ridership Forecast Results ...... 91 7 Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 93 7.1 Goal 1 Mobility ...... 93 7.1.1 Accessibility ...... 93 7.1.2 Congestion Relief ...... 95 7.1.3 Mobility Benefit ...... 95 7.1.4 Highway and Traffic Impacts ...... 96 7.2 Goal 2 Economy ...... 98 7.3 Goal 3 Environment ...... 99 7.3.1 Decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ...... 99 7.3.2 Potential for Reductions in Carbon Footprint ...... 100 7.3.3 Air Quality ...... 100 7.3.4 Decrease Use of Single Occupant Vehicles ...... 100 7.3.5 Decrease Energy Consumption ...... 100 7.3.6 Natural Resources ...... 101 7.4 Goal 4 Livability ...... 101 7.4.1 Number of Streets Closed or Improved with “Complete Streets” Treatments ...... 102 7.4.2 Number of Cultural Resources Impacted ...... 102 7.4.3 Number of Households Affected within 25 yards of the Alignment ...... 103 7.4.4 Impacts on Public Parklands and Open Spaces ...... 103 7.4.5 Transit Dependency and Number of Zero Car Households ...... 104 7.5 Summary of Evaluation Analysis ...... 105 7.5.1 Goal 1: Mobility ...... 105 7.5.2 Goal 2 Economy ...... 106 7.5.3 Goal 3 Environment ...... 106 7.5.4 Goal 4 Livability ...... 107 7.5.5 Other Considerations ...... 108 8 Agency Coordination and Public Outreach ...... 110 8.1 Technical Steering and Stakeholder Involvement Committees ...... 111 8.1.1 Technical Steering Committee ...... 111 8.1.2 Stakeholder Involvement Committee...... 112 8.2 Community Outreach ...... 112 8.2.1 Public Meetings – Round 1 ...... 112 8.2.2 Public Meetings – Round 2 ...... 115 8.2.3 Public Meetings – Round 3 ...... 117 8.2.4 Public Meetings – Round 4 ...... 119 8.3 Community and Development Workshops ...... 120 8.3.1 NOACA Transit Council and RTA Citizens Advisory Board ...... 122 8.3.2 Other Outreach Activities ...... 123 8.3.3 Outreach Interaction Measures ...... 123 8.4 Outreach Summary ...... 124
iii
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
9 Project Feasibility Determination ...... 125 9.1 Project Justification ...... 125 9.1.1 Mobility Improvements ...... 125 9.1.2 Congestion Relief...... 126 9.1.3 Environmental Benefits ...... 127 9.1.4 Economic Development Effects ...... 130 9.1.5 Land Use ...... 135 9.1.6 Cost Effectiveness ...... 138 9.1.7 Summary Project Justification Rating ...... 138 9.2 Local Financial Commitment ...... 139 9.2.1 Current Capital and Operating Condition ...... 140 9.2.2 Commitment of Funds ...... 142 9.2.3 Reasonableness of Financial Plan ...... 142 9.2.4 Summary Rating for Local Financial Commitment ...... 142 9.3 Overall Project Evaluation Rating ...... 142 10 Summary and Conclusions ...... 144 10.1 Findings and Determinations ...... 144 10.2 No Build Alternative Recommended ...... 147 10.2.1 Planned and Committed No Build Highway Improvements ...... 147 10.2.2 Planned and Committed No Build Transit Improvements ...... 147 10.3 Conclusions ...... 148 11 Next Steps ...... 149 References ...... 150
iv
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
List of Tables
Table 3 -1 Population of Counties and Cities in Study Area ...... 16 Table 3 -2 Racial Breakdown of Population ...... 18 Table 3 -3 Population Below Poverty Level...... 18 Table 3 -4 Zero Car Households (HH) ...... 20 Table 3 -5 Age Breakdown of Population (2010) ...... 20 Table 3 -6 Educational Attainment ...... 21 Table 3 -7 Study Area Land Use by Type (Number of Acres and Percent of Total)...... 26 Table 3 -8 Vacant Land by Type (Acres) ...... 29 Table 3 -9 Study Area Labor Force Characteristics ...... 35 Table 3 -10 Major Employers in the Study Area (Alphabetical) ...... 36 Table 3 -11 Existing Highways and Roads ...... 41 Table 3 -12 Railroad At-Grade Highway and Road Crossings ...... 46 Table 3 -13 Red Line Ridership ...... 48 Table 3 -14 HealthLine Ridership ...... 49 Table 3 -15 Annual Ridership, Local and Commuter Routes ...... 53 Table 3 -16 Service Descriptions for Local and Commuter Routes Operating in the Study Area...... 54 Table 3 -17 Parking at Transit Locations ...... 57 Table 3 -18 RTA and Laketran System-Wide Ridership Trends ...... 58 Table 3 -19 Study Area Ridership Trends by RTA Route ...... 58 Table 4 -1 Goals and Objectives ...... 61 Table 4 -2 Alternatives Considered and Results of Screening Process ...... 67 Table 5 -1 Estimates of Probable Capital Expenditures ($000s) ...... 76 Table 5 -2 Estimates of Probable Operating Expenditures (OPEX) ...... 78 Table 5 -3 RTA Farebox Receipts and Passenger ...... 79 Table 5 -4 RTA Sales and Use Tax (2004 – 2014) ...... 80 Table 5 -5 Federal and State Grants...... 82 Table 6 -1 Alternative B - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area ...... 87 Table 6 -2 Alternative E - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area ...... 87 Table 6 -3 Alternative G - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area ...... 87 Table 6 -4 Hybrid Alternative - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area ...... 88 Table 7 -1 Alignment Alternatives Catchment Area Analysis ...... 94 Table 7 -2 Congestion Relief (New Riders) ...... 95 Table 7 -3 New Start Mobility Improvements Criterion ...... 96 Table 7 -4 Changes in Annual Automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled ...... 97 Table 7 -5 Cost Effectiveness Index – Cost per Trip on Project ...... 98 Table 7 -6 Alignment Alternatives Catchment Area Analysis ...... 103 Table 7 -7 Transit Dependency in Study Area ...... 104 Table 7 -8 Summary Matrix ...... 108 Table 8 -1 Public Meeting Round 1 – Summary of Issues and Comments ...... 113 Table 8 -2 Public Meeting Round 2 – Summary of Issues and Comments ...... 115 Table 8 -3 Public Meeting Round 3 – Summary of Issues and Comments ...... 117 Table 8 -4 Public Meeting Round 4 – Summary of Issues and Comments ...... 119 Table 8 -5 Summary of Outreach Interactions ...... 124 Table 9 -1 New Start Mobility Improvements Criterion ...... 126 Table 9 -2 New Start Congestion Relief Criterion...... 127 Table 9 -3 New Start Air Quality Criterion ...... 128 Table 9 -4 New Start Greenhouse Gas Criterion ...... 128 Table 9 -5 New Start Energy Savings Criterion ...... 129 Table 9 -6 New Start Safety Criterion ...... 130 Table 9 -7 New Start Environmental Benefits Criterion Rating ...... 130
v
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 9 -8 New Starts Economic Development Criterion Rating ...... 134 Table 9 -9 Housing Stock Characteristics ...... 136 Table 9 -10 Population Density and Employment ...... 137 Table 9 -11 Summary Land-Use Criterion Rating ...... 137 Table 9 -12 Cost Effectiveness Index – Cost per Trip ...... 138 Table 9 -13 Summary Project Justification Rating...... 139 Table 9 -14 Summary Project Justification Rating...... 142
List of Figures
Figure 1 -1 Study Area ...... 1 Figure 2 -1 FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating Criteria and Weights ...... 6 Figure 2 -2 Alternatives Analysis Flow Chart ...... 11 Figure 3 -1 Population Change 2010 -2035 ...... 16 Figure 3 -2: Percentage of Minority Population by Census Tract ...... 19 Figure 3 -3: Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage ...... 23 Figure 3 -4: Study Area Land Use ...... 25 Figure 3 -5: Non-Residential Building Vacancy Properties by Location and Type ...... 30 Figure 3 -6: Major Destinations and Activity Centers ...... 32 Figure 3 -7: 2010 – 2035 Employment Change ...... 36 Figure 3 -8: Businesses with 50 or More Employees in Study Area ...... 38 Figure 3 -9: Businesses with 50 Employees or More by Industry and Size ...... 39 Figure 3 -10: Study Area Major Roadways ...... 43 Figure 3 -11: Study Area Railroads ...... 45 Figure 3 -12 Red Line Annual Ridership 2000 - 2014 ...... 48 Figure 3 -13: RTA Red Line ...... 50 Figure 3 -14 HealthLine Annual Ridership 2007 - 2014 ...... 49 Figure 3 -15: RTA HealthLine ...... 51 Figure 3 -16: Major Study Area Bus Routes, Transit Centers, and Park-N-Rides ...... 52 Figure 4 -1: Alternative B Red Line Extension ...... 71 Figure 4 -2: Alternative E HealthLine Extension via East 152nd Street/Waterloo Arts District ...... 72 Figure 4 -3: Alternative G HealthLine Extension via St. Clair Avenue/Nottingham Village ...... 73 Figure 4 -4: Hybrid Alternative: ...... 74
vi
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
1 Overview
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) examined potential extensions of rail and bus rapid transit and other enhanced transit services in the northeast section of Cuyahoga County as an outgrowth of its 2010 – 2020 Strategic Plan. RTA’s Strategic Plan serves as a roadmap to reimagining its future. The plan describes actions for refocusing, restructuring, renovating, reallocating and reenergizing RTA’s services and capital investment programs in existing transit supportive corridors. This report was prepared to document the development and evaluation of alternatives for future transportation system improvements in the study area needed to address travel demand and associated congestion in the northeastern part of Cuyahoga County.
Specifically, the study area for the Red Line/HealthLine extension major transportation improvement analysis is centered on the St. Clair Avenue corridor running east from Downtown Cleveland to Euclid. The western boundary of the study area starts at the CSX Short Line right-of-way ( in and adjacent to the former Cleveland Union Terminal railroad) and extends east along the southern boundary, which is the escarpment separating the lake plain from the heights area of Cleveland. The study area is also bounded by Lake Erie on the north and Lake County on the east and contains portions of three cities: Cleveland, East Cleveland, and Euclid. As noted in Section 2.1, for certain limited purposes the study area extended into some of the western portions of Lake County. The transit alternatives that will be evaluated are located within the defined limits of this study area, which is illustrated by Figure 1-1 below.
Figure 1-1 Study Area
1 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The resulting project would improve transportation mobility and connectivity; provide faster, more reliable public transport services and linkages; increase the capacity of the total transportation system; and provide more travel choices for residents, commuters, visitors and tourists in the region.
1.1 Purpose of the Final Report
This Final Report is being prepared to document the appraisal of the financial and wider economic impacts of the proposed transit investment within the context of improving the urban vitality and competitiveness of the communities being served.
1.2 What Is Covered in the Final Report
The Final Report presents transit alignment and technology alternatives selected through a public participation process, which was used to screen initial alternatives. This report presents a comparative analysis to refine previous assumptions developed for the alternatives.
The alternatives analysis employed is a locally managed study process that follows Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines for capital investment planning and project appraisal. It uses local information related to regional travel patterns, problems, and needs. This information is typically generated as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process. This information has been gathered during past systems planning efforts by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), which is Greater Cleveland’s metropolitan planning organization, and RTA.
From FTA guidance1, an “effective alternatives analysis answers the questions: What are the problems in a corridor? What are their underlying causes? What are viable options for addressing these problems? What are their costs? What are their benefits?”
The outcome of a locally managed alternatives analysis is a locally preferred alternative (LPA) that meets the purpose of the project, provides a good balance in meeting project goals, and presents a competitive project for FTA Capital Investment Grant (New Starts) funding with regard to cost-effectiveness, transit supportiveness of existing and future land use, and local financial commitment among other factors in the New Starts project appraisal rating framework.
If an LPA is a “build” project, it will be advanced to more detailed technical analysis and compared to the No Build alternative as part of the environmental clearance process during the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations.
If none of the “build” alternatives are selected as the LPA, two options can be pursued. If the “build” alternatives were not selected because they were found to be infeasible and/or not meet the purpose and need, then the “No Build” or “Do Nothing” alternative would be adopted as the LPA. Otherwise, the selection of an LPA can be deferred until further studies are complete and/or the financial climate changes.
1 Federal Transit Administration; Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning; December 6, 2011. 2 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
1.3 How Alternatives Were Selected
The Red Line/HealthLine extension project was identified in the RTA Strategic Plan as one of the region’s highest-priority transit corridors for implementing future fixed-guideway transit improvements. The RTA Strategic Plan was conducted with full public participation, and the final documents were endorsed by NOACA and the RTA Board of Trustees.
Prior to selection of the alignments and transit modes specifically discussed in this Final Report, a wide range of alternatives was considered and screened multiple times using both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The screening process was based on a set of goals developed for the purpose of selecting an alignment and technology that best met goals and objectives. Criteria were developed that measured how well each of the alternatives met each goal.
The criteria included accounting for study area land-use changes; planned future development and potential transit patronage (ridership) forecasts; engineering factors; projections of capital, operating, and maintenance costs; potential economic benefits; financial feasibility, expected changes in the environment related to land use, traffic and transportation impacts of the alternatives; and cost-benefit considerations using simplified cost-effectiveness measures. Using these criteria and additional refined technical analysis, this effort produced the final set of alternatives, which are defined and further examined in the Final Report. This process is described in Section 2.0, Study Process. A list of previous reports completed for this study and reference materials are included in Chapter 12.
3 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
2 Study Process
The Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study builds on previous planning efforts in the region and has involved extensive collaboration between government jurisdictions and stakeholders in multiple communities. For over 40 years, RTA and representatives of other municipal and regional agencies responsible for plans and policies in the study area have been considering significant transit improvements to serve anticipated travel demand in the study area.
Local authorities led by RTA as the local lead agency have followed a prescribed process of study and evaluation prior to adopting a locally preferred alternative (LPA). This effort has been ongoing for about 30 months. A multi-layered screening process of all potential alternatives has been used to sort through facts and figures and to match transit concepts with goals established in the public review process and FTA criteria. This report documents the process and findings.
2.1 Defining the Study Area The study area consists of three communities in Cuyahoga County and six in the adjoining portion of Lake County as depicted in Figure 1-1, which shows the geographical context of the study area in relation to the region and Ohio.
The Cuyahoga County portion of the study area consists of the Collinwood district of the City of Cleveland, the City of East Cleveland, and the City of Euclid. These communities constitute the core of the study area and are included for all aspects of the analysis, including environmental. The Lake County portion of the study area includes the cities of Wickliffe and Willowick, which are immediately adjacent to Cuyahoga County, as well as the next four cities moving east: Willoughby, Eastlake, Mentor, and Mentor-on-the-Lake. These cities are included to assess their relevance for any further analysis of potential transit improvements, given their location in the outer portion of the Red Line/HealthLine travel market and the amount of commuting and other travel that occurs across county lines.2
2.2 Consistency with Local, State, and Federal Planning Processes
Red Line heavy rail service from Louis Stokes Station at Windermere connecting to downtown Cleveland has been a key feature of transit service in the region since 1954. Suggested extensions of the Red Line have varied over the past 50 years. Studies of extending the Red Line east to Euclid were originally completed in the 1960’s and railroad overpasses built in the corridor were constructed to permit the addition of two rapid transit tracks. In addition, studies of potential commuter rail services east to Lake County were completed in the mid-1990’s with mixed results. RTA studied an extension of the Red Line southwest to Brook Park, Berea or Olmsted Falls in the late 1990’s. The RTA concluded the Dual Hub Corridor alternatives analysis by concluding that a bus rapid transit line on Euclid Avenue was a more cost effective option than realigning the Red Line from Downtown to University Circle. RTA converted the Route 6 Euclid Avenue local bus route to the HealthLine bus rapid transit line in 2008. The ridership on the line and interest in extending the HealthLine east from its current terminus at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere has grown.
2 Two small incorporated villages are located entirely within the limits of the City of Eastlake: Lakeline and Timberlake, with 2010 populations of 226 and 675, respectively. For purposes of this study, Lakeline and Timberlake are treated as if they were part of Eastlake, with their population and other data added to those of Eastlake.
4 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The RTA Strategic Plan completed in 2012 highlighted the need to improve services in principle transit corridors radiating from the Downtown core. The Strategic Plan is a systems level planning document that identifies transportation problems throughout the Greater Cleveland area and proposes an extensive set of solutions, including the establishment of priority transit corridors. The priority corridors and their improvements would be completed in collaboration with the individual cities and communities where the corridors are located.
The Strategic Plan clearly indicates the urgency of restructuring RTA services to increase the proportion of passenger trips using public transportation, to relieve traffic congestion on the local roadway network and to regenerate economic development in transit corridors. The existing rail and bus rapid transit system would continue to provide a high quality transit spine in Greater Cleveland with direct links among Downtown, University Circle, Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE) and other key locations. The Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study major transportation improvement analysis will build on the findings and recommendations of the strategic plan and evaluate other reasonable alternatives in the high priority transit corridors identified in the service area under study.
The first priority was identifying service improvements in the St. Clair Avenue corridor. This corridor could be served by extending the Red Line east to Euclid or into adjacent Lake County along the Norfolk Southern railroad owned right-of-way and has been identified as a potential improvement to the transit network. In addition, extending the HealthLine east to serve the Upper St. Clair area also was deemed an appropriate service strategy. The routes could use Euclid Avenue, St Clair Avenue and/or Lake Shore Boulevard. In continuing efforts to realize local goals for improved transportation in the area, the study has evaluated various potential alternatives using these generalized alignments and technology options.
Following completion of this study, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Final EIS will be prepared consistent with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements if warranted. The Final EIS will be prepared in conjunction with preliminary engineering in accordance with newly revised FTA guidance3.
Although this is a local study, it forms the basis for comparing the build alternative developed from the study to other projects across the country if federal funding is sought. Consequently, the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study needs to address FTA evaluation measures and requirements for assessing a project’s competitiveness for Capital Investment Grant (CIG) New Starts funding. This report summarizes the following contents of the study:
What were the study area limits? What transportation problems would be addressed by the recommended project? How has the public been involved? Were other alternatives considered? How was the recommended alternative selected? What is the recommended alternative? Will the entire project be implemented at once, or is there a portion with operational benefits that could be implemented as a first phase? Where would the fiscal resources come from to implement and operate the project? What further steps are necessary to move from this study toward project implementation?
3 Federal Transit Administration; Final Interim Policy Guidance for Capital Investment Grant Program; August 2015. 5 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
As part of the study, transportation demand modeling was conducted in order to estimate future ridership and cost-effectiveness. The FTA Simplified Trips on Project (STOP) travel demand model was used to prepare the estimates. Estimates of probable cost were prepared for the alternatives.
To assess a project’s competiveness, FTA uses six project justification criteria and three measures of local financial commitment as depicted in Figure 2-1 below. The percentages noted are the relative weighting assigned to each of the criteria.
Figure 2-1 FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating Criteria and Weights
The study provides the information required to evaluate these criteria.
2.3 Alternatives Analysis Process
The RTA initiated the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study under a legacy Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 5339 Alternatives Analysis (AA) discretionary grant. Although Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP- 21) repealed the alternatives analysis requirements of SAFETEA-LU, guidance implementing the provisions of MAP-21 instructed transit agency project sponsors that the existing SAFETEA-LU requirements continue to apply for obligations using funding from Section 5339 Alternatives Analysis grants.
Consequently, RTA is complying with legacy guidance regarding Alternatives Analysis (AA). The AA process is part of a larger FTA transportation planning and project development process described in FTA’s Major Capital Investment Final Rule, published December 7, 2000; Additional Guidance on Local Initiation of Alternatives Analysis Planning Studies; and Final Guidance on New Starts Policies and Procedures, published August 2008. These rules and guidance establish the methodology by which RTA evaluated the proposed “New Starts” fixed-guideway alternatives that could be potentially eligible for federal funding. Since this study commenced, Congress passed a new law entitled Fixing America’s
6 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The newly enacted FAST Act made no material changes to the way New Starts projects are evaluated.
A basic framework for evaluating alternatives is outlined in prior FTA guidance and is considered from several different perspectives: Effectiveness – the extent to which each alternative meets established goals and objectives, including transportation and sustainability goals. Impacts – the extent to which the project supports economic development, environmental or local policy goals; Cost effectiveness – the trade-off between the effectiveness of an alternative and its capital and operating costs. Financial feasibility – the ability to obtain the financial resources needed to build and operate an alternative. Equity – the distribution of costs and benefits.
The evaluation framework will use the FTA perspectives as a basic organizing structure. Within this structure, goals and objectives will be used to establish the specific evaluation criteria to be addressed that satisfy the project purpose and need. RTA is a signatory to the sustainability guidelines of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). The APTA sustainability requirements are included in the evaluation framework.
The study process began with the initial public meeting to discuss project scoping in September 2013. As the study progressed, the list of alternatives was narrowed through a tiered evaluation process described in the Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report4.
2.4 FTA Project Rating Process
The FTA project rating and evaluation process culminates each year in an annual report submitted to Congress that includes a proposal on the allocation of funding to be made available to finance grants and/or loans for capital projects for New Starts projects. Proposed New Starts projects must undergo evaluation by the FTA throughout the entire project development process. Projects are evaluated according to a variety of criteria. FTA uses two primary criteria for evaluating New Starts projects: project justification criteria and local financial commitment.
Under the project justification criteria, six different measures are evaluated:
Mobility improvements - FTA evaluates mobility improvements for New Starts projects as the total number of linked trips using the proposed project, with a weight of two given to trips that would be made on the project by transit dependent persons. Linked trips using the proposed project include all trips made on the project whether or not the rider boards or alights on the project or elsewhere in the transit system.
Congestion relief – FTA evaluates congestion relief based on the number of new weekday linked transit trips resulting from implementation of the proposed project. FTA recognizes that this is an indirect measure of roadway congestion relief resulting from implementation of a transit project, but it serves as an indicator of potential cars taken off the road.
4 AECOM, Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; November 9, 2013. 7 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Environmental benefits - FTA evaluates and rates the environmental benefits criterion for New Starts projects based upon the dollar value of the anticipated direct and indirect benefits to human health, safety, energy, and the air quality environment scaled by the annualized capital and operating cost of the project. These benefits are computed based on the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from implementation of the proposed project.
Cost effectiveness – Federal law requires that the cost-effectiveness criterion for New Starts projects be based on a cost per trip measure. Therefore, the cost effectiveness measure for New Starts projects is the total annualized capital expenditure plus the annual operating and maintenance (OPEX) cost per trip on the project. The number of trips on the project is not an incremental measure but simply total estimated trips on the project. Trips are synonymous with riders.
Economic development effects - The measure of economic development effects is the extent to which a proposed project is likely to induce additional, transit-supportive development in the future based on a qualitative examination of the existing local plans and policies to support economic development proximate to the project.
Transit supportive land-use - The land use measure includes an examination of existing corridor and station area development; existing corridor and station area development character; existing station area pedestrian facilities, including access for persons with disabilities; existing corridor and station area parking supply; and the proportion of existing “legally binding affordability restricted” housing within ½ mile of station areas to the proportion of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing in the counties through which the project travels.
In addition to project justification criteria, the law requires that proposed New Starts projects be supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain and operate the transit system or extension, and maintain and operate the entire public transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing services. The measures FTA uses for the evaluation of local financial commitment for proposed New Starts projects are: The proposed share of total project capital costs from sources other than the Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program; The current financial condition, both capital and operating, of the project sponsor and/or relevant project partners when more than one entity is involved in construction or operations; The commitment of funds for both the capital cost of the proposed project and the ongoing transit system operation and maintenance, including consideration of whether there is significant private participation; The reasonableness of the financial plan, including planning assumptions, cost estimates, and the capacity to withstand funding shortfalls or cost overruns.
Current law requires that FTA evaluate and rate a project as a whole on a five-point scale from low to high based on the combined summary ratings for project justification and local financial commitment as depicted in Figure 2-1. These rating are designated as “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “medium-low” or “low”. And FTA must evaluate the project based on the six project justification criteria and give “comparable, but not necessarily equal” weight to each when determining a summary project justification rating. FTA gives equal weight to each of the project justification criteria to arrive at a summary project justification rating, meaning each of the six is given a weight of 16.66 percent. Current law does not specify how the local financial commitment criteria should be weighted when arriving at a summary local financial commitment rating.
8 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
FTA currently assigns 50 percent weight to the summary project justification rating and 50 percent weight to the summary local financial commitment rating to arrive at an overall rating. FTA requires at least a Medium rating on both project justification and local financial commitment to obtain a Medium or better rating overall.
Based on these evaluations, the FTA makes decisions about moving projects forward from Project Development through Engineering to annual Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) recommendations to Congress. In the Annual Report on New Starts, FTA applies these evaluations to recommend funding for projects anticipated to be ready for an FFGA before the end of the budget fiscal year, and to recommend funding for other meritorious projects.
2.5 Public Involvement as Part of the Alternatives Analysis Process
Consistent with FTA’s New Starts guidelines, the AA process has been a coordinated effort between RTA, members of the public, public agencies, and other stakeholders with numerous opportunities for public and agency comment at each stage in the study process.
Public involvement was an integral part of the AA process. A comprehensive public engagement and stakeholder involvement plan and program was developed and implemented. This program is described in detail in the Public Engagement Plan5 and the Stakeholder Committee Plan6.
Review committees were created as a major element in the process. These committees included a Technical Steering Committee (TSC) made up of individuals representing local agencies, representatives from the cities of Cleveland, East Cleveland and Euclid and representatives from NOACA and ODOT and a Stakeholder Involvement Committee (SIC) made up of individuals representing neighborhood, community, and business groups; homeowner associations; and environmental groups.
These committees served as advisory groups that reviewed technical information and provided valuable comments and suggestions throughout the study. The panels continue to provide a valuable critique of the study methods and findings.
2.6 Screening and Selection Process
There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding what constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives. What constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the nature of the proposed project and the facts of each case. At the same time, the concept of alternatives must be bounded by some notion of feasibility. The range of alternatives to be considered need not extend beyond those reasonably related to the purposes of the project bounded by feasibility. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint using common sense, rather than simply desirable from some biased viewpoint. Each alternative should be defined in a way that makes it competitive within the overall set of alternatives under consideration. The alternatives must, within the limits of their technology, respond to the transportation needs in the corridor. Each of the alternatives will be refined to optimize its performance in the corridor. Each mode, alignment and technology has different strengths and limitations. Consequently, it is important that each alternative be refined to ensure that its specifications and operating policies make maximum use of the physical facilities that it would provide.
5 BrownFlynn, “Public Engagement Plan,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; May 22, 2013. 6 BrownFlynn, “Stakeholder Committee Plan,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; May 22, 2013. 9 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Using a multiple screening framework, alternatives that either have fatal flaws or little opportunity to enhance public transportation in the study corridors will be eliminated. At the earliest stages of the process, a wide range of single-mode alternatives will be evaluated at a broad level against a select few measures that have the greatest potential to discriminate among the alternatives.
This basis for evaluation allows the benefits and impacts of each alternative to be measured with an objective set of criteria that relate to the specific needs for this project. As the evaluation progresses with respect to these criteria, the most suitable options will emerge for more detailed analysis, eventually leading to the adoption/confirmation of the locally preferred alternative by local decision makers. While the methodology offers an objective procedure for comparing potential public transportation options in this specific corridor, it also takes into consideration criteria for evaluating public transportation projects based on an economic appraisal facilitating fully informed decision making. This stream of activities begins by:
defining the purpose and need for transportation improvements within the study area, identifying reasonable and feasible alternatives to be evaluated, providing conceptual planning of the alternatives in sufficient detail to provide relative order of magnitude capital cost estimates of the alternatives, evaluating the public transportation system improvements that might result from each, and analyzing the alternatives with screening criteria based on project goals developed during initial project scoping.
The primary purpose of each step in the screening process is to identify those alternatives that best meet study area needs. Additionally, the screening process should provide insight into how the alternatives can be refined or modified to improve its effectiveness in satisfying local goals and objectives. And finally, the screening process should identify logical sub-areas for analysis and to prioritize and concentrate study resources in those corridors and sub-areas that make the most sense.
Typically the evaluation is a multi-step process; whereby increasingly detailed and comprehensive measures of effectiveness (MOE) are applied to a decreasing number of alternatives. Each step in the evaluation process is thus designed to focus the analysis on progressively fewer alternatives with higher levels of scrutiny. As the process progresses, more quantitative and less qualitative measures are implemented. This analysis will result in the recommendation of a preferred build alternative. In the final step of the evaluation process, the preferred build alternative will be evaluated and compared to the No Build alternative.
A detailed description of the evaluation process can be found in the Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report (November 2013)7. The alternatives analysis process may be divided into four phases and three tiers of analysis as depicted in the flow diagram depicted in Figure 2-2:
7 AECOM, Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report, November 2013. 10 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 2 -2 Alternatives Analysis Flow Chart
These phases of alternative development and tiered analysis necessarily follow one another in sequence, with the results of each phase and analysis tier serving as necessary inputs to the following phase. The preferred build alternative is then subjected to a project justification and appraisal process designed to permit decision-makers to determine whether the project should be funded and constructed. Only one preferred build alternative is usually advanced to Tier 3 level of screening, which will compare and contrast the preferred build alternative to the No Build and Do Minimum alternatives. In this phase of the analysis, a Business Case for the LPA will be more fully developed and benefit/cost analysis completed. A description of the indicative evaluation process used to screen alternatives and select the preferred alternative is described below:
Tier 1 Preliminary Screening of the Initial Alternatives
The evaluation criteria for Tier 1 screening considered adverse environmental impacts in order to identify alternatives with adverse impacts in order to eliminate them as early as possible in the process. The quantitative and qualitative assessment considered whether the alternatives either had fatal flaws or were not likely to enhance transportation objectives in the study area. The first element of the analysis considered whether the alternative satisfied the purpose and need established for the study. During the Tier 1 screening, a fatal-flaw analysis was conducted on an initial set of potential corridor alignments and transit technologies. The fatal-flaw analysis considered constructability, cost and right-of-way requirements and constraints. Several transit alignments were eliminated that did not satisfy the project goals (for example, very expensive infrastructure that would be too expensive to build or did not foster redevelopment potential). Following the fatal-flaw analysis, a long list of alternatives was compiled by mixing and matching the various potential alignments and technologies. These alternatives were subjected to two levels of sifting, which included evaluating alignments and technologies for feasibility and appropriateness. The TSC and SIC reviewed the long list of alternatives and commented and 11 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
critiqued the screening and sifting processes. Based on results of the Tier 1 screening, the alternatives were repackaged into three primary alignments that used several technology options.
Tier 2 Screening of the Promising Alternatives Advanced from Tier 1 Screening The Tier 2 screening involved a more rigorous and mostly quantitative analysis relying on a detailed definition of each alternative. Tier 2 screening evaluated alternatives based on operational considerations, the general financial feasibility of the alternatives, and their cost-effectiveness. Tier 2 screening included preliminary analyses of the three primary alignment alternatives and technology options that advanced from the Tier 1 screening. This work included development of transit ridership estimates, conceptual engineering for the corridor alignments, the development of station location options, and the consideration of technology design issues and constraints. This screening also included a preliminary financial analysis using preliminary estimates of probable capital expenditure and operating and maintenance costs. The cost effectiveness and mobility impacts were also assessed for each of the alternatives under consideration. At the end of the Tier 2 screening process, an additional alternative emerged as a result of public review and comment. This additional alternative resulted in four alternatives being advanced to the Tier 3 screening process.
Tier 3 Final Screening: Project Feasibility and Appraisal of Preferred Alternative
This Preferred Alternative Report documents the evaluation of the final four alternatives being considered in the Tier 3 screening. The report examines the mobility benefits associated with travel forecasts including, ridership, reductions in automobile travel and benefits to transit dependent populations. Capital and operating costs are revisited and calculated for the newly added Hybrid alternative. The Tier 3 screening introduces comparative economic analysis by monetizing the direct and indirect environmental benefits associated with each of the alternatives under investigation. More detailed and calculated financial analysis is presented to evaluate the eligibility of obtaining competitive FTA Capital Improvement Grants for the New Start alternatives under investigation. The purpose of this final report is to identify and select a locally preferred alternative (LPA) if possible given the outcomes of the technical analysis.
12 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
3 Purpose and Need
The intent of the purpose and need statement is to document the rationale for considering transit improvements in the study area as demonstrated by current and anticipated development and transportation conditions. By identifying existing and anticipated future transportation deficiencies, RTA’s understanding of the study area conditions also helps it formulate potential transit improvements.
Many studies and activities from 1960 to 2015 have led to t the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study. Each prior study has expressed the need to provide an efficient, safe, economical, and balanced transportation system (with auto, transit, and non-motorized modes of travel) that would minimize the impact to the environment and would complement the community’s development patterns.
The travel mode choices for people who live or work in the study area are currently limited to automobiles, local bus service, or travel by auto to the RTA Red Line or HealthLine Louis Stokes Station at Windermere, which is the closest location where residents of Lake County, Euclid, Collinwood and East Cleveland can access the RTA rapid transit network.
The proposed alternatives of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study would extend the rapid transit lines east to serve additional neighborhood-oriented stations in East Cleveland, Collinwood, Nottingham and Euclid, which would give more people the choice of walking or driving to rapid transit stations nearer to where they live. This could decrease overall travel times, eliminate the need for nonproductive parking spaces, decrease air pollutant emissions, and maintain or reduce current congestion levels on local arterial roads. Mode shift is very measurable and is reflected in the alternatives analysis through increased ridership.
Employment, medical and education centers located in University Circle can be reached directly via the RTA HealthLine and Red Line without the need for “the last mile” transit distribution system. In other words, people can very easily reach their final destinations in University Circle by walking, thereby eliminating the need for more parking in the area or a bus transfer. These user benefits are very measurable and also are reflected in this alternatives analysis through increased ridership. The existing areawide shuttle bus service simply expands this walking market shed.
RTA is working with the cities of Cleveland, East Cleveland, and Euclid and University Circle, Inc. to develop station area plans that enhance the pedestrian realm and provide opportunities for mixed-use transit-oriented development near transit stations. The recent opening of the Little Italy – University Circle Station is indicative of the planning to foster increased development generating more riders for the Red Line. The cities are working to complete hiking and biking trails in the vicinity of the proposed rapid transit extensions, which would make stations more accessible to non-motorized transportation.
3.1 Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study is to determine the scope, scale and type of transit investment to best meet mobility needs, complement and enhance the transportation network infrastructure, and support land use and community reinvestment plans and development goals.
Mobility Need – Enhancing transportation options, service, and connections for study area residents to current and emerging transportation markets.
Transportation Network – Refining the transportation network to meet new markets, enhance and maintain current markets, and develop cost effective alternatives to driving alone in cars.
13 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Increased demand for transit is occurring due to the overall increased cost of driving automobiles and travel time due to The purpose of the project is congestion. Demand will increase because of improved to accommodate existing accessibility to major activity centers and destinations in the and projected travel corridor from the Red Line/HealthLine extension. demand, including:
Land Use and Community – Developing alternatives that Improve mobility and support community development and economic goals and connectivity ensure effective transit to populations with high transit propensity. Provide faster, more reliable public Sustainability, Public Health and Environmental Stewardship – transportation services Providing sustainable transit facilities and amenities that Increase transportation promote walking and bicycle use; encouraging transit as a healthy and environmentally-friendly, sustainable commuting system capacity choice; and supporting sustainable design and green Reduce traffic congestion principles for implementation and operation of transit facilities. or limit growth of congestion In summary, the purpose of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study is to address the future mobility problems in the study area by Enhance opportunities for providing improved transit service from the northeast quadrant of more travel choices Cuyahoga County to University Circle and Midtown and points beyond and in between as well as provide more connections to the regional Improve transit service for transit system from neighborhood stations that can be walked to. non-commuter trips
Create opportunities for 3.2 Problems and Needs transit-oriented development The need for a major transit investment in the study area is based on the following issues, which form the basis for the goals established for the study:
Reverse Employment and Population Migration Trends. The trend in population and employment migration to the east is undisputed. Transit must innovatively address this trend to ensure convenient, attractive, and time-competitive access between communities, employment and activity centers. o Serve existing and emerging employment and activity centers o Serve underserved or unserved employment and activity centers o Serve zero-vehicle households and transit dependent communities o Serve high transit propensity areas
Further, transit service must be structured to meet travel needs of current markets and existing customers o Meet travel needs and markets by trip type o Maintain markets to current key activity centers
Improve Service Delivery Optimization. Refine network structure and operating plans and derive service strategies to meet long term needs efficiently. o Develop effective and efficient high capacity transit o Define corridors by service type and mode – local, express, high capacity o Define improvements that can be implemented incrementally o Ensure long-term viability o Ensure travel time reliability with infrastructure improvements o Improve transit productivity and metrics o Internal trips and external trips by provider
14 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Enhance Transit Connections and Integration. RTA and Laketran provide service to what has become a cohesive community with travel needs that span the county line. Improved integration of service between the Cuyahoga and Lake County portions of the study area for work and non- work trips is essential. o Develop seamless interfaces and coordinated intercounty services o Provide direct convenient connections to activity centers for local and commuter trips o Promote multi-modal integration – transit, shuttles, bicycles, alternative transportation modes
Support Sustainable Land Use and Economic Development. Develop transit to enhance and support land use and development plans and use and redevelopment plans o Promote sustainable economic development o Support redevelopment and reuse of land in transit corridors o Serve affordable housing o Utilize existing infrastructure o Coordinate transit investment with land use policies o Protect the environment and minimize environmental impacts
The trend in population and employment migration to the east is undisputed. Transit must innovatively address this trend to ensure convenient, attractive, and time-competitive access between communities, employment and activity centers. The transit network must be expanded to serve both existing and emerging employment and activity centers, serve underserved or unserved employment and activity centers, serve zero-vehicle households and transit dependent communities and serve high transit propensity areas in the study area.
Further, transit service must be structured to meet travel needs of current markets and existing customers by trip type and current key activity centers. The network structure and operating plans and derived service strategies must be refined to meet long term needs efficiently.
Develop effective and efficient high capacity transit Define corridors by service type and mode – local, express, high capacity Define improvements that can be implemented incrementally Ensure long-term viability Ensure travel time reliability with infrastructure improvements Improve transit productivity and metrics Internal trips and external trips by provider
Integration of service between RTA and Laketran must be improved to what has become a cohesive community with travel needs that span the county line. Improved integration of service between the Cuyahoga and Lake County portions of the study area for work and non-work trips is essential. The service must develop seamless interfaces and coordinated intercounty services, provide direct convenient connections to activity centers for local and commuter trips and promote multi-modal integration – transit, shuttles, bicycles, alternative transportation modes
Transit must be expanded in the study area to enhance and support land use and development and redevelopment plans to promote more sustainable economic growth and reuse of land in transit corridors.
3.3 Population Trends According to the 2010 United States Census, the population of the eight county Greater Cleveland combined statistical area was 2.88 million, which makes it the largest combined statistical area completely within Ohio. However, for the past thirty years the Greater Cleveland area population has been decreasing due to migration patterns and the severe decline in manufacturing employment.
15 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Greater Cleveland has not escaped the low density suburban development patterns common in other cities around the country. Cleveland was the 5th largest city in the United States in 1930 when it had a robust population of over 900,000 people. With approximately 300,000 people living in Cleveland’s suburbs, Cuyahoga County had a total population of 1.2 million back then. By 1950, the population of the City of Cleveland grew to 914,800 and still exceeded the combined total of its suburbs. The total population of Cuyahoga County exceeded the combined population of the adjoining counties. But by 1960 the population in the City of Cleveland declined to 876,000 as people relocated from the central city to its Figure 3-1 Population Change 2010 -2035 suburbs swelling suburban population to nearly 772,000, which totaled 1.6 million people for Cuyahoga County. By 1990, out-migration completely reversed the distribution of population in Greater Cleveland. The adjoining counties had a combined population of 1.2 million, Cuyahoga County suburbs had a combined population of 906,524 and the central city population had been reduced to 505,616. Today, the City of Cleveland population has declined even further to 396,800, which is less than the city’s population of 100 years ago. Suburban population in Cuyahoga County has decreased to 883,300 people while population migrating to adjacent counties has dramatically increased, especially to Lake County. In 1950 the population of Lake County was 75,980 people. Today the population of adjacent Lake County is 230,040.
Over the next 30-year horizon, Cuyahoga County is projected to lose another 120,000 people, while the remaining counties gain 107,000. This population shift will lower Cuyahoga County’s share of the five- county region from 65 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2030. In 2010, the study area population was approximately 223,000, an 11 percent decrease from the 2000 population of nearly 250,000. The decline in the Cuyahoga County portion was 17 percent, compared to 5 percent in the Lake County portion. The core study area and Cuyahoga County have reflected a long-term loss in population which is expected to continue into the future. NOACA projects by 2035 the study area population will decrease by 6 percent overall with the Cuyahoga County portion of the study area decreasing by 14 percent. However, the Lake County portion will remain relatively stable with a 0.4 percent increase (Figure 3-1). Taking a broader view of adjacent areas, population will decrease 9 percent in eastern Cuyahoga County8, 1 percent in Lake County south of the study area, and 3 percent in eastern Lake County. Geauga County is projected to gain 12 percent in population. These trends underscore the continuing out migration of residents from Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and more recently Lake County.
Table 3-1 Population of Counties and Cities in Study Area Census Year Cuyahoga Lake Cleveland East Euclid Cleveland 1910 637,425 22,927 560,663 9,179 1,953 1920 943,495 28,667 796,841 27,292 3,363 1930 1,201,455 41,674 900,429 39,667 12,751 1940 1,217,250 50,020 878,336 39,495 17,866
8 For transportation planning analysis purposes, the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) used in the NOACA regional model were aggregated into larger geographic areas called districts; East Cuyahoga County is one of the 13 traffic analysis districts within the study area. The East Cuyahoga County district comprises areas east of the Cuyahoga River, other than the downtown Cleveland, University Circle, and Cleveland Clinic districts and the study area. 16 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Census Year Cuyahoga Lake Cleveland East Euclid Cleveland 1950 1,389,532 75,980 914,808 40,047 41,396 1960 1,647,895 148,700 876,050 37,991 62,998 1970 1,721,300 197,200 750,903 39,600 71,552 1980 1,480,400 212,800 573,822 36,957 60,000 1990 1,412,140 215,500 505,616 33,096 54,875 2000 1,393,978 227,510 478,403 27,217 52,717 2010 1,280,122 230,040 396,815 17,843 48,920 Source: US Census
3.4 Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations Socially disadvantaged populations include minorities, low income households, households with no cars available and certain age categories, such people aged 75 or older. The following paragraphs discuss these characteristics within the study area.
Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, states that each Federal agency shall make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations. That order directs federal agencies to "promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and provide minority and low-income communities’ access to public information on, and an opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human health or the environment." A preliminary assessment was conducted to identify the conditions that would form the environmental justice context of any potential transit improvement in the study area.
Though Executive Order 12898 does not define “minority” or “low-income”, the terms were defined in the context of environmental justice analysis in DOT Order 5610.2(a). Minority individuals are classified by the U.S. Census Bureau into the following categories: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black (not of Hispanic Origin); Hispanic. Low-income households are those with a median household income below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Low-income population and minority population data were collected for each Census Tract.
Population and income data from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey and 2010 Census were used as a basis for the analysis.
Minority Population The communities in Cuyahoga and Lake Counties differ in their racial and ethnic composition. The three communities in Cuyahoga County are predominately minority, ranging from 56 percent in Euclid to 95 percent in East Cleveland. The minority population is almost entirely African American. The six Lake County communities are approximately 95 percent White. The percent minority by Census Tract is mapped in Figure 3-2. Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) research on transit use propensity suggests that African Americans are more than twice as likely as the population in general to use transit, due largely to income, neighborhood location relative to transit, and proportionately more zero-car households.9
9 TCRP Report 28, Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change; Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC 1998. 17 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 3-2 Racial Breakdown of Population Percent Percent Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Community American Other Population White Black Asian Hispanic Indian Race Cuyahoga County Cleveland 32,843 19% 78% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 1.3% (Collinwood) East Cleveland 17,843 5% 93% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 1.0% Euclid 48,920 44% 53% 0.2% 0.7% 0.3% 1.6% Lake County Eastlake 19,478 96% 1% 0.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.6% Mentor 47,159 96% 1% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.4% Mentor-on-the-Lake 7,443 96% 2% 0.1% 0.0% 1.3% 0.6% Wickliffe 12,750 93% 4% 0.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.4% Willoughby 22,268 94% 3% 0.1% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% Willowick 14,171 95% 3% 0.1% 0.0% 1.3% 0.3% Source: US Census 2010
Low Income Population The Cuyahoga County communities have a much larger share of their population below the poverty level than the Lake County communities. Poverty levels in the three Cuyahoga communities range from 18-41 percent, compared to 6-9 percent in the six Lake County communities.
Table 3-3 Population Below Poverty Level Percent Below Poverty Community Level Cuyahoga County Cleveland (Collinwood) 30% East Cleveland 41% Euclid 18% Lake County Eastlake 7% Mentor 6% Mentor-on-the-lake 8% Wickliffe 9% Willoughby 7% Willowick 7% Source: US Census 2010
18 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-2 Percentage of Minority Population by Census Tract
Source: US Census 2010
19 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Automobile Access There is a clear differentiation with respect to the number of zero-car households, which is an indicator of economic disadvantage as well as a powerful predictor of transit use. According to TCRP Report 28, zero-car households are 5.76 times more likely than the general population to use transit.10 There is a much higher percentage of households that do not have a car in Cuyahoga County than in Lake County. The three communities in Cuyahoga County vary from 13-24 percent of households without a car. In contrast, approximately 96-98 percent of households in Lake County have at least one vehicle.
Table 3-4 Zero Car Households (HH) Owner Renter Total Total Community Occupied HH Occupied HH Households No Households No Vehicle No Vehicle Vehicle * Cuyahoga County Cleveland (Collinwood) 15,147 3.5% 19.0% 13.4% East Cleveland 8,398 4.1% 29.4% 23.8% Euclid 22,344 2.7% 12.7% 7.9% Lake County Eastlake 8,383 2.6% 2.5% 2.6% Mentor 18,907 1.8% 2.1% 1.9% Mentor-on-the-lake 3,553 1.1% 4.8% 2.0% Wickliffe 5,707 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% Willoughby 10,297 1.9% 4.7% 2.9% Willowick 6,536 1.7% 1.3% 1.6% * The percent of total households (HH) with no vehicle reflects the percent of owner-occupied households reported in Table 26 of the Baseline Conditions Report. Source: US Census 2010
Age of Population The age distribution of the population is potentially linked both to economic disadvantage and to transit use, particularly if a community is disproportionately young or old. A high percentage of residents below age 20 may suggest overcrowded housing or complex household mobility needs. A high percentage of elderly residents may be linked to economic disadvantage or to restricted mobility, especially for those elders who no longer drive. However, as Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. shows, there is not a pronounced difference in age distribution among the study area communities. In all nine communities, the 20-65 bracket represents 56-62 percent of the population. The Cuyahoga County communities have marginally higher percentages of young residents; the elderly population varies slightly among cities, but not along county lines.
Table 3-5 Age Breakdown of Population (2010) Age Group Community Less than 10 to 20 20 to 65 65 to 75 75 years Total 10 years years years years and older
Cuyahoga County Cleveland (Collinwood) 32,843 13% 14% 61% 7% 6% East Cleveland 17,843 11% 14% 56% 10% 9%
10 TCRP Report 28, Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change. 20 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Age Group Community Less than 10 to 20 20 to 65 65 to 75 75 years Total 10 years years years years and older Euclid 48,920 12% 14% 59% 7% 9% Lake County Eastlake 19,478 10% 13% 61% 9% 6% Mentor 47,159 10% 13% 60% 9% 8% Mentor-on-the-lake 7,443 12% 12% 62% 8% 6% Wickliffe 12,750 11% 11% 56% 9% 13% Willoughby 22,268 10% 11% 60% 8% 11% Willowick 14,171 12% 11% 58% 8% 11% Source: US Census 2010
Educational Attainment There are parallel but less pronounced differences in educational attainment. The majority of the population age 25 and above in both the Lake and Cuyahoga portions of the study area have a high school diploma or some college education. The percentage of people who have not attained a high school diploma is somewhat higher in Cuyahoga County. The percentage with a bachelor or graduate degree is somewhat higher in Lake County.
Table 3-6 Educational Attainment 9th to High Population Less than Some Associate Bachelor Graduate 12th School Community over 25 years 9th grade College Degree Degree Degree grade diploma Cuyahoga County Cleveland 23,000 7% 14% 37% 25% 7% 7% 4% (Collinwood) East Cleveland 12,400 3% 17% 38% 25% 6% 8% 3% Euclid 33,460 3% 9% 34% 27% 7% 13% 7% Lake County Eastlake 13,855 3% 9% 42% 24% 9% 9% 5% Mentor 33,704 2% 5% 34% 23% 9% 19% 9% Mentor-on-the-lake 5,129 2% 10% 36% 26% 7% 15% 6% Wickliffe 9,141 3% 7% 40% 24% 7% 12% 6% Willoughby 16,319 2% 6% 33% 21% 9% 20% 9% Willowick 10,385 2% 9% 38% 25% 9% 13% 4% Source: US Census 2010
Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage In addition to examining variables individually, an Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage was created, to identify concentrations of households below the poverty level, zero-car households, population aged 25 and above without a high school diploma, and population aged 75 and above. The results, mapped in Figure 3-3, show Collinwood and East Cleveland at the high end of the index scale, Euclid with significant areas of disadvantage (but away from the lake shore), and only modest pockets of disadvantage, near the lower end of the scale, in Lake County.
21 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
3.5 Development Patterns, Land Use and Geographical Constraints
The study area is constrained by natural and human-made features that include Lake Erie to the north and I-90/SR-2, a multi-lane freeway running east-west along with the parallel railroads. Most of the development in the study area is contained within the natural and built boundaries formed by these features.
Changes in employment and population migration trends have greatly affected land-use and travel patterns throughout Greater Cleveland. These changes were all predicted in the 1940’s. The prediction made for the Report on Cleveland Transit Modernization suggested that industrial and residential decentralization would result in Cleveland losing population while suburban population would increase. Since that report was issued, employment from the central business district (CBD) moved to suburban office parks, manufacturing jobs moved from the central city to the suburbs then to other regions and countries. The migration of population from the City of Cleveland and its eastern suburbs of East Cleveland and Euclid to surrounding communities and adjoining counties, the development of large regional shopping malls and the decline of retail in Downtown Cleveland, have all contributed to this shift in travel patterns.
This shift in population and employment patterns required substantive transportation system investment. Unfortunately, most of the transportation investments made in the past 50 years were in highway infrastructure. This investment in highway infrastructure facilitated the reversal of population and employment distribution, which has had a profound effect on public transportation usage. In 1950 the transit share of the journey to work was approximately 16 percent. Today, the transit share of the journey to work market is 3.5 percent. Since 1980, total RTA system ridership has been reduced by about 55 percent, from 110 million annual riders to about 49.3 million in 2014. RTA accounts for only 2 percent of total person trips in the region and approximately 5.1 percent of work trips.
Most of the literature on transit ridership focuses on the strength of the CBD as the locus of regional economic activity. RTA service is still concentrated on Downtown Cleveland oriented trips. Although Downtown Cleveland has enjoyed a renaissance, inter-county work trips have been rising dramatically. During this period, work trips from the surrounding six counties increased 56 percent. Region wide, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were forecasted to grow by almost 15 percent from 1990 to 2010 reflecting growth in the number of households, trips per person and average length of trip due to suburbanization. Suburb-to-suburb work trips far outnumber Downtown work trips. Consequently, RTA has recognized a need to adapt its service to these changing travel needs of the community.
In response to these shifts in population and employment, RTA has constructed a series of suburban transit centers and park-and-ride lots served by rapid transit, trunk line commuter express buses and local bus routes. These services are designed to re-orient the transit network toward suburb-to-suburb travel markets. These strategies have resulted in slow and steady growth in transit ridership when coupled with increased costs of using cars.
22 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-3 Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Source: US Census 2010 11
11 The datasets containing the four variables by Census Tract were converted from shapefiles to raster grids and reclassified, with the top quantile given a rating of one and the lower quantiles a rating of zero. The top quantiles were: ≥16% zero car households; ≥11% over age 75; ≥11% no HS diploma; ≥10% below poverty line. The variables were weighted zero-car 4, poverty 3, no HS 2, age 75+ 1. 23 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The current character of the study area involves a diverse population; different land uses and parcel configurations that will affect routing options, potential station locations, and redevelopment opportunities. The land use discussion begins with a traditional color-coded land use map, showing every parcel in the study area by type of use, with an accompanying table summarizing the uses by acreage. Two dominant patterns emerge from the data: Land uses types are generally segregated. Euclidean zoning—the term denoting the segregation of land uses into geographic districts—is named after the City of Euclid and is prevalent in all of the study area municipalities. Industrial land is visibly organized around the axis of transportation corridors that traverses the middle of the study area—the “sandwich” of I-90 / SR-2, St. Clair Avenue, the railroads, and Euclid Avenue.
After a brief narrative overview of each community’s salient land use features, the analysis turns to three specific aspects of land use that expand the sense of “what’s on the ground” and how it relates to transportation: major destinations and activity centers; the location and industry type of major employers (statistical data on employment, jobs, and the labor force are found in the socioeconomics section, which follows); and The incidence of vacant land and buildings.
Current land use in the study area is depicted in Figure 3-4. The swath of industrial land along the highway and rail axis is flanked on its north side (toward the Lake) and its south side by land that is predominantly residential. The areas north and south of the industrial corridor also contain significant pockets of commercial land (largely in the form of automobile-oriented retail centers) and “exempt” land— tax-exempt public and institutional property, including everything from government buildings to schools to parkland to cemeteries.
The statistical analysis of the parcel data in Table 3-7 shows the following: The land area of the six Lake County communities (31,064 acres) is three times that of the three Cuyahoga County communities (10,331 acres). The City of Mentor contains half of the land in the Lake County portion of the study area and is, by itself, larger than Collinwood, East Cleveland, and Euclid combined. Just about half the land in the study area is residential: 47 percent in the Cuyahoga County portion and 51 percent in the Lake County portion. The next highest category is “Exempt”—20 percent of the land in the Cuyahoga communities and 18 percent in the Lake communities. In East Cleveland, the most economically challenged of the nine study area communities, fully 30 percent of the land is tax-exempt. Commercial land constitutes 14 percent of the land area in each portion of the study area. Industrial land, the dominant use along the highway/rail axis and a major if declining source of employment, represents 13 percent of the land in the Cuyahoga communities and 11 percent of the land in the Lake communities. In absolute terms, however, there is two and one-half times as much industrial land in the Lake County portion of the study area as in the Cuyahoga portion. Mentor alone, with nearly 1,900 industrial acres, has more industrial land than the three Cuyahoga communities.
24 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-4 Study Area Land Use
Source: Cuyahoga County and Lake County
25 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 3-7 Study Area Land Use by Type (Number of Acres and Percent of Total) Community Industrial Commercial Residential Exempt Other * Total Cuyahoga County Cleveland 518 16% 436 13% 1,392 43% 725 22% 198 6% 3,269 (Collinwood) East Cleveland 95 6% 209 13% 698 44% 471 30% 117 7% 1,591 Euclid 692 13% 752 14% 2,811 51% 889 16% 329 6% 5,472 Cuyahoga 1,305 13% 1,397 14% 4,901 47% 2,085 20% 644 6% 10,331 Subtotal Lake County Eastlake 270 6% 651 15% 2,695 62% 497 11% 234 5% 4,347 Mentor 1,873 12% 1,855 12% 8,263 51% 3,140 19% 973 6% 16,105 Mentor-on-the- 5 1% 165 18% 614 68% 74 8% 40 4% 899 Lake Wickliffe 288 11% 377 15% 1,251 49% 547 22% 78 3% 2,542 Willoughby 817 14% 1,256 22% 2,180 37% 1,257 22% 308 5% 5,818 Willowick 7 1% 147 11% 1,055 78% 117 9% 26 2% 1,353 Lake 3,260 10% 4,452 14% 16,058 52% 5,632 18% 1,661 6% 31,064 Subtotal Study Area 4,565 11% 5,849 14% 20,959 51% 7,717 19% 2,305 6% 41,395 Total * Other includes the official “Other” category as well as Utility and Agricultural. There are 517 acres of agricultural land in Mentor (462), Willoughby, and Eastlake. Source: Cuyahoga County and Lake County
3.5.1 Character of the Communities in the Study Area
Cleveland (Collinwood) The Collinwood district of Cleveland covers approximately 3,269 acres (5.1 square miles). While Collinwood’s rail and industrial base has declined, it still supports the largest percentage of industrial land in the study area at 16 percent. The CSX alignment and the immediately parallel I-90 / SR-2 divide Collinwood into north and south sections.
North Collinwood, the area between I-90 / SR-2 and the Lake, is organized around Lakeshore Boulevard. The latter is generally residential in character, with higher-density apartment units on the north (lake) side of the street and lower-density housing on the inland side. North Collinwood is the location of several parks, including Wildwood Park and Marina, East Shore Park, Beachland Park, and Euclid Beach (site of the historic Euclid Beach amusement park). At the western end of Collinwood, Cleveland’s large wastewater treatment plant is located at the head of East 140th Street. At the eastern end of Collinwood, just inside the Cleveland city limit at East 185th Street and Lakeshore Boulevard is the Roman Catholic Villa Angela-St. Joseph High School complex.
South Collinwood is the more industrial part of the community, with residential neighborhoods interspersed between the railroads as well as along the southern edge of Collinwood. St. Clair Avenue, which runs between and parallel to the two railroads, is generally residential and neighborhood- commercial in character west of 152nd Street, with a mix of storefronts, flats, and single family homes. There is a gradual transition to industrial land use east of 152nd Street. A 2003 report commissioned by
26 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
the Nottingham Villages Community Development Corporation (NVCDC) to assess opportunities and constraints for economic development in the St. Clair corridor stated that “the corridor suffers from disinvestment and decaying visual quality”, a description that is still appropriate.
The intersection of St. Clair, East 152nd Street, and Ivanhoe Road, known as Five Points, is Collinwood’s traditional central business district. Anchored by Collinwood High School, Five Points today has a cluster of churches and neighborhood-scale retail, with a post office, police station, fire station, and branch library all at the intersection or a short walk away. The 2003 NVCDC report placed particular emphasis on Five Points as a revitalization target.
Euclid Avenue runs along the edge of Collinwood, parallel to and south of the NS railroad. Land use conditions are variable, with a mix of residential, neighborhood-commercial, and larger-scale industrial use on the north side of Euclid and mostly residential use on the south side, where the increasing impact of topography on the escarpment impacts buildability.
East Cleveland The City of East Cleveland is small and compact, with a land area of 1,591 acres (2.5 square miles). It has the lowest percentage of its acreage in industrial use (six percent) and the highest percentage in exempt use (30 percent) of any community in the study area. Its residential land use percentage (44 percent) is among the lowest as well.
East Cleveland is traversed by the Norfolk Southern railroad and by Euclid Avenue. Land use conditions along Euclid are variable to difficult, with a mix of operating businesses, fast food outlets, older storefronts, and residential structures, many in deteriorated and/or vacant condition. In general, land use north of Euclid is industrial and commercial in nature, with residential uses to the south. The escarpment rises from the south side of Euclid Avenue, creating views out to the lake.
Several important institutional destinations are located on Euclid Avenue within walking distance of the Red Line / HealthLine terminus at Windermere. These include City Hall, a Cleveland Clinic health center, the public library, and the recently built Shaw High School. East Cleveland’s most prominent industrial employer, and a major land use feature as well, is General Electric’s lamp division at Nela Park, located on Noble Road south of Euclid Avenue and connected by direct bus service to Windermere.
Euclid The City of Euclid is the largest of the study area’s three Cuyahoga County communities, with an area of 5,472 acres (8.6 square miles). Like Collinwood, it is traversed by I-90 / SR-2, with interchanges serving the principal north-south streets—in Euclid’s case, East 222nd Street, Babbitt Road, and East 260th Street. Lakeshore Boulevard crosses into Euclid from Collinwood at 185th Street, where the Euclid Hospital / University Hospital complex is located on the Euclid side of the city line.
St. Clair Avenue enters Euclid on its western boundary and continues between and parallel to the CSX and NS railroads. As the railroads become increasingly close to one another, St. Clair is squeezed between them, functioning essentially as an industrial service road. One of the study area’s most important industrial employers, Lincoln Electric, has buildings on both sides of St. Clair. East of Lincoln Electric are two sprawling and vacant shopping malls; the larger—Euclid Square Mall—is where St. Clair Avenue ends.
Downtown Euclid is defined by the convergence of Lakeshore Boulevard, East 222nd Street, and Babbitt Road. It encompasses an automobile-oriented retail strip along Lakeshore as well as a rich cluster of civic and institutional facilities: City Hall, the high school, and the Shore Culture Center (an adaptive reuse of the old high school). The momentum created by the Downtown Euclid Transportation for Livable
27 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Communities Initiative master plan has spurred over $16 million dollars of public and private investment. The City is undertaking a similar study and planning effort on the Euclid Avenue Corridor, which is largely industrial and suburban-commercial in character.
Lake County Communities As the study area moves eastward into Lake County, the industrial “sandwich” defined by the parallel transportation corridors continues unbroken. It becomes narrower through Wickliffe, Eastlake, and Willoughby, where the CSX and NS railroads converge to run directly alongside one another, framed by SR-2 and Euclid Avenue. The industrial corridor widens somewhat through Mentor, as the railroads and SR-2 diverge slightly. The character of Euclid Avenue becomes less industrial and more commercial until it ends in Willoughby. The salient land use features of the individual Lake County communities may be summarized as follows.
Wickliffe and Willowick. These small cities directly border the city of Euclid. Willowick has a land area of 1,353 acres (2.1 square miles); Wickliffe’s area is 2,542 acres (4.0 square miles). To some degree, these communities continue the land use patterns of the adjoining sections of Euclid. Willowick, which is on the lake, is a predominantly residential community organized around Lakeshore Boulevard; its percentage of land devoted to residential use is by far the highest in the study area at 78 percent. Willowick has no industry, but has a substantial retail center at East 305th Street and Lakeshore. Wickliffe, which is inland, has a more typical distribution of uses. Its industrial corridor between SR-2 and the railroads includes the headquarters of the chemical company Lubrizol, one of the study area’s largest employers.
Eastlake. Eastlake extends from the lakefront inland to the railroad corridor, with a land area of 4,347 acres (6.8 square miles). It has one of the highest residential land use percentages in the study area at 62 percent, organized, like the other lakefront residential communities, along Lakeshore Boulevard. Because Eastlake’s southern border is the railroad, it has relatively little industry (6 percent). Among the city’s distinguishing non-residential land use features is a coal- fired power plant at the convergence of Lakeshore Boulevard and SR-91 (SOM Center Road); the complex is served by a rail spur and a wharf. In the southern part of Eastlake, at the intersection of SOM Center Road and SR-640 (Vine Street) are a substantial retail center anchored by Walmart and the ballpark of the minor League Lake County Captains.
Willoughby. This oddly shaped municipality has a land area of 5,818 acres (9.1 square miles). It has the study area’s lowest percentage of land in residential use—just 37 percent. In addition to the east-west industrial corridor, Willoughby has a municipal airport (Willoughby Lost Nation Airport) and an adjoining industrial area; these facilities limit the availability of residential land in the part of town near the lake. In addition to the airport, another prominent exempt property is Lake West Medical Center on Euclid Avenue, a major employer. Willoughby also has the highest percentage of land in commercial use—22 percent. This reflects the largely retail character of this easternmost stretch of Euclid Avenue, as well as Kirtland Country Club and golf course on the city’s southern edge.
Mentor. The largest and easternmost study area community has a land mass of 16,105 acres (25.2 square miles). Mentor’s distribution of land by type of use closely tracks that of the study area as a whole, with 51 percent residential (the study area average), 12 percent industrial, 12 percent commercial and 19 percent exempt. Because of its size, Mentor has by far the largest amount of acreage in each of the use categories. Its industrial land includes several industrial parks, in contrast to more traditional plants in the Cuyahoga County end of the industrial corridor.
28 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Mentor also has a broad and deep swath of commercial development, much of it large-format or “big box”, along Mentor Avenue, which takes the place of Euclid Avenue as US-20 along the southern edge of the highway-rail corridor. Major commercial centers on Route 20 include Mentor Commons, Mentor Town Center, and Great Lakes Mall. Mentor has a large open space area on the Headlands in the northeastern corner of the city, and the study area’s only significant agricultural acreage is found along its southern boundary.
Mentor-on-the-Lake. This mostly residential municipality is a notch carved out of Mentor along Lakeshore Boulevard. It is the smallest of the nine communities in the study area, at 899 acres (1.4 square miles). As would be expected, most of the land area—68 percent—is in residential use. The principal non-residential feature is a commercial node at Lakeshore Boulevard, Munson Road, and Andrews Road.
3.5.2 Vacant and Abandoned Properties
Because of the decline in population and jobs in portions of the study area, it is important to understand the extent of vacancy, abandonment, and severe underutilization of property. Three data sources were used to examine the vacancy issue. First, both Cuyahoga and Lake Counties classify vacant parcels by industrial, commercial and residential land uses. Cuyahoga County also lists certain parcels totaling 228 acres as owned by the Cuyahoga County Land Bank. To be listed as vacant by the county assessors, a parcel must be completely without buildings or other above-ground improvements and not be in productive economic use. All told, as shown in Table 3-8, the two counties currently list properties totaling 1,123 acres as vacant.
Table 3-8 Vacant Land by Type (Acres) Cuyahoga County Community Industrial Commercial Residential TOTAL Land Bank Cuyahoga County Cleveland 120 6 38 78 242 (Collinwood)East Cleveland 56 5 23 44 128 Euclid 52 145 76 170 443 Cuyahoga Subtotal 228 156 137 292 813 Lake County Eastlake na 0 0 0 0 Mentor na 0 0 0 0 Mentor-on-the-Lake na 0 0 0 0 Wickliffe na 44 99 100 243 Willoughby na 0 0 0 0 Willowick na 2 26 39 67 Lake Subtotal na 44 125 139 311 Study Area Total 228 202 262 431 1,123 Source: Cuyahoga County and Lake County
However, this limited definition of vacancy (which does not count parcels with abandoned, vacant, or mostly vacant buildings) plainly understates the extent of vacancy generally understood to exist in the corridor. A second data source, the Costar point data on specific buildings by address, was used to identify industrial, office, and retail properties that are less than 10 percent leased. Figure 3-5 displays these results by category and rentable building space; it paints a picture of significant building vacancy, mostly but not entirely in the central industrial corridor. In both proportionate and absolute terms, building vacancy is more widespread in the Cuyahoga County portion of the study area.
29 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-5 Non-Residential Building Vacancy Properties by Location and Type
Source: COSTAR
30 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
3.5.3 Activity Centers, Attractions and Cultural Resources
Figure 3-6 shows a representation of major destinations and activity centers in the western portion of the study area. These include retail centers, schools, parks, hospitals, and other commercial, institutional, and recreational destinations. In general, this map does not show major employers, since these are identified separately in the next part of this land use section. This map does extend beyond the study area to capture the regionally significant cluster of institutional destinations in the University Circle district of Cleveland; these are important trip generators for clients and visitors as well as employees. University Circle is directly accessible from East Cleveland, at the western end of the study area, via both the Red Line and the HealthLine.
Cultural resources - Cultural resources were surveyed in the three Cuyahoga County communities and the immediately bordering area in Lake County. The following existing inventories were consulted to identify resources of local, state, or national historic significance:
Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s (OHPO) Online Mapping System and related inventory and administrative files (includes historic properties listed in and determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and cemeteries) Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Historic Bridge List and Buckeye Assets (bridges and structures listed in and determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) Cleveland Landmarks Commission (locally designated landmarks) Euclid Landmarks Commission (locally designated landmarks).
Thirty-five properties were identified and are listed in Table 38 of the Baseline Conditions Report (2013); they include:
nine properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (one of which has been demolished); nine properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; seven cemeteries whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places has not been determined; Ten properties designated Cleveland Landmarks.
Section 4(f) Resources - Section 4(f) refers to the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, which set the requirement for the consideration of publicly owned parks and recreation areas, publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and publicly and privately owned historic sites. Section 4(f) applies when four conditions for the project are met:
requires DOT funding and/or approval; is transportation-related; requires the use of land from a Section 4(f) protected property; No regulatory applicability exceptions apply.
The study area’s three Cuyahoga County communities include 92 mapped resources, categorized in Table 39 of the Baseline Conditions Report (2013). The Natural Heritage Database noted that Cleveland Lakefront Park is within the study area. The Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway follows Lakeshore Boulevard through the study area to the Lake County line. Coordination with Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services would be required to determine if the bikeway is a Section 4(f) resource and if the bikeway continues into Lake County. In addition, coordination will be required to determine if the public school areas are Section 4(f) resources by verifying that the areas are open to the public and
31 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-6 Major Destinations and Activity Centers
32
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
serve either organized or substantial walk-on recreation activities. The Natural Heritage Database did not list additional unique ecological sites, geologic features, and animal assemblages; scenic rivers, state wildlife areas, nature preserves, parks or forests; national wildlife refuges, parks or forests or other protected natural areas within the study area. In addition, it is likely that small community parks within the study area have not been labeled on existing maps and would require possible site visits as transportation alternatives develop. Section 4(f) resources include historic sites, except for seven cemeteries.
3.6 Employment Trends and Major Employers
The study area is characterized by a significant share of industrial land uses which are visibly organized around the axis of transportation corridors that traverses the middle of the study area, I-90, St. Clair Avenue, the CSX and NS railroads, and Euclid Avenue. Residential land uses predominate along the lake shore in all communities and south of the NS Railroad along the Euclid corridor. The areas north and south of the industrial corridor also contain significant pockets of commercial land tax-exempt public and institutional property, such as government buildings, schools, parkland and cemeteries. During the period of 1900 to 1960, it was relatively easy to see how Cleveland became such a prominent manufacturing center. It was blessed with substantial geographical advantages that attracted commerce and industry. By 1960, however, these competitive advantages gave way to the new reality of increased worldwide competition for Cleveland’s mainstay products of steel and machine tools. Manufacturing began to disperse to other regions of the country and eventually to other parts of the world.
Industrial land is a major if declining source of employment and represents 13 percent of the land in the Cuyahoga communities and 10 percent of the land in the Lake communities. In absolute terms, however, there is two and one-half times as much industrial land in the Lake County portion of the study area as in the Cuyahoga portion. Mentor alone, with nearly 1,900 industrial acres, has more industrial land than the three Cuyahoga communities combined. While several large employers are located in the study area, employment migration to the east is the trend and Mentor and eastern Lake County are key growth areas.
By 1980, Cleveland was still a relatively diverse metropolitan economy that was anchored by a core cluster of manufacturing industries. Manufacturing still accounted for 26.3 percent of the area’s total employment. The largest manufacturing industries were still related to steel and aluminum making or auto and metalworking manufacturing: including transportation parts manufacturing, fabricated metal products, and machinery. These manufacturing specializations reflect the metropolitan area’s historic role as one of the nation’s largest manufacturing centers for steel and autos in the early 20th century. A large professional service complex of law, consulting, and engineering firms had developed to serve these companies, although professional services’ share of Cleveland’s employment was only around the national average.
Since 1980 and today Cleveland lost about 150,000 manufacturing jobs, or almost fifty percent of its manufacturing employment. This loss was far more severe than the 24.1 percent loss for the nation as a whole. The metropolitan area lost manufacturing jobs in every decade from 1980 to 2010, but these losses were more severe during the 1980s (18.4 percent loss) and especially from 2000 to 2005 (23.7 percent loss) than during the 1990s (7.6 percent loss). The largest absolute job losses during the entire 1980-2010 period were in transportation equipment, primary metals, fabricated metals, and machinery. These losses reflected the decline of integrated steelmaking in the United States, the movement of remaining steel manufacturing away from the Cleveland area, and, after 2000, the difficulties of the Big Three automakers, who were the primary customers of Cleveland’s auto suppliers. Between 2002 and 2011, employment in the study area decreased 10 percent. The decline in Cuyahoga County portion was
33
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
22 percent, compared to 4 percent in the Lake County portion. However, within the Lake County portion, Mentor-on-the-Lake displayed a 29 percent increase, indicating a future trend in employment growth to the east.
Overall, Cleveland’s manufacturing job losses were about equally attributable to nationwide and local competitive factors in the manufacturing industries in which the area specialized. If every manufacturing industry had grown (or declined) at its national rate, Cleveland would have lost fewer manufacturing jobs during this period of structural adjustment. Instead, Cleveland lost manufacturing jobs at nearly twice the national rate between 1980 and 2010.
The Greater Cleveland area is still a strong player in the nation’s economy and dominates Ohio in its importance as a center of commerce, industry and banking. The Cleveland area ranks 27th among all metropolitan regions with $106.6 billion of gross metropolitan product and would be the 86th largest economy in the world if it were a country. Today, manufacturing employment in Cleveland is growing due in large measure to improved productivity making Cleveland more competitive in the global marketplace and growth in the oil and gas sector driving demand for steel pipe although this has recently slowed due to the oversupply of oil on the world market forcing high cost producers in the United States to reduce exploration and production.
The Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor Metropolitan Area ranked second in Ohio in 2014 for exports at $11.14 billion, an increase of 0.7 percent since 2012. Chemicals accounted for 21 percent of exports followed closely by machinery at 16 percent. With nearly $3.0 billion in exports, Canada was the leading destination while Mexico was next at $1.8 billion.12 According to 2014 data from U.S. Customs, Cleveland is ranked as the 10th busiest customs district among all customs districts with $131.5 billion in total trade in 2014. Cleveland accounts for 3.3 percent of the $3.98 trillion of exports and imports coming in and leaving the country.13
For study area residents who were in the labor force, the largest employer industry was Health Care and Social Assistance (20 percent), reflecting the regional scale of the concentration of such jobs in and around University Circle, served by both the Red Line and the HealthLine. As noted, health care has become an important specialization of the metropolitan economy, accounting for 7.7 percent of the area’s employment, a share that is 11 percent higher than the national average. The Cleveland Clinic and University Hospital medical centers located in University Circle and Midtown serve patients from throughout the world. The next highest industry was Manufacturing (14 percent), reflecting the still significant industrial corridor traversing the study area along roadways and railroads. Table 3-9 below shows the study area labor force characteristics and commuting patterns.
The number and residential location of employed persons, employment locations, type of employment, and available transportation options affects commuting patterns and development of future transportation options. In 2011, approximately 87,200 jobs were located in the study area and approximately 99,800 people who lived in the study area were employed or active in the labor force. Of those 99,800 residents who were employed, about 31,700 worked in the study area and 68,000 worked outside the study area. Of the 87,200 jobs in the study area, 55,400 were held by employees living outside of the study area and commuting in.
12 Ohio Development Services Agency, Ohio Exports Report 2014, March 2015. 13 http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/reference/products/catalog/usatradeonline.html#district accessed January 28, 2016. 34
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 3-9 Study Area Labor Force Characteristics 2011 2010
Number Share Number Share Total Employed in the Study Area 87,185 100.0% 86,482 100.0% Living in the Study Area and Employed Anywhere 99,813 114.5% 99,601 115.2% Net Job Inflow (+) or Outflow (-) -12,628 - -13,119 -
Living in the Study Area and Employed Anywhere 99,813 100.0% 99,601 100.0% Living and Employed in the Study Area 31,782 31.8% 31,545 31.7% Living in the Study Area but Employed Outside 68,031 68.2% 68,056 68.3%
Total Employed in the Study Area 87,185 100.0% 86,482 100.0% Employed and Living in the Study Area 31,782 36.5% 31,545 36.5% Employed in the Study Area but Living Outside 55,403 63.5% 54,937 63.5% Source: US Census
The number and residential location of employed persons, employment locations, type of employment, and available transportation options affects commuting patterns and development of future transportation options. In 2011, approximately 87,200 jobs were located in the study area and approximately 99,800 people who lived in the study area were employed or active in the labor force. Of those 99,800 residents who were employed, about 31,700 worked in the study area and 68,000 worked outside the study area. Of the 87,200 jobs in the study area, 55,400 were held by employees living outside of the study area and commuting in.
Therefore, a net outflow of 12,600 people commutes from the study area to work. This reflects the sum of those commuting out and those commuting in. Of those 99,800 residents who were employed, about 31,700 in fact worked in the study area. The other 68,000 employed study area residents were thus working outside the study area and commuting in that direction. Conversely, of the 87,200 jobs in the study area, 55,400 were held by employees living outside of the study area and commuting in.
Between 2010 and 2035, study area employment is projected to increase significantly in Lake County, but decrease in Cuyahoga County. Figure 3-7 shows study area and key business district employment change. By 2035, overall study area employment is projected to grow by almost 12 percent. This is attributable to employment growth of 16 percent to 32 percent in the Lake County cities of the study area. The core study area is projected to realize a 20 percent decrease in employment. Lake County outside the study area and Geauga County are projected to experience increases of 29 percent to 52 percent, a further indication of eastward employment migration. The region’s largest business district, downtown Cleveland, will realize a 9 percent decrease whereas a gain of 7 percent is projected for University Circle, the second largest business district. Outward employment and population migration into areas with limited or no transit service leads to essentially total dependence on private vehicles for all trips; related effects are increased VMT, vehicle hours traveled, and traffic-related delay. Many trips are projected to be made by cars and, correspondingly, highway congestion will increase and transit ridership will fall.
35
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
As a result of the continuing shift in employment to Figure 3-7 Employment Change 2010-2035 the east, many industrial sites and other parcels in the core study area are vacant or underutilized and Figure 3-7: 2010 – 2035 Employment Change hence no longer produce tax revenue. This issue is most pronounced in East Cleveland where in addition to underutilized industrial site, 30 percent of the land is tax-exempt. Further, the reduction in employment and the projected population decline in the study area equates to fewer transit trips. Downtown Cleveland and University Circle are the largest business districts in the state. Future employment projections indicate that by 2035 downtown Cleveland will experience a decrease while employment in University Circle will increase. Lake and Geauga Counties will continue to gain employment and experience a significant increase during the same period. Much of the suburban employment occurs in dispersed locations that are difficult to serve by transit. This results in greater dependence on vehicle and the concomitant increase in vehicle miles, vehicle hours and delay.
Based on data obtained from the InfoUSA database, there are 406 employers in the study area with 50 employees or more. The largest employers in the study area are Lincoln Electric Company in Euclid, Lake West Medical Center in Willoughby, Lubrizol in Wickliffe, Cleveland Clinic Health System, and General Electric Lighting at Nela Park in East Cleveland. The top 100 employers are listed in Table 3-10. Two maps are used to show where the major employers are located. Figure 3-8 locates the top 100 employers, and the numbers on the location dots correspond to the list in Table 3-10. Figure 3-9 shows every employer in the study area with at least 50 employees, not by name but by size and type of industry. Table 3-10 Major Employers in the Study Area (Alphabetical) Name Employees Rank Name Employees Rank Lincoln Electric Co 3,557 1 Airpower Dynamics 200 51 Lake West Medical Ctr 2,400 2 Heartland Of Mentor 200 52 Lubrizol Corp 1,500 3 J C Penney Co 200 53 Lubrizol Laboratories 1,250 4 Dillard's 200 54 Lubrizol Additives 1,200 5 Classic Chevy 200 55 Ge Lighting 1,000 6 Laketran 200 56 Cleveland Clinic Health 1,000 7 Bescast Inc 200 57 Huron Hospital 800 8 Target Pc 200 58 Deepwood Center 700 9 Polychem Corp 200 59 Abb Inc 550 10 Universal Metal Products 188 60 Wickliffe Law Director 500 11 Cleveland Range Llc 180 61 Mentor City Hall 500 12 Lake County Captains 180 62 Lincoln Electric Co 500 13 Henkel Adhesives 180 63 Spang Power Electronics 500 14 Sam's Club 180 64
36
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Name Employees Rank Name Employees Rank Breckenridge Village 450 15 Royal Plastics Inc 180 65 Windsor-Laurelwood Ctr 407 16 Us Post Office 175 66 Willcare Inc 400 17 Pcc Ceramics Group 175 67 Avery Dennison Corp 400 18 Lake Shore Jehovah Witness 175 68 Eaton Corp 383 19 Us Endoscopy 175 69 Morrison Products Inc 350 20 Cres Cor 175 70 Pcc Airfoils 325 21 Home Depot 160 71 Conn-Selmer 325 22 Giant Eagle 160 72 Euclid Veterans Club 300 23 Mentor-Way Nursing 156 73 H C Starck Inc 300 24 Meyer Products Llc 150 74 First Energy 300 25 Asg 150 75 Wiseco Piston Co Inc 300 26 Jergens Inc 150 76 Parker Hose Products Div 300 27 Slovene Home For The Aged 150 77 Esco Turbine Techs 300 28 Mt St Joseph Nursing Home 150 78 Gateway Retirement A M Mc Gregor Home 300 29 150 79 Community Steris Corp 299 30 Marc's Mentor 150 80 Mentor High School 293 31 Olive Garden Italian Rstrnt 150 81 Euclid Health Ctr 290 32 Mill-Rose Co 150 82 Gardens McGregor & Amasa 270 33 Mentor Lumber & Supply Co 150 83 Rose-Mary Ctr 250 34 Bud Industries Inc 150 84 Wickliffe Country Place 250 35 Lowe's Home Improvement 150 85 News-Herald 250 36 Eye Lighting Intl-North Amer 150 86 Mag-Nif Inc 250 37 Willowick Recreation Dept 143 87 Worthington Precision 250 38 Giant Eagle 140 88 New Avenues To Mc Gregor Home 250 39 135 89 Independence Walmart 250 40 Andrews Osborne Academy 134 90 Sterling Packaging System 250 41 Mid-West Forge Corp 130 91 B&W Nuclear Operations 240 42 Mullinax Ford East 130 92 Multicare Home Health Care 235 43 North High School 130 93 East Cleveland City Hall 220 44 Royalview Elementary School 130 94 Meyer Snow Plows 200 45 Metal Seal & Products Inc 130 95 Euclid Chemical Co 200 46 Kohl's Department Store 130 96 Manor Care Health Svc 200 47 Us Post Office 129 97 Deepwood Industries-Lake 200 48 Willowick City Hall 120 98 Wingstop 200 49 Dave's Supermarkets 120 99 Sears 200 50 Fluid Line Products Inc 120 100 Source : InfoUSA database
37
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-8 Businesses with 50 or More Employees in Study Area
38
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-9 Businesses with 50 Employees or More by Industry and Size
39
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
3.7 Transportation Conditions
The trend in out migration has resulted in a change of transit propensity, or the likelihood for transit use based on demographics and location. Transit propensity is best indicated by the share of households without a vehicle available and by market density which reflects the distribution of population, employed residents, and jobs. Locations or corridors that are dense in residents, employees, or workplace destinations are potential transit markets, and mixed-use places that are dense in both people and jobs are prime transit markets. Population and employed residents are most dense along the lake shore throughout the study area, whereas employment is concentrated in areas adjacent to the railroads and I-90, particularly in Lake County. Again, the out migration trend for employment is evident in that much is located in Lake County, but generally in areas with little or no transit access. High transit propensity markets include East Cleveland, Collinwood, Euclid, and most of Willowick. And, within these areas the highest propensity can be noted for East Cleveland from the Cleveland boundary to Windermere, in Collinwood and Euclid along Lakeshore Boulevard between E. 152 and E. 222, and Euclid Avenue between E. 200 and E. 222. Most of Eastlake, Willoughby, and Mentor-on-the-Lake fall generally toward the lower end of transit propensity with Wickliffe in between. While Mentor is generally an area of low transit propensity, it is an important destination for work trips.
The transportation options for traveling to Downtown Cleveland and University Circle from the northeastern region of RTA’s service area are largely limited to automobile and several Laketran and RTA bus or bus-to-rail transfer options. There are no HOV lanes on any of the freeways in Greater Cleveland however RTA and Laketran buses are allowed by law to utilize the I-90 shoulders during periods of slow or stopped traffic in the study area.
In reading this section, it should be understood that the study area’s major transportation features shape its land use patterns as well. They do so in an economic way, as well as in a direct, physical way, with land use organized to a remarkably consistent degree around the band of roadway and rail corridors that traverse the study area from east to west.
3.7.1 Roadways
The study area is currently served by a fairly extensive network of highways and streets. All major classifications of roadways are present in the study area including freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials and collector streets. The existing highway/roadway network in the project study area is shown in Figure 3-10.
The study area is served by a high capacity, limited access highway extending east from Downtown Cleveland to near the county line dividing Cuyahoga and Lake Counties where the highway splits into interstate route 90 (I-90) and state route 2 (SR-2) respectively. I-90 continues east through the southern tier of Lake County. SR-2 (Lakeland Freeway) continues east through Lake County and becomes an arterial roadway (US-20) east of Painesville. The I-90 / SR-2 freeway does not provide any direct access to University Circle, which is the greatest concentration of cultural and educational institutions in the country and second largest business district in Ohio, second only to Downtown Cleveland. It is best known for its world-class cultural, educational and medical institutions, including Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Institute of Music, Cleveland Institute of Art, Cleveland Museum of Art, Museum of Contemporary Art, Cleveland Orchestra, and University Hospitals/Case Medical Center, which is near to the main campus of the Cleveland Clinic. Instead, travelers must use Martin Luther King Jr. Drive (MLK Drive) to travel from I-90 / SR-2 to University Circle.
40
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
I-90/SR-2 carries the highest traffic volumes in the study area with an annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume exceeding 127,750 vehicles between Coit Road and East 152nd Street. AADT is a measure of the total volume of vehicle traffic of a highway or road for a year divided by 365 days. AADT is a useful and simple measurement of how heavily travelled the road is. Other east-west roads in the study area include SR-283 (Lakeshore Boulevard), St. Clair Avenue and Euclid Avenue (US-20). North-south streets connecting I-90 / SR-2 to Lakeshore Boulevard, St. Clair Avenue and Euclid Avenue include Babbitt Road, East 222nd Street, East 200th Street, East 185th Street, East 152nd Street-Coit Road, and East 140th Street-Hayden Avenue. The use of these connecting arterial and collector streets means travelers must use congested city streets with low speed limits, many intersections and traffic lights to travel to University Circle from Collinwood and Euclid. Information about these roads is summarized in Table 3-11.
Table 3-11 Existing Highways and Roads Number of Road Orientation Classification AADT Lanes I-90 / SR-2 (Cuyahoga County) East-west 6-8 Interstate freeway 107,560 to 129,660 I-90 (Lake County) East-west 4-6 Interstate freeway 44,310 to 84,650 SR-2 (Lake County) East-west 4-6 Interstate freeway 19,850 to 76,790 Collector/Minor SR-283 Lakeshore Blvd East-west 2-4 + turn lane 6,700 to 14,150 arterial St Clair Avenue (Cleveland) East-west 4 Minor arterial 7,460 to 11,750 St Clair Avenue (Euclid) East-west 4 Collector 7,200 to 9,600 US-20 (Euclid Avenue) East-west 4 Principal arterial 12,380 to 20,980 East 140th Street - Hayden North- 2-4 Collector 5,500 to 8,350 Avenue south North- East 152nd Street – Coit Road 2-4 Principal arterial 8,100 to 15,100 south North- East 185th – Nottingham Road 2+1 Minor arterial 7,300 to 17,650 south North- East 200th Street 2-4 Collector 4,900 to 16,850 south North- East 222nd Street 4 Minor arterial 8,300 to 12,650 south North- Babbitt Road 4 Collector 8,500 to 17,850 south Sources:http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/traffic/Pages/Traffic-Count-Reports-and- Maps.aspx http://www.noaca.org/CuyTcountsDec04.pdf http://www.noaca.org/CuyTcount0609.pdf
East-West Streets Three major east-west roadways traverse the study area in alignments generally parallel to I-90 / SR-2. From north to south, they are: Lakeshore Boulevard, St. Clair Avenue, and Euclid Avenue. Lakeshore Boulevard (SR-283) is a two-lane road classified as a collector between Gordon Park in Bratenahl and East 140th Street in Cleveland when it widens out to four lanes and becomes an urban minor arterial near the ramps to I-90/SR-2. AADT ranges between 6,700 to 14,150 vehicles with the lower vehicle counts in Bratenahl and the higher counts in Cleveland and Euclid. RTA operates local bus routes (Routes 30, 34, 39, and 94) and a flyer route (Route 39F) on various portions of Lakeshore Boulevard from Downtown Cleveland via I-90 to MLK Drive and then east on Lakeshore Boulevard to Euclid
41
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Hospital at East 185th Street. Some trips continue east to the Shoregate Shopping Center in adjacent Lake County and connect with Laketran buses.
St. Clair Avenue is classified as an urban minor arterial in Cleveland and is a collector street in Euclid. St. Clair has an AADT of 11,750 in sections of the roadway in Cleveland and carries 7,200 to 9,600 vehicles per day in the section of highway within the City of Euclid.. RTA has local fixed route bus service (Route1) operating along St. Clair Avenue from Euclid Square Mall to downtown Cleveland. Route 239 travels along St. Clair from the Euclid Park-N-Ride lot to Babbitt Rd.
Euclid Avenue (US-20) is an urban principal arterial, which carries heavy traffic volumes over its entire length in the study area. AADT in East Cleveland near the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at Windermere is approximately 21,850 vehicles. AADT is 14,900 at Babbitt Road in Euclid. RTA operates the HealthLine bus rapid transit between Downtown Cleveland and the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at Windermere. This station operates 24 hours, seven days a week and is the principal transit center in the study area that serves the Red Line, HealthLine and multiple local bus routes. The RTA local bus (Route 28) extends service along Euclid Avenue from the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at Windermere in East Cleveland to East 276th Street and Tungsten Road in Euclid. Some trips turn onto East 222nd Street and end at Lakeshore Boulevard.
North-South Streets East 140th Street is primarily a two-lane facility functionally classified as a collector street. East 140th Street AADT is 8,350 vehicles per day. RTA operates local bus Route 30 service between Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at Windermere along Hayden Avenue and East 140th Street to Lakeshore Boulevard and continues east on Lakeshore Boulevard to serve Euclid Hospital at East 185th Street.
East 152nd Street is functionally classified as an urban principal arterial. East 152nd Street is primarily a four -lane facility except between Waterloo Road and Lakeshore Boulevard where it becomes a 2-lane facility. The AADT is 15,100 vehicles per day near St Clair Avenue and 21,050 near the I-90/SR-2 freeway entrance. RTA operates Route 37 along East 152nd Street. Busses travel from Euclid Hospital in Cleveland down East 185th Street. They turn on to Villaview Road, and continue through the Grovewood/Waterloo Art District to East 152nd Street. Buses continue south on East 152nd Street to Euclid Avenue and then continuing south on Taylor Road to Chagrin Boulevard in Shaker Heights.
East 185th Street is functionally classified as an urban minor arterial. East 185th Street is primarily a two- lane facility with a pavement width of 40 feet, which accommodates a center turn lane. The AADT is 17,650 vehicles per day near the freeway entrance to I-90/SR-2 and 7,300 near Lakeshore Boulevard. East 185th Street is renamed Nottingham Road south of the St. Clair Avenue intersection. RTA operates a portion of Route 37 and Route 39F on East 185th Street between Lakeshore Boulevard and Villaview.
East 200th Street is classified as a collector. East 200th Street carries between 4,900 and 16,850 vehicles per day. South of I-90/SR-2 the vehicle counts are 4,900 to 7,750. The number of vehicles per day north of I-90 is 5,450 near Lakeshore Blvd and 16,850 day at the freeway. RTA operates local Route 34along East 200th Street starting at Euclid Hospital on Lakeshore Boulevard east to East 200th Street then running south to St Clair and Euclid Avenue and crossing over to Green Road continuing to Randall Park Mall in North Randall.
42
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-10 Study Area Major Roadways
43 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
East 222nd Street is functionally classified as a minor arterial. East 222nd St. carries between 11,050 and 12,900 vehicles per day south of I-90/SR-2 and between 10,250 to 15,500 vehicles per day north of I- 90/SR-2. Some RTA local buses (Route 28) travel from Euclid Avenue on East 222nd Street to Lakeshore Boulevard in Euclid Babbitt Road is functionally classified as a collector road. Babbitt Road carries between 8,400 near Lakeshore Boulevard and 16,000 vehicles per day near the I-90/SR-2 entrance and 13,100 to 19,150 vehicles per day south of I-90/SR-2. RTA Park-N-Ride Route 239 begins at Lakeshore Boulevard and East 222nd Street and continues south on Babbitt Road to the Euclid Park-N-Ride lot. It then travels back north on Babbitt Road to I-90/SR-2 to continue its trip to Downtown Cleveland.
Freeway Speeds The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), the metropolitan planning organization for the five-county Greater Cleveland region, conducted a speed and delay study in 2007 using survey data from 2006 to evaluate the existing operating characteristics of freeway segments within the NOACA region. The purpose of the travel time data collection program was to determine the locations and extent of delays along the freeway system in the NOACA region as an input to the Congestion Management System. The travel time data will also be used to update the freeway speed tables used in the NOACA regional travel demand model.
Travel time for the I-90 / SR-2 corridor was measured for peak and off-peak time periods. Results of the travel time study showed that speeds vary in the westbound direction from 31 mph to 58 mph during the morning peak and from 9 mph to 65 mph during the afternoon peak. In the eastbound direction, speeds vary from 49 mph to 63 mph during the morning peak and from 50 mph to 59 mph during the afternoon peak. The I-90 / SR-2 corridor experienced long delays in the westbound direction during the morning peak along the section between East 185th Street and Lakeside Avenue, with average travel speeds ranging between 31 mph and 53 mph. During the afternoon peak, the longest delays occurred westbound along the Innerbelt section that borders the Cleveland CBD, with speeds varying from as low as 9 mph to as high as 27 mph.
A comparison of this travel time survey with the 2002 travel time data, along the segments between I-90 / SR-2 junction in the City of Euclid and Downtown Cleveland, shows that the average travel speeds along most segments of the I-90 corridor are the same or lower. A significant decrease in the average travel speed occurred along the following segments in the study area: The I-90 / SR-2 Junction to East 185th Street (WB, AM) (64 mph – 2002 to 58 mph –2006) East 185th Street to Eddy Road (WB, AM) (50 mph – 2002 to 45 mph – 2006)
3.7.2 Railroads
Two Class I railroads serve the study area. The CSX, which follows the legacy New York Central alignment along the lake shore swings north away from the RTA Red Line rapid transit alignment near Superior Station and the Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway following the alignment of the legacy Nickel Plate Railroad. The CSX alignment was eliminated from further consideration after the Tier 1 screening. The reasons for its elimination are contained in the Tier 1 Screening Report (2013). The NS mainline is directly adjacent to the RTA Red Line rapid transit tracks from about East Ninth Street in Cleveland (NS milepost B-183.0) to the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at Windermere. The NS line continues east on the former Nickel Plate Road alignment to Buffalo, New York. The NS line is two tracks wide from East Ninth Street in Cleveland to just west of the NS Euclid Yard where it becomes three tracks to serve the industries located between the parallel railroads. The NS is reduced to two tracks just west of the RTA Euclid Park-N-Ride near Euclid Square Mall and is reduced to one track at the Euclid Square Mall. The NS remains a single track railroad through Mentor.
44 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-11 Study Area Railroads
45
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 3-12 Railroad At-Grade Highway and Road Crossings Railroad Number of City Street Warning Device AADT Milepost Tracks Norfolk Southern Railway Euclid Dille Avenue B-173.7 2 Flashers and gates 15,791 Wickliffe Lloyd Road (SR-633) B-169.5 2 Flashers and gates 11,349 Willowick East 305 B-167.9 2 Flashers and gates 6,591 Eastlake East 361/Beidler Rd B-166.2 2 Flashers and gates 9,458 Willoughby Church Street B-165.1 2 Flashers and gates 510 Willoughby Erie Street B-164.8 1 Flashers and gates 8,799 Willoughby Pelton Road B-164.2 1 Flashers and gates 4,624 Mentor Hart Street B-162.0 2 Flashers and gates N/A Mentor Maple Street B-160.4 1 Flashers and gates 913 Mentor Station Street B-160.2 1 Flashers and gates 3,661 Mentor Patterson Drive B-159.7 1 Flashers and gates 289 Mentor Hopkins Road B-159.3 1 Flashers and gates 12,819 Source: http://www.ohiorail.ohio.gov/
3.7.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The study area contains a variety of major public and private facilities, including historic commercial districts, parks, government centers and the Case Western Reserve University campus that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists. There are a number of popular outdoor parks and recreational areas in the study area accessible by public transportation including the President James A. Garfield Monument in Lake View Cemetery, Forest Hills Park in East Cleveland; Euclid Park, Hillandale Park, Memorial Park and Sims Park in Euclid; and Euclid Beach, Euclid Creek, Villa Angela and Wildwood Reservations of the Cleveland Metroparks.
There are sidewalks in many of the older neighborhoods within the study area. Generally, no sidewalks exist in the industrial areas located between the two railroads. The conditions of sidewalks, where they exist, range from good to poor depending on the section of the study area being examined. There are hiking trails in Euclid Creek Reservation of the Cleveland Metroparks.
The region has seen an increase in the number of bikeway facilities over the past several years. The City of Cleveland has made a commitment to becoming a bicycle-friendly community. Some the city’s recent accomplishments include the adoption of a Bikeway Master Plan and the adoption of a bicycle parking ordinance. The City of Cleveland has been awarded an Honorable Mention by the League of American Bicyclists for its efforts to make Cleveland a bicycle-friendly community. Cleveland’s bicycle facilities within or adjacent to the study area are described in the following paragraph.
The Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway spans the entire length of Cleveland’s 17-mile Lake Erie shoreline from the City’s eastern border with Euclid and its western border with Lakewood. This bikeway links Cleveland’s cultural centers and medical hubs at University Circle with Downtown and the North Coast Harbor via the Harrison Dillard Bikeway. The Harrison-Dillard Bikeway runs parallel to MLK Drive for 3.74 miles through Cleveland’s Cultural Gardens in Rockefeller Park. Rockefeller Park is a 270-acre linear park which follows the meandering course of the Doan Brook for a distance of about 7 miles to Lake Erie. The backdrop of Rockefeller Park makes this one of the most scenic urban trails in the country. The
46
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Cultural Gardens were established in 1925 and currently contain 26 distinct gardens celebrating Cleveland’s multi-ethnic heritage. This bikeway is made entirely of paved, off-road trails and connects to the Euclid Avenue Bikeway. The Euclid Avenue bikeway was constructed as part of the HealthLine along Euclid Avenue connecting Downtown to MLK Drive in University Circle helping to create a model “Complete Street” and a multi-modal corridor for bicycles, transit users, and car drivers alike.
NOACA has prepared a Revised Bicycle Plan (2013) that outlines a Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN), which is a vision of a system of interconnected bicycle routes throughout northeast Ohio that are safe and convenient. The RPBN includes an extension of the bikeway along Euclid Avenue from MLK Drive in Cleveland to Chardon Road in Euclid. As part of the RPBN, another bikeway is planned for Lakeshore Boulevard and sections of St Clair Avenue all linked by shared bikeways along East 140th Street and East 152nd Street. The City of Cleveland has proposed a bikeway connecting Euclid Creek Reservation to the Cleveland Lakefront Trail at Wildwood Metropark on the lakefront through the City’s Collinwood neighborhood. The proposed trail route follows Euclid Creek as much as possible. The trail turns away from the creek at St. Clair Avenue to utilize the Neff Road railroad and freeway underpasses, considered a safer alternative than the Nottingham Road underpasses due to lower traffic volume, fewer freeway ramps, and fewer driveways. The remaining portion of the trail route is proposed as a combination of bike lanes (along Neff and Villaview Roads and East 185th Street), and bike routes (route signs but no bike lanes) on Marcella Road.
The City of Euclid has several proposals for new bike trails and bicycle lanes on streets within the study area. The Euclid Railroad Greenway and Multi-purpose Trail Project is collaboration between Euclid and South Euclid. The cities are discussing ways to acquire the abandoned former Euclid Railroad right-of- way and to provide transportation enhancements along Euclid Avenue for the development of a 5 mile, multipurpose trail loop, providing linkages between Euclid, South Euclid and the Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek Reservation, including bikeways on East 222nd Street. The Euclid Waterfront Plan calls for the addition of a multi-use path along the Lake Erie waterfront creating many opportunities for active uses such as biking and walking.
Adjacent University Circle has a number of tourist attractions including the Cleveland Museum of Art and its lagoons, Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, the Botanical Gardens, and the Cultural Gardens in Rockefeller Park along MLK Drive. The adjacent communities in Lake County have a wide variety of land-use types and include fairly typical suburban and exurban development patterns with a mixture of sidewalk and bicycle trails. Lake County also has an extensive Metropark system.
3.7.4 Public Transit
Existing public transportation service within the study area is provided by the RTA, Laketran, and various private service providers such as University Circle and Cleveland Clinic shuttle bus services. RTA provides comprehensive public transportation services throughout Cuyahoga County. RTA services that currently operate in the study area include several local and commuter bus routes as well as the heavy rail Red Line and the bus rapid transit HealthLine, both of which terminate at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere in East Cleveland, the westernmost community in the study area. Laketran operates local and commuter bus routes in the Lake County portion of the study area, with multiple transfer points between Laketran and RTA local routes along the county line.
RTA Red Line As shown in Figure 3-4, the RTA Red Line is a heavy rail line that runs between Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and Louis Stokes Station at Windermere. The Cleveland Transit System (CTS), the predecessor transit agency to the RTA, constructed the Red Line between 1952 and 1968. The original 47
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
eight-mile segment opened on March 15, 1955 and connected the Cleveland Union Terminal in Downtown Cleveland (Tower City Station) to the Windermere Station in East Cleveland.
There were six intermediate stations between the two terminals. In August 1955, a 5.3-mile extension to West 117th and Madison opened adding four more stations, bringing the total number of stations to ten in 1955. The CTS continued to extend the Red Line west to serve growing neighborhoods. The Red Line was extended to West Park in 1958 and to the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CHIA) in 1968. The East 34th Street Campus Station was added to the system in 1971. Today’s Red Line is 19.1-miles long with 18 stations. Despite all these extensions and station improvements, ridership on the Red Line peaked in 1960 when the line carried 18.3 million annual riders.
Ridership has declined steadily since, interrupted by only occasional marginal increases beginning in 1975 when the RTA was created and fares lowered to $0.35 per ride. RTA has seen some steady increases in ridership since the steep decline of the 2008 Great Recession. RTA has endeavored to improve ridership by rehabilitating railcars, stations and rail infrastructure to provide a more attractive and reliable service. Table 3-13 shows ridership for the year 2014 and Figure 3-12 illustrates the ridership trend since 2000.
Table 3-13 Red Line Ridership Average Average Ridership Annual Avg. Weekday Saturday Sunday 2014 6,203,837 21,500 11,900 8,725 Source: RTA Ridership by Route, 2014
Figure 3-12 Red Line Annual Ridership 2000 - 2014 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0
The Red Line stations included in the study area are Superior and Louis Stokes Station at Windermere, both located in East Cleveland. The Superior Station was reconstructed in 1996 and is ADA accessible. The station is on Superior Avenue at the intersection with Emily Street, about 1.5 blocks northwest of Euclid Avenue. A small parking lot is located northeast of the station entrance along Emily Street and has aces for approximately 89 cars. RTA local buses serve the station including Route 3: Superior and Route
48
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
40: Lakeview-Lee. The Louis Stokes Station at Windermere Station is the eastern terminal of the Red Line. The station is ADA accessible and is located at Euclid Avenue across the street from East Cleveland City Hall. The station parking lot has 293 free parking spaces for short term use and 12 spaces for long term parking. There is a café that operates within the station on weekdays. Several RTA bus routes serve the station, including Route 3: Superior, Route 28: Euclid, Route 30: E 140-Lakeshore, Route 37: E 185-Taylor, Route 41/41F: Warrensville, and the HealthLine. The routes utilize a bus turnaround loop adjacent to the station entrance.
RTA HealthLine As shown in Figure 3-15, the HealthLine is a bus rapid transit (BRT) line that operates between Tower City-Public Square in downtown Cleveland and Louis Stokes Station at Windermere along Euclid Avenue. The route serves major attractions and trip generators, including Public Square, Cleveland State University (CSU), and the regionally significant cluster of institutions in the University Circle area, including the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve University, and University Hospitals. Open since 2008, the HealthLine is a nationally cited model of urban BRT. It operates in the median of Euclid Avenue from downtown to University Circle, and at the curb from University Circle to its eastern terminus, Louis Stokes Station at Windermere. Windermere is also the eastern terminus of the Red Line and is served by several other RTA bus routes. The routes use a bus turnaround loop adjacent to the station entrance. These routes are described in detail in the bus transit section that follows. The HealthLine runs seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and in 2014 carried an annual ridership of 5,084,513. Table 3-14 provides current ridership data. Annual ridership from the end of the Euclid Corridor Route 6 local bus service in 2007 through the introduction of HealthLine service in 2008 to 2014 is depicted in Figure 3-13 below.
Table 3-14 HealthLine Ridership Average Average Average Ridership Annual Weekday Saturday Sunday 2014 5,084,513 15,541 7,705 4,582 Source: RTA Ridership by Route, 2014 Figure 3-13 HealthLine Annual Ridership 2007 - 2014 6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
49
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-14 RTA Red Line
50 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-15 RTA HealthLine
51 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 3-16 Major Study Area Bus Routes, Transit Centers, and Park-N-Rides
52 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
RTA and Laketran Local and Commuter Bus Routes RTA and Laketran operate both local and commuter fixed-route bus services in the study area, and between the study area and Downtown Cleveland. The commuter routes run express on a highway or arterial for all or part of the route path. Laketran’s commuter routes are known as Park-N-Ride Routes, since they operate between a Park-N-Ride at one end and employment locations in downtown Cleveland at the other. Figure 3-16 illustrates the bus routes currently serving the study area. Laketran and RTA have a reciprocal transfer agreement in place to assist riders in gaining regional access to high quality public transportation services. Laketran provides a transfer for customers to use on Laketran routes that connect with RTA services at one of the three county-line transfer locations. RTA operators provide customers who are transferring to Laketran with a receipt that serves as a transfer. The three transfer points are: Shoregate Shopping Center, Laketran Routes 3 and 6 connect with RTA #30/39/39F. RTA #30 takes you to Louis Stokes-Windermere via E. 140. RTA #39/39F travels to Public Square via Lakeshore Blvd. At East 276th in Euclid, Laketran Route 2 connects with RTA #28 to Windermere Station. At the Shops of Willoughby Hills, just west of Giant Eagle, Laketran Route 6 connects to RTA #94.
Lake County commuters traveling to University Circle or the Cleveland Clinic do not have a one-seat ride option or a direct and convenient two-seat option. They must take a Laketran commuter bus to Downtown Cleveland, transfer to the Red Line or HealthLine at Tower City or Public Square, and ride back out to University Circle. The principal RTA and Laketran routes operating in the study area are mapped in Figure 3-16, along with Transit Centers and Park-N-Ride lots served by one or more of these routes. The annual ridership for the routes is highlighted in Table 3-15. The routes are then described in Table 3-16.
Table 3-15 Annual Ridership, Local and Commuter Routes Annual Ridership Average Weekday Ridership (2014) (2013) RTA Local Routes 1 St Clair 2,350,558 6,560 28 Euclid 1,314,973 4,247 30 E. 140 - Lakeshore 840,190 2,130 37 E. 185 - Green 477,291 2,138 39 Lakeshore Blvd 343,935 1,987 39F Lakeshore Flyer 181,469 738 40 Lee 744,891 2,573 41 Warrensville 1,539,040 4,201 94 E. 260 - Richmond 312,134 1,288 RTA Commuter Routes 239 Park-n-Ride 72,383 275 Laketran Local Routes 2 82,764 402 3 56,026 260 6 62,551 267 Laketran Commuter Routes 10 75,879 459
53 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Annual Ridership Average Weekday Ridership (2014) (2013) 11 13,846 68 12 47,654 263 13 6,238 41 14 18,731 90 Source: RTA and Laketran 2014 Ridership by Route
Table 3-16 Service Descriptions for Local and Commuter Routes Operating in the Study Area RTA Local Routes Route 1: Saint Clair operates between Public Square and the Euclid Park-N-Ride via Saint Clair Avenue. Select trips on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday operate between Public Square and the bus loop at E 153rd Street at Saint Clair near Five Points. There are several trip generators along the path of Route 1, including Tower City-Public Square, Cleveland Convention Center, Glenville Plaza, Glenville Towne Center, Goodrich-Gannett Neighborhood Center, Five Points Plaza and Euclid Park-N-Ride. Route 28: Euclid operates between Windermere Station and either East 276th Street at Tungsten Road or E 222nd Street at Lakeshore Boulevard. The route operates along Euclid Avenue. All early morning, evening and overnight trips operate to E 276th Street. Trip generators served by the route include Windermere Station served by the Red Line and HealthLine, Green Light Shopping Center, Euclid High School, Euclid City Hall, Indian Hills Senior Community and Hilltop Village Retirement Community. Route 30: E 140 – Lakeshore runs between Windermere Station and E 222nd Street and Lakeshore Boulevard via Hayden Avenue, Saint Clair Avenue, E 140 Street and Lakeshore Boulevard. Select trips operate between Windermere Station and Shoregate Shopping Center in Willowick, Lake County. Select overnight trips on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday operate between Windermere Station and Euclid Hospital at E 185th Street. Trip generators along the route include Windermere Station, Euclid Hospital and the Lakeshore Shopping Center. Route 37: E 185 – Taylor operates between Severance Town Center and Euclid Hospital via Taylor Road, Euclid Avenue, Colt Avenue, E 152nd Street, Waterloo Road, E 156 Street, Grovewood Avenue, Villaview Road, and E 185th Street. The route path operates via Windermere Station. Select weekday peak and midday trips operate beyond Severance Town Center to the 159th Street Loop in Shaker Heights. Select early morning and late night trips on weekdays operate between Windermere Station and Euclid Hospital or between Windermere Station and Severance Town Center only. The route serves Euclid Hospital, Five Points Plaza, Windermere Station, Severance Town Center, the Shaker-Lee Green Line Station, Van Aken- Lee Blue Line Station, and Shaker Town Center. Route 39: Lakeshore operates between Tower City and Shoregate Shopping Center in Willowick via Lakeshore Boulevard, Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, I-90, E 9th Street, Superior Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Ontario Street and Saint Clair Avenue. Select peak trips operate between Tower City and Euclid Hospital. The route operates on weekdays only during the peak and midday periods. The route serves Shoregate and Lakeshore Shopping Centers, Euclid Hospital, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland City Hall, Cleveland Public Library and Tower City. Route 39F: Lakeshore is a more express version of Route 39 and operates between Shoregate Shopping Center and Tower City. The route operates via Lakeshore Boulevard, E 185th Street, I-90, E 9th Street, Superior Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Ontario Street and Saint Clair Avenue. The route serves Shoregate Shopping Center, Lakeshore Shopping Center,
54 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Euclid Hospital, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland City Hall, Cleveland Public Library and Tower City. The route operates during peak hours in the peak direction of service only. Route 40: Lakeview – Lee runs between Taft Avenue at Eddy Road in Cleveland and Southgate Transit Center largely via Lakeview Road, Superior Road, and Lee Road. Major stops on the route include the Superior Red Line Station, Lee Road Green Line Station, Lee Road Blue Line Station, Cleveland Heights High School, Shaker Heights High School, Shaker Towne Center, Mapletown Shopping Center, Maple Heights High School and the Southgate Transit Center. Route 41: Warrensville is a local route that operates between Windermere Station and Emerald Valley via Euclid Avenue, Noble Road, Warrensville Center Road, Southgate Park Boulevard, Northfield Road, Columbus Street/Columbus Road, Perkins Road, Aurora Road, Solon Road and Cochran Road. Overnight trips on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday operate between Windermere Station and Southgate Transit Center only. The route serves Windermere Station, John Carroll University, Warrensville-Shaker Green Line Station, Warrensville-Van Aken Blue Line Station, South Pointe Hospital, Southgate Transit Center, the Solon Industrial Park and Glenwillow. Route 94: E 260 – Richmond operates between E 222nd Street and Lakeshore Boulevard in Euclid and Cuyahoga Community College Eastern Campus in Highland Hills. The route generally operates via Lakeshore Boulevard, E 260th Street, and Richmond Road. The route serves the Lakeshore Shopping Center, Euclid Medical Building, Euclid Medical University Hospital – Richmond Medical Center, Cuyahoga County Airport, Richmond Heights High School, Richmond Town Square, Legacy Village, La Place Shopping Center, Cleveland Clinic – Beachwood, Green Road Green Line Station and Cuyahoga Community College Eastern Campus.
Laketran Local Routes Route 2 operates between the Great Lakes Mall and the Wickliffe Park-N-Ride in Euclid via Mentor Avenue, Erie Street, Euclid Avenue, Som Center Road, Ridge Road, Rush Road and Euclid Avenue. The last westbound trip on weekdays originates from Lakeland College and does not serve the Great Lakes Mall. The route serves the Great Lakes Mall, Lakeland Community College, Willoughby City Hall, South High School, Willoughby Commons, Willo Plaza, Lakehealth West Medical Center, Pine Ridge Plaza, Wickliffe Public Library and the Wickliffe Park-N-Ride. Route 3 operates between the Great Lakes Mall and the Wickliffe Park-N-Ride in Euclid via Mentor Avenue, Lakeshore Boulevard, Stevens Boulevard, Willowick Drive, E 305th Street, Lakeshore Boulevard, E 288th Street, Grand Boulevard and Lloyd Road. Trips generators along the route include the Great Lakes Mall, Lakeland Community College, Eastlake Public Library, North High School, Shoregate Shopping Center, and the Wickliffe Park-N-Ride. Route 6 runs between Lakeland Community College and the Shops of Willoughby Hills via Reynolds Road (SR-306), Vine Street, Lakeshore Boulevard, E 288th Street, Euclid Avenue, E 300th Street, Ridge Road, Bishop Road and Chardon Road. The route serves Lakeland Community College, the Great Lakes Mall, Willoughby Public Library, Transit Center at Classic Park, Bryant and Stratton College, the Vineyards Shopping Center, Shoregate Shopping Center, Wickliffe High School and the Shops of Willoughby Hills. RTA Commuter Routes Route 239: Euclid Park-N-Ride runs between the Euclid Park-N-Ride and Tower City via Saint Clair Avenue, Babbitt Road, I-90, E 9th Street, Superior Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Ontario Street and Saint Clair Avenue. The route serves Euclid Park-N-Ride, Lakeshore Shopping
55 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Center, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland City Hall, Cleveland Public Library and Tower City. This is a peak hour / peak direction route. Laketran Commuter Routes Route 10 operates between the Painesville Township Park-N-Ride (adjacent to Laketran offices and garage) in Painesville, Market Street Park-N-Ride in Mentor and downtown Cleveland via the Lakeland Freeway and I-90. The final morning trip originates at the Market Street Park-N-Ride and the final evening trip terminates at the Market Street Park-N-Ride. The route makes a loop through downtown Cleveland, connecting commuters from Painesville Township to downtown employment and education locations, such as CSU, the Federal Reserve Bank, Tower City, the Federal Building, City Hall and the Galleria. The route operates in the peak period and peak direction only. Route 11 runs between the Madison Park-N-Ride in Madison and downtown Cleveland. The route operates via I-90, making a stop along the route at Lakeland Community College in Kirtland. The route operates the same loop through downtown Cleveland as Route 10, serving the same employment and educational locations. The route operates in the peak period and peak direction only. Route 12 operates between the Painesville Township Park-N-Ride and downtown Cleveland via the Lakeland Freeway, Vine Street, Willowick Drive, E 305th Street, Lakeshore Boulevard, E 288th Street/ Worden Road, Lakeland Boulevard and the Lakeland Freeway. Local stops are made through Willowick. The last two morning trips and last three afternoon trips do not serve the Painesville Township Park-N-Ride. The route’s downtown loop differs slightly from Route 10 and Route 11 but serves many of the same key locations in downtown Cleveland. The route operates in the peak period and peak direction only. Route 13 runs between the Market Street Park-N-Ride in Mentor and downtown Cleveland via the Lakeland Freeway and I-90. The route leaves the freeway to run locally through Wickliffe, serving residential areas and the Shops of Willoughby Hills. The route operates in the peak period and peak direction only. Route 14 runs between the Painesville Township Park-N-Ride and downtown Cleveland via the Lakeland Freeway. Along the way, the route exits the freeway to pick up and drop off passengers at Eastlake Park-N-Ride/Classic Park Transit Center. Select afternoon peak trips also make a stop at the Market Street Park-N-Ride in Mentor. Similar to the other Laketran Park-N-Ride routes, Route 14 serves CSU and other downtown employment locations. The route operates in the peak period and peak direction only.
On the RTA system, within the study area, Route 1, with a long service span and frequent service, has the highest ridership of any local bus route, followed by Routes 28 and Route 41. Compared to RTA local routes, Laketran local routes have much lower average weekday ridership since they operate less frequent service, with shorter service spans and in a more suburban environment. The highest ridership Laketran route is Route 10, which serves commuter trips between the suburbs and jobs in downtown Cleveland.
Transit Centers and Park-N-Rides
Table 3-17 shows the number of transit-provided parking spaces in the study area. There is also a substantial amount of on-street and off-street surface parking along many of the commercial districts and within the many shopping centers located throughout the study area. In addition, outside of the study area, University Circle and Cleveland Clinic have substantial parking both in surface and structured parking areas.
56 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 3-17 Parking at Transit Locations
City Facility Location Spaces Routes Cuyahoga County (RTA) Cleveland St. Clair Avenue St. Clair Avenue & East 129th Street 15 RTA 1, 38 East Cleveland Superior Station Superior Avenue & Euclid Avenue 89 RTA 3, 40 RTA Red Line, Health East Cleveland Windermere East 143rd Street & Euclid Avenue 293 Line, 3, 28, 30, 37, 41 Euclid Euclid Transit Center Park-N-Ride St. Clair Avenue & Babbitt Road 309 RTA 1, 239 Lake County (Laketran) Eastlake Eastlake Center at Classic Park I-90 & SR-91 287 Laketran 6, 14 Madison Watertower Drive Park-N-Ride Watertower Drive & SR-528 176 Laketran 11 Mentor Lakeland Community College SR-306 & I-90 Note* Laketran 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 Mentor Market Street Park-N-Ride Market Street & Munson Road 182 Laketran 10, 13, 14 Painesville Painesville Township Park-N-Ride Lakeshore Blvd & Temple Street 96 Laketran 10, 12, 14 Wickliffe Lloyd Road Park-N-Ride Lloyd Road & Lakeland Boulevard 145 Laketran 2, 3 Willoughby RTA 6, 94, Willoughby Hills Park-N-Ride US-6 & SR-84 Note* Hills Laketran 6, 13 RTA 30, 39, 39F, Willowick Shoregate Shopping Center SR-283 & East 305th Street Note* Laketran 3, 6 Willowick St. Mary Magdalene Park-N-Ride East 322nd Street & Vine Street Note* Laketran 3, 6, 12 Note: The number of parking spaces devoted to transit riders at these locations was not available. These Park-N-Ride locations are either informal or share space with shopping center parking.
Source: RTA and Laketran
System and Study Area Ridership Trends
Ridership on both the RTA and Laketran systems showed a similar general pattern over a recent ten year period. As shown in Table 3-18, system-wide ridership increased over the earlier five-year period and then declined during the later five-year period. For RTA, ridership increased considerably between 2002 and 2006, but then declined by an even greater amount between 2006 and 2011. Laketran, though by a smaller percentage than RTA, gained riders between 2002 and 2006, and then suffered a similar steep decline in ridership between 2006 and 2011. Both systems saw an especially large decrease in ridership in 2008-2010, due to the severe economic recession.
Table 3-19 shifts from system-wide ridership trends to ridership on the routes serving the study area. Between 2008 and 2012, ridership declined on almost all bus routes and rail lines that operate in the study area, with many routes, including the Red Line, showing sharply declining ridership between 2008 and 2010 and modest recovery in the following years. The HealthLine, however, experienced growth in ridership every year, increasing its ridership by over 50 percent during the 5 year period. Ridership increased considerably on Commuter Route 39F, while ridership on the local version of that route (Route 39) declined each year, losing about 50 percent of its riders. Overall, ridership on major study area bus routes increased over the 5 year period, showing a modest growth rate of 0.8 percent.
57 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 3-18 RTA and Laketran System-Wide Ridership Trends RTA Laketran Year Percent Percent Ridership Ridership Change Change 2002 55,744,904 - 926,762 - 2003 59,641,790 6.5% 906,792 -2.2% 2004 57,868,273 -3.1% 981,244 7.6% 2005 65,542,234 11.7% 1,044,926 6.1% 2006 69,199,174 5.3% 980,735 -6.5% 2007 60,187,823 -15.0% 962,892 -1.9% 2008 56,667,452 -6.2% 985,467 2.3% 2009 45,612,053 -24.2% 816,252 -20.7% 2010 42,419,301 -7.5% 688,517 -18.6% 2011 46,210,832 8.2% 712,568 3.4% 2012 48,234,103 4.4% 756,358 6.1% 2013 49,206,289 2.0% 726,166 -4.0% 2014 49,271,617 0.1% 724,335 -0.3% Annual Growth 2002-2014 -0.9% -1.9% Source: National Transit Database (NTD)
Table 3-19 Study Area Ridership Trends by RTA Route Change Annual Route/Line 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010- Growth 2014 Rate Red Line 3,657,501 5,687,891 6,240,495 6,423,366 6,203,837 69.6% 11.1% HealthLine 4,169,400 4,495,100 4,629,200 4,786,619 5,084,513 21.9% 4.0% 28 Euclid 1,217,422 1,259,520 1,374,599 1,404,444 1,314,973 8.0% 1.6% 30 E.140 - Lakeshore 697,075 700,496 758,246 756,430 840,190 20.5% 3.8% 34 E. 200 - Green 182,152 168,094 144,300 157,944 160,214 -12.0% -2.5% 37 E.185 - Taylor 543,431 570,223 573,066 506,628 477,291 -12.2% -2.6% 39/39F Lakeshore 645,303 535,939 605,044 659,428 525,404 -18.6% -4.0% 239 Park-N-Ride 63,874 70,725 79,774 68,009 72,383 13.3% 2.5% 94 E.260 - Richmond 244,933 286,395 330,218 331,148 312,134 27.4% 5.0% 1 St Clair 1,821,823 1,917,374 1,852,417 2,327,684 2,350,558 29.0% 5.2% Study Area Routes 9,585,413 10,003,866 10,346,864 10,998,334 11,137,660 16.2% 3.0% Source: RTA Ridership Data
3.7.5 Carpooling/Ridesharing Programs
OhioRideshare is a cooperative service offered by NOACA, the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) and the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate) in Youngstown. OhioRideshare gives residents from 13 counties in Northeast Ohio the ability to identify potential carpool partners quickly and securely. Registering with OhioRideshare is free and empowers users to conduct searches for potential carpool partners online. NOACA also helps groups form vanpools. An ideal vanpool group is of five or more commuters who travel long distances for work. According to NOACA,
58 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
there are 6,538 OhioRideshare users. Of those users, 4,703 are considered active users of the program. So far in 2013, 308 people have signed up to take advantage of OhioRideshare services. There were 373 new registrants in 2012.
3.7.6 Private Bus and Shuttle Services
Other public transportation services and shuttle routes are provided by and coordinated by Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) Campus Services, University Hospitals, University Circle Incorporated, Standard Parking, and the Cleveland Clinic. While these services operate outside the study area, they make the “last mile” connection between the University Circle Red Line and HealthLine stations, on the one hand, and the cluster of institutional destinations, on the other. These services are thus an integral part of the transit environment for study area workers, clients, and visitors going to and from the University Circle institutions.
CWRU Shuttle Service is a fixed route, fixed stop transportation option that is available to all CWRU students, faculty, and staff, University Circle and hospital employees and patrons. There are different shuttle buses which operate within the geographical areas that surround CWRU, University Hospitals, and University Circle. This service is also available to service members of the community. Five routes run concurrently to link all corners of the campus with most destinations in between: Circle Link, Commuter, Evening North, Evening South, and UCRC.
The Cleveland Clinic operates an extensive shuttle bus service on its main campus to help patients and visitors travel between appointments. The bus stops in front of the Main Entrance, Crile Building (A), and other main campus locations every 15-25 minutes. The CWRU shuttle bus picks up from various locations on the Cleveland Clinic main campus and provides transportation to and from nearby Cleveland destinations, including: Cleveland Museum of Art , Cleveland Botanical Garden, Cleveland Museum of Natural History , and Western Reserve Historical Society.
59 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
4 Alternatives Definition and Screening
The process for evaluating and screening Red Line/HealthLine transit service alternatives has been extended and complex and has involved many stakeholders and the public. As a first step, major goals and accompanying objectives for service improvements were agreed on. The challenging task of establishing evaluation criteria for screening followed. This process and the resulting findings are completely documented in several reports:
Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report (November 2013) Tier 1 Initial Alternatives Screening Report (December 2013) Tier 2 Detailed Alternatives Screening Report (August 2014)
Tier 1 screening involved analyzing the universe of alternatives, which included alignments, route deviations, and transit technology possibilities. This process reduced a large number of candidates to three alignments and four technologies. The alignments centered on the NS right-of-way for the Red Line extension and the East 152nd/Waterloo Arts District and East 185th Street/Nottingham Village for the HealthLine extension. The candidate technologies were:
Heavy rail rapid transit (HRT) Diesel multiple unit (DMU) commuter rail Light rail transit/streetcar (LRT) Bus rapid transit (BRT).
Tier 2 screening resulted in the keeping the three alignments described and two technologies, HRT and BRT. In addition, one No Build alternative and a baseline alternative were included in the comparative analysis. An additional Hybrid alternative was defined following the public comments at the conclusion of the Tier 2 screening process. Additional detailed analysis and project evaluation for the Tier 3 screening is documented in this report. Data and analysis from the Tier 3 screening process support final evaluation of the alternatives and the possible selection of an LPA, which will be advanced to the Draft EIS phase of project development if warranted.
4.1 Development of Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives developed for the Red Line/HealthLine extension focus on several key issues and goals and guiding principles established by the RTA in its Strategic Plan. These goals were developed to address the problems and needs identified in the study area and to guide the development and selection of an alternative to be implemented. The purpose of the proposed extension is to relieve congestion, improve the quality of life, enhance sustainability, increase mobility and accessibility and channel development to the study area. The need for this project stems from expected population and employment changes leading to increased travel demand and the requirement for a more sustainable transportation system.
Measures that address federal New Starts evaluation criteria were incorporated into the objectives. Transit service goals and objectives were developed by RTA with the assistance of both the TSC and SIC and were also based on the review of regional goals and objectives identified in previous studies and plans. The project team and stakeholders also reviewed FTA’s New Starts project justification requirements under MAP-21 f, which was revisited after the enactment of the FAST Act; and DOT-HUD EPA Livability Principles. Subsequent to this review, goals and objectives for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study were developed.
60 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The goals and objectives are detailed in the Purpose and Need Statement (October 2013). These project goals and objectives are reproduced for convenience and reference in Table 4-1 below: Table 4-1 Goals and Objectives Goals Objectives Corresponds to . Provide more transportation choices, especially for transit dependent groups, such as low-income and minority populations, and the aged to jobs, housing and other trip purposes. . Provide high-quality bus and rapid transit service for . FTA’s Mobility Improvements local trips between new employment in the eastern Justification Criteria suburbs and the core study area, as well as for access Mobility . DOT-HUD’s Livability Principles - to key core destinations, including University Circle Provide more transportation and downtown Cleveland. choices; Value communities and . Increase transit ridership and mode share for all neighborhoods. communities. . Establish a more balanced transportation system which enhances modal choices and encourages walking, bicycle and transit use. . Encourage transit-oriented mixed-use development along the corridor that would support population and employment growth along the corridor. . FTA’s Economic Development and . Reinvest in the local economy by maximizing the Land Use Justification Criteria economic impact of transportation investments as Economic related to land use redevelopment, infrastructure . DOT-HUD’s Livability Principles - development. improvements, and housing. Enhance economic competitiveness; Support existing communities. . Support regional economic development initiatives.
. Incorporate considerations into new development design that support transit as a transportation option. . . Minimize adverse air, land and water environmental impacts of transportation investments. . FTA’s Environmental Benefits, Economic Development and Land . Conserve transportation energy. Use Justification Criteria . Serve households at a range of income levels. . DOT-HUD’s Livability Principles - . Support lifestyle choices for environmentally Environment and Value communities and sustainable communities. Livability neighborhoods; Promote equitable, . Implement strategies for reducing transportation- affordable housing; Enhance related greenhouse gas emissions. economic competitiveness; Support . Promote green and sustainable technologies and existing communities. solutions that enhance economic development opportunities. . FTA’s Environmental Benefits, . Support private investments in transit friendly, and Economic Development and Land pedestrian and bicycle-focused developments. Use Justification Criteria . Support improvements in neighborhood connectivity . Image through attention to safety, comfort and aesthetics in DOT-HUD’s Livability Principles - Value communities and the design of transportation infrastructure. neighborhoods; Enhance economic . Serve areas of and complement initiatives for competitiveness; Support existing affordable housing. communities.
61 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
4.2 Technology Assessment
Potential transit technology options were the first component to be screened in this analysis to determine which transit technology options have the greatest potential to address the needs of the of study area, as determined by the Purpose and Need statement and study goals and objectives.
As discussed in the Technology Assessment Report (November 201314), not all of the transit technology options are suitable for providing improved transit service in the Red Line/HealthLine Extension’s study area. Some technologies would neither meet the goals and objectives of the study as presented in the Purpose and Need (October 2013) nor address the specific transportation issues identified in the Baseline Conditions Report (August 2013). The character of the study area, existing and future development patterns, population and employment densities, and number and type of trips were all considered in determining which transit technology option would be most appropriate for this study.
Numerous transit technologies are available that can meet RTA’s rolling stock requirements for any of the alternatives being considered. The relevant technologies selected to be used in the alternatives analysis are described in the following subsections.
4.2.1 Local Bus
Local bus service is already provided within the study area. The slow travel speed and frequent stops makes this transit option less than ideal for providing the connectivity to large job centers like downtown Cleveland and University Circle. Further, local bus improvements are unlikely to generate substantial ridership gains and do not satisfy the study purpose and need. However, local bus will be an important feature of any transit improvement in the corridor. Local bus services provide a critical access linkage between neighborhoods and the potential rail and bus rapid transit extensions effectively increasing the catchment area of the stations.
4.2.2 Enhanced Bus
Limited stop bus service from the study area could provide a faster, flexible trip to serve job destinations in downtown Cleveland and University Circle. However, it is believed that this transit option would work better as a complementary overlay service than as the primary capital improvement within the study area.
4.2.3 Bus Rapid Transit Lite (BRT Lite)
BRT Lite service operating in mixed traffic could connect the existing Red Line to the study area with high frequency service at a low-to-medium cost. Station spacing would be flexible depending on the destinations in the extended corridor. The characteristics of this service would include substantial stations, passenger information systems and transit signal priority but would operate in mixed-traffic similar to the existing HealthLine east of Martin Luther King, Jr.(MLK) Blvd.
4.2.4 Bus Rapid Transit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a bus operation generally characterized by use of exclusive or reserved rights-of-way (busways) that permit higher speeds and avoidance of delays from general traffic flows. The HealthLine in Cleveland is the best example of full BRT in North America. Full BRT service operating in an exclusive lane could connect the Red Line to the study area with high frequency service
14 Virginkar & Associates, Technology Assessment Report; October 2013. 62 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
and appropriate and flexible station spacing, at a medium cost similar to the HealthLine west of MLK Blvd.
4.2.5 Heavy Rail Rapid Transit (HRT)
Heavy rail transit (HRT) is a specialized electrically-powered rail system carrying passengers within urban areas, or between urban areas and suburbs. Heavy rail rapid transit systems use exclusive tracks that are fully grade-separated, i.e., subway, aerial, in open cut, or fenced-in at grade but with no at-grade street or pedestrian crossings. High-capacity trains serve complex, multi-level stations that typically are spaced one mile apart.
Maximum service speeds range from 50 up to 70 mph. The existing Red Line between the Airport and Louis Stokes Station at Windermere is electrified using a 600vDC overhead contact system (catenary) with high platform loading. An extension of the Red line would require a high capital cost in order to construct additional catenary, power substations, high-platform stations and grade separations as an extension of RTA’s Red Line east of Windermere or as a branch line northeast of Superior Station adjacent to the CSX Short Line. The extension would provide a one seat ride from Euclid to University Circle, Downtown and the Airport.
4.2.6 Diesel-Multiple Unit (DMU) Commuter Rail
The development of diesel-multiple unit (DMU) railcars capable of operating on the Red Line and freight railroad tracks makes this technology option a lower cost alternative to extending the existing electrified Red Line. It is considered a shared right-of-way light rail technology option. DMU have been successfully deployed in Portland, OR; Austin, TX; Dallas, TX; San Diego, CA and Trenton, NJ. The DMU option was considered to be an appropriate technology for extending the Red Line similar to the A-Train extension of the DART light rail line in Dallas. The A-train is a 21-mile rail extension using freight railroad tracks connecting Denton County with the DART light rail line at the Trinity Mills Station in Carrollton, TX. Passengers can transfer across the shared platform to the DART Green Line, which provides access to Downtown Dallas. In New Jersey, the River Line operates DMU trains between Camden and Trenton. The DMU operate in city streets in Camden and then follow the Delaware River on the former Bordentown-Trenton Branch of the former Conrail freight railroad. New Jersey Transit purchased the branch line from Conrail in 1999 and today shares tracks with Norfolk-Southern under an FRA approved operating agreement.
4.2.7 Rapid+
Rapid+ is a technology option that takes advantage of the Red Line infrastructure between Windermere and the Airport by allowing light rail transit (LRT) trains to operate in mixed traffic on city streets east of Windermere and on the Red Line west of Windermere similar to how the Blue and Green Lines share tracks with the Red Line between East 55th Street and Tower City today. However, this would require the procurement of new light rail vehicles (LRV) capable of operating on the Red Line with high platform loading and in street running with low level boarding. Such LRV exist in San Francisco, Buffalo and Pittsburgh. This technology option would provide significant flexibility in tailoring operating plans to provide one-seat rides from the study area to University Circle, Downtown and the Airport. This option also could permit routing trains from the Shaker Heights light rail Blue/Green lines direct to the Airport.
4.2.8 Summary of Technology Assessment
HRT and BRT were identified as the highest-ranked modes and were carried forward as the preferred modes for the build alternatives based on community input, estimated ridership, the ability to provide competitive travel times, and the ability to integrate with the existing RTA rapid transit network. BRT Lite
63 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
and enhanced bus service were identified as the modes for the Do Minimum baseline alternative advanced to the Draft EIS if warranted. The Rapid+ and DMU technology options were eliminated from further consideration due to their poor cost effectiveness. However, the Rapid+ technology option is suggested as the standard rail vehicle for future railcar replacement allowing RTA to operate one single railcar type capable of operating all lines in the system.
4.3 Alternatives Considered
Included in this section is information that describes the many alternatives explored and considered. This section defines the baseline alternatives used for evaluation, which include No-Build “do nothing” and “do minimum” alternatives. The section also describes which alternatives were carried forward to project appraisal and justification.
4.3.1 No Build Alternative
The No Build alternative essentially maintains the present condition and includes planned and committed conditions (E+C) for the future planning horizon year. This also serves as a baseline for the evaluation of the proposed build alternative during the project appraisal phase of project development. The improvements contained in the Do Minimum and Build alternatives are those that could be made in addition to those outlined in the No Build alternative.
The No Build alternative includes the existing highway network that is a part of all alternatives plus highway improvements from the fiscally constrained regional transportation plan that are likely to be implemented by the horizon year, except for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study Build alternatives being considered in this study. This includes the Opportunity Corridor that extends from I-490 as an urban boulevard into the University Circle area. Therefore, NOACA in consultation with RTA and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) provided a network map and list of specific committed highway facility improvement projects between the years 2010 and 2030.
Public transportation services under the No Build alternative consist of existing rail and bus routes and operating frequencies scheduled during the summer of 2013, plus other planned and committed projects outlined for 2030. These projects may include expansion of routes, improved frequencies and the introduction of bus priority treatments such bus lanes and limited Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service improvement on several streets. The No Build alternative assumes normal maintenance and replacement of existing facilities and equipment as their design life is exceeded. The No Build alternative provides a baseline for comparing travel benefits and other environmental impacts associated with the other alternatives.
Key features of the No Build Alternative are listed below. 1) Configuration: Continued operation of Red Line and HealthLine and local bus services in mixed traffic; 2) Passenger station stops: New Little Italy– University Circle Station opened and the Euclid – East 120th Street Station closed. 3) Street improvements: Ongoing roadway reconstruction projects as identified in the NOACA Transportation Improvement plan including construction of Innerbelt, West Shoreway improvements and Opportunity Corridor between I-490 and East 105th Street and Quincy Avenue and widening East 105th Street between Quincy and Chester Avenues; Streetscape improvements along Lakeshore Boulevard and Euclid Avenues;; 4) Vehicle: 40-foot, low-floor, CNG fueled buses; 5) Service span: No expected change; 6) Peak headways: No expected change;
64 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
7) Background bus network: No expected change; 8) Park-N-Ride facilities: No expected change;
4.3.2 Do Minimum Alternative
As with the No Build Alternative, the Do Minimum Alternative includes all transportation projects within the study area that have been committed for funding as part of the region’s TIP and fiscally constrained long range transportation plan. Transportation-related improvements that are committed to be in place by the 2030 horizon planning year, whether physical or operational, are assumed to be part of the Do Minimum Alternative.
The primary rail and bus network changes in this alternative are modifications of existing local bus routes to improve service in underserved areas of the study area, particularly Euclid and connections with Laketran, the transit service provider in Lake County. The Do Minimum Alternative includes a number of improvements over the No Build Alternative that will improve bus service by focusing service to potential high-density development along various alignments in the study area, notably lakeshore Boulevard, St. Clair and Euclid Avenues and north-south connector streets. No major RTA capital investments are included in this alternative.
Key features of the Do Minimum Alternative include all features of the No Build Alternative, plus the following: 1) Alignment: Adjusted bus network with focus on alignments between Windermere and Downtown Euclid; 2) Configuration: Continued operation in mixed traffic; 3) Passenger station stops: Construction of enhanced bus stops at Five Points in Collinwood and Downtown Euclid and improved transit waiting environments to include real-time passenger information, improve shelters and waiting areas, and adjust and consolidate some stop locations to provide more efficient service and better mirror Build alternatives; 4) Street improvements: same as the No Build; 5) Vehicle: 40- foot, low-floor CNG buses for Lakeshore Boulevard and local connecting routes; and 60-foot, articulated low-floor CNG buses on St Clair and Euclid Avenues 6) Service span: Match Red Line service hours; 7) Peak headways: 71/2 minute peak headways to match current Red Line service and 15- minute off-peak headways; 8) Background bus network: Adjust network to better serve Euclid 9) Park-N-Ride and transfer facilities: Optimization of bus/rail and bus/bus transfers at Windermere; 10) Storage and Maintenance Facility: Assumes use of existing bus facilities.
The Do Minimum alternative gets carried forward through the entire project evaluation process. It includes minor highway investments such as traffic signalization improvements, enhanced bus services on major thoroughfares. This alternative is currently being defined.
4.3.3 Build Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
Initial conceptual alternatives were defined to test the potential applicability of the appropriate transit technology options, route configurations and station options to meet the goals and objectives of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study. Many of the initial alignment alternatives resulted from public comments received during public meetings and Open Houses and through comments received from the study website and Facebook pages. The proposed alternatives for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study were evaluated based on the project goals and objectives conceived during project scoping. Evaluation criteria were developed directly from these project goals and objectives, which flowed from the purpose of the project. These evaluation factors include transportation impacts, cost-effectiveness, 65 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
potential for transit oriented development and growth near stations and likely community support. Nine alignment alternatives with several routing variation options were evaluated as part of the initial screening of alternatives in accordance with agreed upon evaluation criteria. The evaluation centered on the principle goals of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study, which are listed in Table 4-1.
The screening criteria included stakeholder comment, ridership, competitive travel times (versus automobile travel), potential environmental impacts, and ability to integrate with other public transportation services. The rationale for the determining which Build alternatives were considered and eliminated and which were advanced to more detailed technical analysis as part of the multiple screenings is summarized in Table 4-2 on the following pages.
4.3.4 Summary Findings of Alternatives Screening
The alternatives analysis used two levels (or tiers) of screening to select the preferred alternative, which is advanced to the Preferred Alternative Report. The first tier initial alternatives screening evaluated certain promising alternatives to discern which of the alternatives should be advanced to the more rigorous Tier 2 detailed alternatives screening analysis. The summary of the findings are reported.
Summary of Tier 1 Screening During the Tier 1 screening phase, RTA worked together with the Cities of Cleveland, East Cleveland and Euclid and the SIC to identify the most attractive technology, alignment and station locations for the proposed Red Line/HealthLine extensions to maximize ridership, encourage community development and support the objectives of the RTA Strategic Plan. Tier 1 screening involved analyzing the initial list of alternatives, which included alignments, route deviations, station site selection and transit technology possibilities. More than 17 different alignment options passed through the initial screening process with particular emphasis being placed on identifying station locations that will provide convenient access for passengers to reach key residential, business and community attractions. The complete evaluation of the initial and promising alternatives was documented in the Tier 1 Initial Alternatives Screening Report (December 2013). Six Build alternatives were advanced to the Tier 2 screening. This included three alignments with four technology options and several termini options.
Summary of Tier 2 Screening
The second tier screening evaluated four rail alternatives and two BRT alternatives and compared them to the goals and objectives established for project evaluation and appraisal. The detailed findings of the comparative analysis are contained Tier 2 Detailed Alternatives Screening Report (August 2014). The findings were reviewed and commented on by the TSC, SIC and the public. The review comments received from the TSC, SIC and the public suggested that a Hybrid alternative be considered, which incorporated a short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road and alternated services on both alignments of the HealthLine extension. The Build alternatives advanced to the final tier of analysis are described in Section 4.3.5 below. These alternatives are then compared to the No Build and Do Minimum Alternatives.
66 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 4-2 Alternatives Considered and Results of Screening Process Rail-Build Description of Alternative Tier 1 and Tier 2 Screening Result and Explanation Result Alternative Alignment Option A1 Alternative A1 is an electrified heavy rail extension that diverges from the Red Line at Superior Station and runs north to Collinwood adjacent to the CSX Short Line freight railroad in the former Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT) right-of-way, which is owned by CSX. At Collinwood the alignment continues east adjacent to the CSX Chicago Line terminating near Euclid Square Mall located at Babbitt Road in Euclid. This line would have the potential to be extended to Lake County with stations in Wickliffe, Willoughby and potentially as far east as Mentor. Alternatives to the heavy rail technology option could be the utilization of FRA compliant diesel- electric hybrid rail technologies that could operate on Red Line tracks from University Circle and switch over to the CSX tracks near Superior Station or operate adjacent to the CSXT on the abandoned former CUT right-of-way.
Alignment Option A2 Option A2 is light rail transit/streetcar variant of Alternative A. This option is an High adverse impact to CSX, very high estimated probable cost to construct complicated junction electrified rail rapid transit extension using high/low platform railcars (Rapid+) that at Superior Station, high probable cost for high-platform stations on elevated embankments, Eliminated from further consideration. Alternative A diverges from the Red Line at Superior Station and runs north to Collinwood fewest number of stations, lowest numbers of residents and jobs within catchment area, very low adjacent to the CSX Short Line freight railroad in the former CUT right-of-way. At TOD opportunities. Does not meet purpose and need of fostering economic development. Collinwood the alignment diverges from the railroad corridor leaving the CSX railroad right-of-way in favor of street running north at East 152nd Street in Collinwood and continuing east along Lake Shore Boulevard to Downtown Euclid. The route could potentially be extended to Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County.
Alignment Option A3 Option A3 is also a light rail transit/streetcar variant of Alternative A. This option is a Rapid+ technology option that diverges from the Red Line at Superior Station and runs north to Collinwood adjacent to the CSX Short Line freight railroad in the former CUT right-of-way. At Collinwood the alignment diverges from the railroad corridor leaving the CSX railroad right-of-way in favor of street running north at East 140th Street in Collinwood and continuing east along Lake Shore Boulevard to Downtown Euclid. The route could potentially be extended to Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County. Alternative B is an electrified heavy rail Red Line extension that begins at Louis This was retained for being the only logical extension of the Red Line with the lowest capital cost Stokes Station at Windermere and continues to run east adjacent to the Norfolk and least adverse environmental impacts when compared to Alternative A. Detailed technical Southern (NS) freight railroad corridor. Alternative B would terminate at the Euclid analysis revealed that the Red Line should not be extended to Mentor or adjacent communities in Park-N-Ride near the intersection of St Clair Avenue and Babbitt Road in the Lake County as ridership dramatically decreased beyond Euclid Square Mall and Babbitt Road. Retained and advanced to preferred vicinity of Euclid Square Mall. This line could potentially be extended to Lake Extensions of rail to Lake County could be revisited in the future. Detailed technical analysis also Alternative B alternative report. DMU option eliminated County with stations in Wickliffe, Willoughby and perhaps as far east as Mentor. revealed that DMU technology for the extension was not cost effective due to the sharp decline in from further consideration. An alternative to the heavy rail technology would be the utilization of diesel-electric ridership potential because of the transfer penalty between modes to complete a trip to the West hybrid commuter rail technologies that could operate on Red Line and Norfolk Side and Airport. Southern tracks.
67 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Rail-Build Description of Alternative Tier 1 and Tier 2 Screening Result and Explanation Result Alternative Alternative C is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs north to Hayden Avenue using the RTA-owned private right-of-way. The alignment continues north on Hayden Avenue turning east along St. Clair Avenue traveling to Five Points, Although this alternative has good length and serves Five Points and the Waterloo Arts District, it which is the intersection of St. Clair, Ivanhoe Road and East 152nd Street. At Five has relatively lower TOD opportunities than Alternative E, which also serves Five Points and the Alternative C Points the alignment turns north on East 152nd Street and continues north across Eliminated from further consideration. Waterloo Arts District. Alternative E also scored higher in several other categories than the CSX railroad on the bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east through the Alternative C. Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again turns north on East 156th Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east to Downtown Euclid, with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County. Alternative D is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs north to Hayden Avenue using the RTA-owned private right-of-way. The alignment continues north on Hayden Avenue turning east along St. Clair Avenue traveling to Five Points, th High TOD potential serves Five Points, Nottingham Village and strengthens E. 185 Street which is the intersection of St. Clair, Ivanhoe Road and East 152nd Street. At Five corridor and Downtown Euclid. Stakeholder comment revealed a preference for using Euclid Alternative D Points the alignment continues east on St Clair Avenue to Nottingham Road and Eliminated from further consideration. Avenue rather than north on Hayden to St Clair to travel to Five Points. Very strong desire to turns north under the railroad overpass until reaching East 185th Street. At East facilitate new development on Euclid Avenue expressed by stakeholders. 185th Street, the alignment turns north along East 185th Street serving the East 185th commercial district up to Lakeshore Boulevard. At Lakeshore Boulevard the alignment turns east to Downtown Euclid with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County. Alignment Option E1 Alternative E is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Coit Road. At Coit Road the alignment turns northwest to East 152nd where it turns north and travels along East 152nd Street to Five Points at Ivanhoe and St. Clair. At Five Points the alignment continues north on East 152nd Street crossing over the CSX railroad on a bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east through the Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again turns north on East 156th Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east to Downtown Euclid, with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County.
Alignment Option E2 Highest population and employment catchment, serves the most activity centers, serve all three Alternative E2 is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension communities, strengthens Five Points, the Waterloo Arts District and is advanced to compare and that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid contrast E. 152nd Street alignment with Alternative D with the E. 185th Street alignment. Options E1 and E2 eliminated. Option E3 Alternative E Avenue to Noble Road. At Noble Road the alignment turns north to Woodworth Stakeholder comment revealed a strong preference for Ivanhoe to maximize the routing along retained. Rapid+ technology eliminated. Avenue where it turns west to East 152nd Street where the route then turns north Euclid Avenue. Detailed technical analysis revealed that the Rapid+ option was not cost on East 152nd Street and travels to Five Points at St. Clair. At Five Points the effective alignment continues north on East 152nd Street crossing over the CSX railroad on a bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east through the Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again turns north on East 156th Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east to Downtown Euclid, with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County.
Alignment Option E3 Alternative E3 is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. At Ivanhoe Road the alignment turns north to East 152nd and St. Clair. At Five Points the alignment continues north on East 152nd Street crossing over the CSX railroad on a bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east through the Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again
68 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Rail-Build Description of Alternative Tier 1 and Tier 2 Screening Result and Explanation Result Alternative turns north on East 156th Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east to Downtown Euclid, with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County. Although this alignment is the logical extension of the HealthLine BRT from Windermere east on Alternative F is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension Euclid Avenue, it has the lowest score of the BRT alternatives for TOD opportunity. Enhanced that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Alternative F bus improvements to the route 28 local bus with a skip-stop express bus overlay and articulated Eliminated from further consideration. Avenue to East 276th Street with a potential future extension to Wickliffe in Lake buses could be a low cost alternative to full BRT. Alternative B would be a faster and more County. reliable service alternative than a BRT extension on this route and it attracts more riders. Alignment Option G1 Alternative G1 is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Coit Road.
Alignment Option G2 Alternative G2 is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Noble Road. Second highest population and employment catchment, serves all three communities, and th Options G1 and G2 eliminated from further strengthens Five Points, Nottingham Village, East 185 Street and Downtown Euclid. Alternative consideration. Rapid+ technology option Alternative G G has the highest TOD potential of all alternatives examined. Stakeholder comment revealed a eliminated. Option G3 was retained and Alignment Option G3 strong preference for Ivanhoe to maximize the routing along Euclid Avenue. Detailed technical advanced to Preferred Alternative Report. Alternative G3 is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar analysis revealed that the Rapid+ option was not cost effective extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. At Ivanhoe Road the alignment turns north to East 152nd and St. Clair. At Five Points the alignment turns east on St Clair Avenue to Nottingham Road and then turns north under the railroad overpass until reaching East 185th Street. At East 185th Street, the alignment turns northeast and travels along East 185th Street serving the East 185th commercial district up to Lakeshore Boulevard. At Lakeshore Boulevard the alignment turns east to Downtown Euclid with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County. Alternative H is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Although this alternative has good length and serves Downtown Euclid and the Euclid High Alternative H Avenue to East 222d Street where it turns northeast and terminates in Downtown School and Euclid Municipal Center, it does not serve the Collinwood community and scores very Eliminated from further consideration. Euclid. The alternative can potentially be extended to the Shoregate Shopping low for TOD potential. Center in Lake County by turning east along Lakeshore Boulevard. Alternative I is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Although this alternative has good length and serves Downtown Euclid, it does not serve the Avenue to Chardon Road where it turns northwest and runs to East 200th Street th Collinwood community and scores relatively very low for TOD potential. East 200 Street is Alternative I where it then turns northeast to Lakeshore Boulevard. At Lakeshore Boulevard the Eliminated from further consideration. primarily a residential street and would create severe construction impacts for the people living alignment turns east and terminates in Downtown Euclid. The alternative can be along the alignment. extended to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County by continuing east along Lakeshore Boulevard. This alternative was an outgrowth of public comment after the Tier 2 Detailed Alternatives Screening process was completed and presented. The alternative is a phased introduction of BRT services in both the E and G alignments with Hybrid alternating service frequencies serving both route alignments. In addition, an This report highlights the findings from the follow-on technical analysis of this hybrid alternative. Advanced to preferred alternative report. Alternative extension of the Red Line to Noble Road to serve General Electric NELA Park and the relocation some of the pulsed bus services from the transit center at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere to Noble Road are included in the Hybrid alternative.
69 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
4.3.5 Build Alternatives Advanced and Considered
The following Build alternatives were subjected to more detailed technical analysis as part of the Tier 3 screening documented in this report.
Alternative B Alternative B is an electrified heavy rail transit Red Line extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and continues to run east adjacent to the Norfolk Southern (NS) freight railroad corridor. Alternative B would terminate at the Euclid Park-N-Ride near the intersection of St Clair Avenue and Babbitt Road in the vicinity of Euclid Square Mall.
Alternative E Alternative E is a HealthLine bus rapid transit/BRT Lite extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. At Ivanhoe Road the alignment turns left to Five Points at East 152nd Street and St. Clair Avenue. At Five Points the alignment continues north on East 152nd Street crossing over the CSX railroad on a bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east through the Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again turns north on East 156th Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east to Downtown Euclid and terminates at the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County.
Alternative G Alternative G is a HealthLine bus rapid transit/BRT Lite extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. At Ivanhoe Road, the route turns from Euclid Avenue northwest and travels along Ivanhoe Road to Five Points. At Five Points the alignment turns east on St Clair Avenue to Nottingham Road and then turns north under the railroad overpass until reaching East 185th Street. At East 185th Street, the alignment turns northeast and travels along East 185th Street serving the East 185th commercial district up to Lakeshore Boulevard. At Lakeshore Boulevard the alignment turns east to Downtown Euclid and terminates at the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County.
Hybrid Alternative The hybrid alternative involves the extension of both the HealthLine BRT and Red Line. The HealthLine BRT is extended to Lakeshore Blvd. /260th St. (Shoregate Shopping Center). Trips alternate between the alignment of Alternative E and Alternative G, with the split occurring at Five Points. The Red Line is extended from Louis Stokes Station at Windermere to Noble Rd. with an intermediate station at Shaw Ave. The service on the Red Line is increased with a 7.5 minutes headway in the peak period, east of Tower City station (existing headway on this segment is 15 minutes). Essentially, this maintains a peak period service of 7.5 minutes along the entire Red Line and its extension. The headway in the off-peak period remains at 15 minutes along the entire line and the extension.
4.3.6 Tier 3 Screening: Business Case
Financial analysis, evaluation of project justification criteria, consideration of wider economic impacts and some limited benefit cost analyses were conducted on the remaining alternatives as part of the process to select the preferred alternative. It was the purpose and intent of this report to make a recommendation of which alternative should be advanced to further study and the Project Development phase of the Capital Investment Grant process if warranted.
The remainder of this report examines the remaining Build alternatives being considered, which are depicted in Figures 4-1 through 4-4 on the following pages.
70 70 AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 4-1 Alternative B Red Line Extension
71
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 4-2 Alternative E HealthLine Extension via East 152nd Street/Waterloo Arts District
72
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 4-3 Alternative G HealthLine Extension via St. Clair Avenue/Nottingham Village
73
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Figure 4-4 Hybrid Alternative: Minimum Operable Segment of Red Line to Noble Road and HealthLine Extension Alternating between Alternatives E and G
74
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
5 Financial Analysis
Providing significantly improved transit service in the study area will require RTA, FTA, and other agencies and possibly private interests to share program capital costs such as land acquisition, costs of construction and related expenditures. RTA will then assume the responsibility for operating and maintenance (OPEX) costs. Both capital and OPEX costs have been evaluated on a preliminary basis for the final alignment alternatives.
The first objective of the financial analysis is to estimate capital costs and project annual operating expenses and revenues from a base year to the design year. The analysis of the sources and uses of funds is conducted to determine whether there are funding shortfalls in either capital or operating budgets for the project. This information is necessary to establish that enough financial resources are available for each year of the planning horizon. The objective of the financial analysis was to assess the magnitude of the additional funding and borrowing which will be required to support RTA’s financial capacity, both capital and operating, over a 30-year period from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2043 (FY14 to FY43) to build and operate the above described alternative as well as continue to operate and maintain its baseline system including implementation of the planned rail car replacement program. The major elements of the financial analysis are:
Capital costs of the transit facilities Operating and maintenance costs Revenue projections including increases from growth in farebox receipts and sales tax receipts Revenue from state and federal sources Risk associated with revenue and cost estimates Findings and conclusions
The calculation of costs and revenues depends on assumptions related to construction scheduling and phasing and the rate of growth in transit service expansion. This analysis is conducted in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars (current or inflated dollars) so that debt financing can be accounted for.
5.1 Capital Cost Expenditures Estimates of probable capital cost expenditures (CAPEX) are key ingredients in determining the cost- effectiveness, financial capacity and overall engineering feasibility of major capital investments. Capital costs are those expenditures that are incurred to design and construct the infrastructure and physical facilities. This includes the planning, design, and construction of stations, guideway structure, utilities, train control, maintenance facilities, power distribution system, communications system, vehicles, road improvements, parking lots, and other such items. At this stage of the analysis, land acquisition costs have not been estimated and are not included in the analysis.
Capital cost estimating methodologies are intended to yield cost estimates useful in comparing the cost effectiveness of various transit alternatives being considered. Estimates are typically developed at unit cost levels to provide a consistent basis for comparisons across each study alternative. This basis also supports the re-application of unit capital costs to specific investment alternatives, as definitions of alternatives are refined, changed or new alternative options are created.
At this early planning phase, estimates of probable cost were developed based on unit costs for significant construction items in order to provide a consistent basis of comparison for each alternative.
75
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Preliminary estimates of probable costs were prepared for each technology option and alternative, which consist of the following:
Mode of operation (i.e. HRT, BRT ) Differing segment lengths of elevated structure or at-grade typical sections Station and design elements surrounding the stations. Operating configuration including the number of transit vehicles where required.
Unit costs were estimated by obtaining data from several sources: cost history from local public works projects, experience of metro and public transport projects from other cities and other published sources. This broad-based approach yields estimated costs that reflect local construction pricing and address the specific needs of rail transit construction projects. As built construction costs from the HealthLine and recent Red Line improvements were also available and used to develop cost estimates for specific bus rapid transit and rail transit system components. Detailed explanation of the methodologies and unit costs used to derive the estimates of probable capital cost expenditures is detailed in the Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Report.15
5.1.1 Estimates of Probable Capital Cost Expenditures
Estimates of probable capital expenditures for infrastructure are presented in US dollars escalated to year of expenditure. These costs represent the total project costs including guideway structures, operating and maintenance facilities, control and communication systems, stations, special conditions, vehicles, utility relocation costs and add-on costs which include engineering and design, project management, construction management, agency costs and allocated and unallocated contingencies.
Capital costs were estimated based on planning level project definitions. Non-construction costs used in the capital cost estimate were developed using standard industry practice and locally gained experience for projects of this complexity. These costs include project management, project administration, design, construction management, quality assurance, quality control, contractor allowances, insurance, start-up and testing, and project reserve. The estimated capital costs do NOT include finance charges. The capital costs also do NOT include costs of land acquisition, building protection or demolition, tenant or business relocation, and other related real property costs. Nor do the costs consider the time impacts of such property related impacts.
The total capital costs to construct the Build alternatives being evaluated are summarized in Table 5-1 below and follow the FTA Standardized Cost Category (SCC) nomenclature and definition.
Table 5 -1 Estimates of Probable Capital Expenditures ($000s) SCC Description Alt B Alt E Alt G Hybrid Category 10 Guideway and track elements 151,460 159,667 158,189 227,082 Stations, stops, terminals, 20 34,185 29,517 29,517 39,783 intermodal centers Support facilities: yards, 30 0 0 0 0 depots, buildings
15 AECOM, Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Report, January 16, 2014. 76
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
SCC Description Alt B Alt E Alt G Hybrid Category Site work and special 40 234,812 102,152 101,206 145,283 conditions 50 Systems 144,668 37,102 36,932 51,250 Construction Subtotal (10-50) 565,125 328,438 325,844 463,398 Right-of-way, land, existing 60 0 0 0 0 improvements 70 Rolling stock 0 23,100 23,100 23,100 80 Professional services 198,000 54,000 53,000 77,000 90 Unallocated contingency 153,000 25,000 25,000 36,000 100 Estimated finance costs 0 0 0 0 Total Project Costs (10-100) $916,125 $430,538 $426,944 $599,498 Annualized Capital Costs $25,890 $13,829 $13,734 $16,785 Source: AECOM; Capital Cost Estimating Methodology and Results Report; March 2014 and revised November 2015.
The construction costs vary considerably due to alignment length and other factors. The number of transit vehicles, stations and other communications and control elements are identical as can be seen in the cost categories. The Hybrid alternative includes the Red Line extension to Noble Road and the associated costs with BRT operating on both alignments. The cost of Red Line extension was simply calculated by examining the cost per mile of the extension to Babbitt Road and multiplying the cost per mile times the miles of the minimum operable segment extension. This 1.2 mile extension was determined to cost approximately $176.7 million. The remainder of the $599.5 million capital cost estimate of $422.8 million is the cost of the HealthLine BRT extension on the two alignments. 5.1.2 Estimates of Annualized Costs
The evaluation of the cost effectiveness of an alternative requires that all evaluation measure (capital costs, operations and maintenance costs and user benefits) be expressed in annual terms. Since capital costs are estimated as a total expenditure of constant (base year) dollars, an annual payment will be computed that is equivalent to what is in reality a one-time expenditure of capital funds. For each capital cost item, the annualized equivalent will be computed through application of the following annualization factor: 푖×(1+푖)푛 퐴푛푛푢푙푖푧푎푡푖표푛 퐹푎푐푡표푟 = (1+푖)푛−1 Where: i = discount rate; and n = economic life. The annualized cost of the line item is the total cost of that line item multiplied by its annualization factor. Annualization factors have been determined based on FTA-prescribed guidance for economic life and discount rates. The method for calculating the annualized capital cost is embedded in the FTA New Starts SCC Workbook. The summation of all annualized line item costs gives the overall annualized cost for the alternative. The last row of Table 5-1 above lists the annualized capital costs for the various alternatives under consideration.
77
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
5.2 Operating and Maintenance Cost Expenditures (OPEX) Operating and maintenance expenses (OPEX) include all expenditures required to provide daily service, including pro-rata RTA system administrative costs, wages and benefits for transit vehicle operators and maintenance workers, security, and the maintenance of the transit guideway, stations, facilities, buses and rolling stock. Operation and maintenance costs were evaluated for RTA’s bus and rail services. Total RTA system operating costs in 2014 were $248 million.16 The estimate of expenditures for operations in 2015 is $247 million.17
The development of estimated annual operating and maintenance costs for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study can be developed several different ways. One way is to base the estimates on the average unit costs derived from an examination of rail and bus operating costs in other cities. Another way is to use a cost build-up approach, which is a zero-base budgeting technique. For purposes of determining and testing operating cost assumptions in the alternatives analysis, the average unit cost approach was used. The OPEX cost estimating methodologies are outlined and described in more detail in the Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodology Report.18
Incremental bus and rail operating costs are based on the operating plans developed for each of the action alternatives evaluated. Each of the Build alternatives has individualized operating plans optimizing service features in the study area. The substantial increase in operating miles for the Red Line or HealthLine extension was partially off-set by changes in the underlying bus services operating for each of the route alternatives under study. The reductions in parallel bus miles of service varied between 98,300 fewer annual miles of bus service for the Alternative B Red Line extension and the elimination of 269,800 annual miles duplicate bus services on Lake Shore Boulevard for Alternative G. Alternative E saw smaller reduction in bus miles at 141,700 fewer annual bus miles. The Hybrid alternative combines the net operating savings associated with operating the Red Line to Noble Road and the BRT operating alternating service on both HealthLine extension alignments. The relevant operating statistics that drive the operating cost models and the resulting estimates of incremental cost are presented in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 Estimates of Probable Operating Expenditures (OPEX) Description Alt B Alt E Alt G Hybrid Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate Shoregate Technology HRT HRT BRT BRT BRT Route miles 6.5 1.2 8.8 10.5 15.3 Stations 7 2 23 23 31 Vehicles 0 0 20 20 20 Change in underlying bus network (miles) -98,300 -65,000 -269,800 -180,500 -224,500 New annual vehicle miles 988,000 197,600 985,000 975,000 1,177,000 New annual vehicle hours 47,000 9,038 79,000 79,000 88,000 Estimated OPEX ($ millions) $11.9 $2.3 $6.1 $7.0 $9.4 Source: Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodology Report; March 16, 2014
16 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Annual Report, 2014. 17 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Quarterly Management Report, August 2015. 18 AECOM; Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodology Report; March 16, 2014. 78
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
5.3 Sources of Funds This section describes the baseline revenues available to RTA over the 30-year period for planning, design, construction, and OPEX and the assumptions used in the cash-flow model and analysis. RTA receives revenues from a number of federal, state, and local sources. These include revenues that are unrestricted as to their use, revenues that are restricted to OPEX, and revenues that are restricted to use for capital projects. RTA typically commits its unrestricted revenues and its revenues restricted to OPEX to cover its ongoing operating costs in advance of other expenditures. Any revenues beyond those needed for O&M are considered net revenues available for debt service and capital and are used for those purposes.
Unrestricted operating revenues are derived from farebox receipts. Currently, RTA covers nearly 20 percent of its annual operating expenses from farebox receipts. Passenger fares contributed about $49.1 million to RTA’s operating revenues in 2014, while operating expenses were $248 million. The amount was up from $48.7 million in 2013 and nearly 33 percent higher than the farebox revenue received 10 years earlier. The projected revenue for passenger fares in 2015 is $49.9 million, which is an increase of 1.6 percent over 2014. The increase in farebox revenue is due in large part to judicious increases in fare rates over the ten year period and increases in ridership since the end of the Great Recession. Over the past 10-year period, the revenue per boarding also increased from $0.64 to $1.00.
Table 5 -3 RTA Farebox Receipts and Passenger Farebox Revenue per Year Passengers Revenue Passenger 2014 $ 49,085,267 49,271,617 $1.00 2013 $ 48,699,580 49,206,289 $0.99 2012 $ 49,237,857 48,200,000 $1.02 2011 $ 48,017,726 46,210,832 $1.04 2010 $ 47,153,709 42,419,301 $1.11 2009 $ 49,757,083 45,612,053 $1.09 2008 $ 48,173,966 56,667,452 $0.85 2007 $ 43,467,204 60,187,823 $0.72 2006 $ 40,587,880 69,199,174 $0.59 2005 $ 39,300,036 65,542,234 $0.60 2004 $ 37,289,919 57,868,273 $0.64 Source: RTA Annual Reports, 2004 - 2015
For the financial analysis, existing ridership was assumed to change with the change in underlying population growth in Cuyahoga over the 30 year period. The 2010 to 2040 data and forecasts of population growth was sourced from the Ohio Development Services Agency (ODSA) County Population Forecasts. ODSA projects a 13 percent cumulative drop in Cuyahoga County population from 2010 (US Census) to 2040 or from 1,280,122 in 2010 to 1,113,380 in 2040.
The ridership analysis provided estimates of additional annual trips due to the respective Red Line/HealthLine extensions. New ridership spurred by the Build Alternatives was based on the FTA’s STOPS travel demand model projection: Alternative B (HRT) was projected to ramp up within the first three years after its start-up operation and achieve 4,022,400 annualized trips. Similarly, Alternatives E and G (BRT) were projected to ramp up within the first three years after its start-up operation and achieve 3,000,000 to 3,127,200 annualized trips respectively. The Hybrid alternative would generate 3,777,600 annual trips.
79
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The average fare rate was estimated by dividing the total passenger fare revenue in FY 2014 over the reported ridership. As reported in the 2014 Adopted Budget, the average fare rate was assumed to increase by 1.5 percent in FY 2015 and FY 2016. The average fare is escalated by the consumer price index (CPI) thereafter.
Projections of farebox revenues are made by projecting the increase in fare per boarding and the growth in passenger boardings. Projections of passenger boardings are derived from the travel demand forecasts prepared for the long-range transportation plans and used throughout the project development process. There were over 49 million annual total system-wide boardings in 2014.
5.3.1 Sales and Use Tax
A one percent Sales and Use Tax on sales of tangible personal property and on other transactions subject to the State Sales and Use Tax within the boundaries of Cuyahoga County is RTA’s major source of revenue. The one percent tax is of unlimited duration and was approved by the voters of Cuyahoga County in July 1975. The tax is levied and collected at the same time and on the same transactions as the permanent five percent Sales and Use Tax levied by the State, plus the one-half percent temporary state sales tax, one-quarter percent levied for the Global Center for Health Innovation, and the one percent tax levied by Cuyahoga County.
The level of sales tax receipts depends on sales tax rates, the total population buying goods and services in the county and the strength of the local economy, which can be somewhat volatile. The Sales and Use Tax is the largest source of operating revenue for RTA. The significantly large population loss in Cuyahoga County between 1970 and the most recent census in 2010 (441,000 people) has had a severe impact on RTA sales tax receipts. It is estimated that the loss of sales tax revenue to RTA resulting from this population decline is currently $67.9 million annually. This decline in sales tax revenue will persist as population continues to migrate out of Cuyahoga County. The revenue generated from this local-option sales tax was $197.1 million in 2014.
Table 5 -4 RTA Sales and Use Tax (2004 – 2014) Year Sales and Use Tax 2014 $ 197,118,776 2013 $ 189,630,645 2012 $ 181,219,251 2011 $ 173,242,329 2010 $ 163,220,649 2009 $ 154,586,220 2008 $ 173,568,817 2007 $ 171,661,508 2006 $ 168,615,372 2005 $ 168,997,361 2004 $ 165,433,059 Source: RTA Annual Reports, 2004 – 2014
Sales and use tax revenue accounted for 74.5 percent of RTA revenue for FY14 as compared to 72.4 percent for FY13 and for 73.6 percent for FY12. Revenue received from sales and use tax for FY14 increased approximately $10.8 million (5.7%) compared to an $8.4 million (4.6%) increase in 2013 from the year ended December 31, 2012. This increase was a result of the expansion of the State of Ohio Medicaid program beginning in early 2014 which broadened the base for the Medicaid managed care premium tax; and increased spending in the economy.
80
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The sales tax was assumed as the principle non-federal source to raise additional revenue to support RTA’s capital program and operating needs over a 30-year period.
5.3.2 Federal and State Grant Assistance
Federal and state grant assistance funds are used for both capital and operating expenses. The federal government provides capital assistance grants to assist in the purchasing of capital assets and the renewal and reconstruction of infrastructure. This includes purchasing new buses and trains and rebuilding rail stations, constructing new transit centers and renewal of existing facilities. Some of these funds can be used to capitalize ordinary operating expenses for the purchase of major spare parts and heavy maintenance or overhaul of transit vehicles. Federal grants include both annual formula funds and competitive grant funds. The federal formula capital assistance program provides funds to each qualifying transit system in the nation, based upon factors such as population and population density. Although declines in population experienced in the Greater Cleveland area have impacted the relative amount of federal funds allocated to RTA, by and large, this program has kept pace with inflation.
The competitive federal discretionary capital grant program includes the Capital Investment Grant New Starts program, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) competitive grant program as well as grant funds from the stimulus American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The New Starts program funded the HealthLine bus rapid transit project. TIGER grants were obtained by RTA to fund rail station rehabilitation and renewal, including a $10.5 million TIGER II grant to rebuild the Cedar – University Station and an $8.9 million TIGER III grant to build the new Little Italy – University Circle Station. The amount of federal capital assistance received by RTA is tabulated in Table 5-5
The State of Ohio has never been an aggressive partner in funding public transportation when compared to other states. State funds include small amounts of allocated operating funds, as well as additional funding received for capital projects. For example, the State of Ohio was a major partner in the funding of the HealthLine bus rapid transit project in 2008 and the reconstruction of the Blue and Green Lines in the early years of RTA. The State of Ohio invests 99.23 percent of its resources on highways, but only 0.77 percent of the total transportation spending is on public transit, ranking it 40th out of the 50 states in the nation. All the states in the nation that spend less on transit than Ohio are more rural states, with an average population of only 20 percent of the population of Ohio.
In 2002, Ohio provided $43 million to the transit systems in Ohio. By 2007, that funding support dropped 63 percent to $16.3 million. In October 2010, Ohio announced a new three-year program ($50 million per year) to preserve existing transit services and allow the targeted implementation of new services. In February 2011, although the initial year of the above funding was awarded, RTA was notified that a significant amount of funds were being rescinded.
In the 2010/2011 approved State of Ohio budget, funding was cut another 33 percent to $10.6 million. This represents a 75 percent cut in State of Ohio funding since 2002. Neither the 2012/2013 budget, nor the 2014/2015 budget, provided any funding increase to transit.
In 2013, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) commissioned a Statewide Public Transit Needs Study19. The results of this study, published in December 2014, concluded that there is greater demand for transit service in Ohio than there is supply of services. The report suggested service should be expanded to address these unmet needs.
Although the ODOT study clearly made a strong case for the critical importance of significant additional State of Ohio funding for transit, no additional funds were appropriated in the 2015-2017 state biennial
19 The ODOT Transit Needs Study report can be found at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/Transit/TransitNeedsStudy/Pages/StudyHome.aspx
81
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
budget. Even the very modest $1 million statewide increase proposed by the Governor was cut out by the legislature during the budget process. The state grant assistance received by RTA in the past 10 years is also tabulated in Table 5-5.
Table 5 -5 Federal and State Grants Year Federal Grants State Grants 2014 $ 58,199,720 $ 2,064,063 2013 $ 59,795,463 $ 264,693 2012 $ 33,570,510 $ 1,135,673 2011 $ 51,104,869 $ 778,956 2010 $ 81,487,975 $ 1,807,284 2009 $ 73,648,082 $ 9,162,154 2008 $ 86,109,609 $ 9,370,685 2007 $ 74,319,702 $ 8,532,391 2006 $ 71,849,886 $ 6,011,798 2005 $ 55,888,368 $ 3,177,787 2004 $ 47,691,764 $ 3,675,597 Source: RTA Annual Reports, 2004 - 2014 5.4 Fiscal Capacity and Financial Analysis The objective of the financial analysis was to examine whether RTA would have the fiscal capacity, both capital and operating, over a 30-year period from FY13 to FY42 to build and operate the Red Line/Health Line extension as well as continue to operate and maintain its baseline system. To do so, the analysis first began with a detailed No Build Alternative of information describing RTA’s current operating and capital plans, and second “layered-on” each Build Alternative’s related capital and operating needs. Therefore the investment alternatives considered by the financial analysis were:
No Build plus Alternative B-HRT No Build plus Alternative E-BRT No Build plus Alternative G-BRT
The Hybrid alternative was not specifically analyzed. The cost of the Hybrid alternative is less than Alternative B and more than Alternative E. Judgments can be made using logic and reasoning to determine that the financial analysis for the Hybrid would fall somewhere in between the highest and lowest cost alternatives.
The Base case included both 2014-2018 capital improvement program (CIP) and a planned rail car replacement. RTA has recognized a need to replace the rail fleet at an estimated cost of $280 million, but has not identified any capital funding before 2024 to do so. In addition, RTA has identified $254 million in unfunded projects that are needed to restore the system to a state-of-good-repair. The stark math of the funding shortfall for bringing the system to a state-of-good-repair was highlighted by RTA senior management during a briefing to the Board of Trustees as it requested approval of the 2016 capital Improvement budget for infrastructure investments and took a five-year look at its needs through 2020.20
20 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; 2016-2020 Proposed Capital Improvement Plan; August 2015. 82
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The financial analysis21 for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study’s alternatives applied a financial analysis model that integrates projections of expenses and revenues, both capital It was determined RTA does not and operating, to assess financial capacity. The model have the fiscal capacity to addresses the capital cost, level of service and resulting undertake any of the Build operating and maintenance cost, ridership and resulting fare alternatives without a substantial revenue, and grant implications of each “line-item” capital infusion of capital funding from project or program. It also examined debt service requirements. local and state sources. Without any state support, the burden of providing additional capital funds RTA 2014 Budget provided data on the existing sources of necessary to bring RTA up to a RTA's operating and capital revenues. Debt Service on the state-of-good repair falls to the existing debt was provided by RTA. All revenue sources Greater Cleveland community. The including RTA Sales Tax was assumed to rise with the CPI. For existing 1 percent Sales and Use the purpose of the cash flow projections both HRT and BRT tax can no longer support system lines were assumed to start revenue service in 2025. renewal and expansion without further cuts to existing services. The RTA maintains the policy of contributing a minimum of 10 percent of its Sales & Use Tax revenues to the capital improvement fund. Consequently, the financial analysis had Sales Tax revenues split between capital and operating at the 10 percent to 90 percent ratio.
The financial analysis assumed that about 50 percent of the capital costs of each considered Build Alternative will be covered by the FTA New Starts grant. The 50 percent local match estimate was based on experience of other FTA New Starts projects applicants.
The financial analysis model summarizes and contrasts annual OPEX costs to annual operating revenues between 2014 and 2044. The model also indicates the net revenues available for debt service and capital. Also indicated is the level of coverage that sales tax revenues would provide for the annual financing costs that RTA is required to pay for its outstanding bonded indebtedness.
The strongest influences on RTA’s future fiscal capacity are its operating costs and sales and use tax revenues. The volatile sales and use tax yields about $197.1 million per year in revenues. RTA’s sales tax revenue accounts for about 68 percent of inflation-sensitive routine operating and maintenance outlays over the next 30 years (2014–2043).
It was quickly determined that RTA’s financial capacity to undertake major expansion projects is constrained by pressures to support current operations and to fund infrastructure replacement and renewal to bring the system up to a state-of-good-repair that sustain existing services. About 25 percent of total outlays during this period will be for ongoing capital replacement and depreciation-related investments to preserve existing transit services. By simply looking at the cash flows without any system expansion debt and capital investment grants, the unfunded gap of state-of-good-repair grows from the current estimate of $254 million over the next five years to $440.6 million over the next ten years. This does not include an estimated $280 million to replace the aging rail fleet.
Looking at the planned extension of the Red Line to Euclid in Alternative B including FTA capital investment grants for the New Start project, this unfunded gap widens even further over the 30 year planning horizon.
21 AECOM, Financial Analysis Report, June 20, 2014. 83
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
What the analysis shows is that the most important revenue stream is the local sales and use tax levied in the RTA service area, which is volatile and cannot support both sustained operation and infrastructure renewal let alone system expansion. The reported funding gap will continue to widen unless new revenue streams can be found that would provide the necessary funding to close this deficit in infrastructure renewal funding.
It was determined RTA does not have the fiscal capacity to undertake any of the Build alternatives without a substantial infusion of capital funding from local and state sources. The existing RTA sales tax revenue fluctuates with the local economy. The reality is RTA funding from the local sales tax is already stretched to pay for continued operation and routine maintenance. All of its capital funding must be applied to infrastructure renewal. There is no funding for system expansion.
Consequently, RTA must seek additional funding from local and state partners to expand the system. It was estimated that at least a 0.3 to 0.5 percent increase in the Sales and Use Tax would provide RTA with sufficient resources to bring the system up to a state-of-good repair, replace the rail fleet and generate sufficient resources to provide the local match necessary to attract federal capital investment grant (New Starts) funding.
5.5 Risk and Uncertainty Although the financial analysis has defined a likely future based on current funding trends, there are operating and capital risks associated with this project that could affect the financial plan.
The financial analysis determined that RTA does not currently have the fiscal capacity to undertake major system expansion investments. Strong fiscal discipline, restraint in expanding service and overhead, and other management measures to smooth cash flows over the past 10 years has allowed RTA to maintain a generally acceptable level of service to the Greater Cleveland community while significantly improving services in two major corridors: Euclid Avenue and Clifton Boulevard. But continued service cuts and fare increases alone cannot keep pace with funding needs for system renewal. The funding gap for state-of- good-repair will continue to widen unless RTA seeks an increase in the sales tax or the State of Ohio addresses the funding issues identified in the ODOT Statewide Transit Needs Study.
The financial analysis considered federal participation in the construction of the preferred build alternatives. However, the magnitude of the investment requires RTA to ensure that the local participation levels necessary to achieve program goals and objectives are attainable. It is very unlikely RTA will be able to generate sufficient local funding as part of the match for federal capital investment grants without an infusion of sales tax revenue or substantial state capital assistance. Some additional risks related to RTA fiscal capacity are described in the following sections.
5.5.1 Operating Risks
The operating-cost projections assume that RTA will continue to contain unit cost growth, particularly in the area of labor, fuel and materials. If the assumed operating efficiencies are not realized, the system- wide operating costs could be higher than those shown in the fiscal capacity analysis, and RTA’s long- term ability to balance its costs and revenues could be negatively affected. Changes in fares, fare policy, and fare structure affect ridership. Downtown and University Circle parking costs affect ridership. Downtown and University Circle employment levels affect ridership. Ridership affects fare revenue and cost recovery. Ridership also affects service levels, which in turn affect capital and operating costs. Emphasis on maximizing ridership and improving fare recovery are important elements of ensuring fiscal capacity.
84
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
5.5.2 Capital Cost Risks
There remain considerable uncertainties in the capital cost estimates for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study’s build alternatives because of limitations noted in the Capital Cost Methodology and Estimates Report (AECOM 2014). This is not unusual at the conceptual level of planning. A more refined cost estimate will be required during project development and engineering phases of the New Starts process as the project is advanced to the 30 percent design stage if warranted. Some of the uncertainties noted include the following:
At this planning phase, RTA has not appraised each parcel that would need to be acquired. No property acquisition costs have been applied.
Broad unit costs have been applied for key elements rather than estimates based on specific designs. Site-specific design will occur in the future engineering phases.
No specific allowances have been provided for utilities, environmental or cultural mitigation, or other special site conditions. Many of these costs were accounted for in unallocated broad contingency categories. As the design becomes more refined, these costs could be either more or less than the allowed contingency.
The rate of inflation could increase when this project is advancing to the construction phase, and this would raise all material and labor costs. Financial risks and interest rates could increase as capital markets respond to changes in the financial market and global economy. Sales and use tax receipts could fall below forecast levels if the economy slows.
5.6 Financial Analysis Conclusion Current law requires that proposed New Starts projects being considered be supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable funding sources to construct, maintain and operate the proposed Red Line/HealthLine extensions while maintaining and operating the entire public transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing services.
The rating for the current capital and operating condition is based upon the average fleet age, bond ratings, the current ratio as shown in the RTA’s most recent audited financial statement (ratio of current assets to current liabilities), and recent service history including whether there have been significant cuts in service. In arriving at a current condition rating, the majority of the emphasis will be placed on the fleet age and current ratio.
As discussed, RTA does not have adequate resources to build and operate any of the Build alternatives without adversely affecting the long-run sustainability of existing bus or rail systems. RTA does not have the ability to generate the local share needed to qualify for FTA Capital Investment Grant New Starts funding. In fact, RTA is currently considering another round of service cuts and fare increases to maintain financial stability and sustain existing service offerings.
The funding gap for state-of-good-repair will continue to widen unless RTA seeks an increase in the sales tax or the State of Ohio addresses the funding issues identified in the ODOT Statewide Transit Needs Study.
Therefore, it is very likely the Build alternatives being considered would be rated “low” for local financial commitment, which would affect the overall project justification rating for a Capital Investment Grant New Starts application.
85
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
6 Access and Ridership Estimates
Ridership is often used as a proxy for measuring economic and mobility benefits. This “Business Case” assumes that people who use a new public transport service are receiving benefits and the higher the ridership, the greater the economic benefit.
All forecasts of ridership provided in this report are the results of applying the FTA approved Simplified Trips on Project Software (STOPS). Originally the final alternatives were to be evaluated based on the use of the NOACA regional travel demand model, which was being refined and revalidated in parallel with this study effort. However, the model was not available in a timely manner for use on this project. Consequently, RTA reinstructed the consultant team to finish the analysis using STOPS.
6.1 Accessibility In general terms, accessibility can be defined as the ease of reaching places. The accessibility objective is concerned with increasing the ability with which people in different locations, and with differing availability of transport, can reach different types of places, be they work, school, shopping or other facilities. The term “accessibility” has been used in the past in several different, often overlapping ways, including the following:
ease of access to the transport system itself in terms of the proportion of homes within a certain distance of a bus stop or the proportion of buses which may be boarded by a wheel-chair user; ease of access to facilities, with the emphasis being on the provision of the facilities necessary to meet people’s needs within certain minimum travel times, distances or costs; the value that people place on having an option available, which they might use only under unusual circumstances (such as when the car breaks down) - ‘option value’ - or even the value people place on simply having the option and choice of an alternative that they have no intention of using - ‘existence value’; and Ease of participation in activities (for personal travel) provided by the interaction of the transport system, the geographical pattern of economic activities, and the pattern of land use as a whole.
For the purposes of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study, accessibility is measured by the number of people living or working within ½-mile of proposed station entrances, which is part of the FTA New Starts land-use criterion for project evaluation. The accessibility analysis also examined the ¼-mile catchment area, which is a comfortable walking distance to any form of public transportation.
6.1.1 Alternative B
Alternative B provides a direct route to the Euclid Square Mall area where the extension terminates at the Park-N-Ride lot near Babbitt Road. The alignment is located in freight railroad right-of-way. The alignment is generally parallel to Euclid Avenue, which is generally about ¼-mile south of the railroad alignment and never more than ½-mile away. The East 193rd Street Station serves Duggan Park with easy walk access. Connectivity to RTA local buses occurs at Noble Road Station and East 222nd Street. This alternative is consistent with City of Cleveland planning efforts to revitalize the Collinwood neighborhood centered on St. Clair Avenue between Five Points and Nottingham Road. The station at Dille Road supports the Nottingham Village redevelopment efforts. This alternative does support revitalization efforts in East Cleveland and Euclid. The number of residents and jobs located within the station catchment area are noted in Table 6-1 below.
86
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 6 -1 Alternative B - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area Criteria ¼- Mile ½-Mile Population 7,385 24,752 Jobs 2,233 10,050 Total 9,618 34,802 Source: US Census, 2010
6.1.2 Alternative E
Alternative E provides a direct route to the Collinwood area of the City of Cleveland from the existing Red Line/HealthLine terminus at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere. This HealthLine extension alternative would serve Euclid Avenue up to Ivanhoe Road and directly serves Five Points, Waterloo Arts District, Euclid Beach Metro Park, Wildwood Lakefront Metro Park, Humphrey Park, Villa Angela – St. Joseph High School, Euclid General Hospital and would terminate at the Shoregate Shopping Center providing connectivity to Laketran local bus service. This alternative is consistent with City of Cleveland planning efforts to revitalize the Collinwood neighborhood centered on Five Points and the Waterloo Arts District. This alternative is consistent with City of Euclid planning efforts to revitalize the lakefront and downtown area. This alternative provides some revitalization opportunities in East Cleveland along Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. The number of residents and jobs located within the station catchment area are noted in Table 6-2 below.
Table 6 -2 Alternative E - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area Criteria ¼- Mile ½-Mile Population 27,242 54,470 Jobs 4,659 8,744 Total 31,908 63,214 Source: US Census, 2010
6.1.3 Alternative G
Alternative G provides a direct route to the Collinwood area of the City of Cleveland from the existing Red Line/HealthLine branching at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere. This HealthLine extension alternative would serve Euclid Avenue up to Ivanhoe Road and directly serves Five Points at East 152nd Street and St Clair Avenue. The route would also serve, Nottingham Village, East 185th Street commercial district, Villa Angela – St. Joseph High School, Euclid General Hospital and would terminate at Shoregate Shopping Center providing connectivity to Laketran local bus service. This alternative is very consistent with City of Cleveland planning efforts to revitalize the Collinwood neighborhood centered on St. Clair Avenue between Five Points and Nottingham Road. This alternative is consistent with City of Euclid planning efforts for Lakeshore Boulevard. This alternative provides good revitalization opportunities in East Cleveland along Euclid Avenue. The number of residents and jobs located within the station catchment area are noted in Table 6-3 below. Table 6 -3 Alternative G - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area Criteria ¼- Mile ½-Mile Population 24,679 53,012 Jobs 4,928 10,117 Total 29,607 63,129 Source: US Census, 2010
87
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
6.1.4 Hybrid Alternative
The Hybrid alternative is an outgrowth of public comment after the Tier 2 screening process was completed and presented. The alternative is a phased introduction of BRT service characterized by minimum infrastructure improvements and by alternating service frequencies on Alternatives E and G serving both route alignments. This HealthLine extension alternative would serve Euclid Avenue up to Ivanhoe Road and directly serves Five Points, Waterloo Arts District, Euclid Beach Metro Park, Wildwood Lakefront Metro Park, Humphrey Park, and Upper St, Clair Avenue, Nottingham Village, East 185th Street commercial district, Villa Angela – St. Joseph High School, and Euclid General Hospital as well as Downtown Euclid. The combined HealthLine BRT routes would terminate at the Shoregate Shopping Center providing connectivity to Laketran local bus service from both routes. The Hybrid alternative also includes a short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road to serve General Electric NELA Park more effectively with direct service to the airport. With a new Red Line terminus at Noble Road, RTA could relocate some of the pulsed bus services from the transit center at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere resulting in increased economies of bus service operations and inducing economic regeneration in an area with significant redevelopment potential. The number of residents and jobs located within the station catchment area are noted in Table 6-4 below. Table 6 -4 Hybrid Alternative - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area Criteria ¼- Mile ½-Mile Population 27,339 61,072 Jobs 32,172 61,907 Total 59,511 122,979 Source: US Census, 2010 6.2 Ridership Forecasting Methods and Results RTA instructed the project team to use the FTA national model called Simplified Trips On Project Software (STOPS). “Trips on project” means any portion of a person’s linked trip using any segment of the project. This is essentially any boarding, which is commonly referred to as a rider. These terms are synonymous and may be used interchangeably. RTA refers to riders as its customers.
The use of the NOACA local travel demand model for ridership and travel impact purposes is not an option as it is still under development and the version currently being used is not conducive to generating reliable transit forecasts. In the interest of the project schedule and considering the nature of the alternatives that are being considered, the project team used the FTA STOPS model for screening and evaluating the alternatives under consideration.
All ridership and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) values presented in this report are current-year forecasts. FTA believes that the existing conditions provide the most easily understood, most reliable, and most readily available information for decision-making. FTA requires all sponsors to calculate the measure FTA requires all sponsors to calculate the measure for evaluation based on current year inputs. However, at the discretion of the project sponsors, FTA allows them to calculate the evaluation criteria using horizon year (either 10 years or 20 years in the future) as well. If sponsors choose to use the horizon year option as well, FTA will give a weight of 50 percent for the current year data and a weight of 50 percent for the horizon year data. The analysis presented in this report does not use a future horizon year evaluation.
88
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
6.2.1 Forecasting Methods using the STOPS Model
STOPS is a stand-alone software package that applies a set of travel models to predict detailed transit travel patterns for the No-build and Build alternatives, quantifies the trips-on-project measure for all travelers and for transit dependents, and computes the change in automobile VMT based on the change in overall transit ridership between the two alternatives. STOPS is fundamentally a conventional “four- step” model set that considers zone-to-zone travel markets stratified by household auto-ownership, employs a conventional mode-choice model to predict zone-to-zone transit travel based on zone-to-zone travel characteristics of the transit and roadway networks, and then assigns the trips predicted to use the various rail and bus-rapid-transit facilities (including the proposed project) in the transit network. STOPS is different from the conventional 4-step model in several important ways:
1) To represent overall travel patterns, STOPS replaces the trip-generation and trip- distribution components with worker-flow tabulations from the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). STOPS factors the worker flows to represent home-based work-trip patterns and to account for home-based non-work-trip patterns as well. STOPS uses the transit trip attractions predicted in each zone for home-based travel to characterize the non-home-based travel market. To enable predictions in different years, STOPS scales the resulting trip patterns to population and employment estimates provided by the user for any specific year.
2) To represent the transit system, STOPS replaces the coded transit network with data in the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) developed by local transit providers to support mobile and on-line transit trip-planning applications. To represent transit services different from the current system described in the GTFS data (the project, adjustments made to integrate the project into the system, services planned for future years, etc.), the user edits the GTFS data to add new services, and modify or delete current services.
3) To represent conditions on the roadway system, STOPS relies on zone-to-zone roadway times and distances derived from the regional travel model for both the current year and, if applicable, the future year. STOPS does not include any representation of the roadway network itself and does not assign predicted automobile trips to any network. STOPS computes the change in automobile person-miles of travel caused by shifts of trips from autos to transit by multiplying the predicted change in zone-to-zone transit trips by the zone-to-zone roadway travel distance.
4) STOPS has been calibrated and validated against current ridership on 24 fixed-guideway systems across the country.
The use of standardized data-sources – the CTPP worker flows and the GTFS transit descriptions – means that STOPS has consistent information across all metro areas regarding travel patterns and transit services. This consistency give STOPS a much better chance to discern actual travel behaviors that would otherwise be obscured by inconsistencies in conventions, definitions, data, quality control, and other elements of regional travel models and their maintenance.
This balance of this section describes various input files and parameters used in setting up STOPS for this study. It also discusses STOPS estimation of existing transit markets in the region, particularly Red Line and HealthLine travel markets.
89
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Definition of Current Year All the results presented in this document are for the ‘current year’. The current year represents year 2012 in terms of population and employment data. The auto skims used in STOPS are from the 2010 regional model used by the Northeast Ohio Area-wide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), which is the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The demographics and the highway network changes between 2010 and 2012 in the corridor are not strong enough to have meaningful impacts on the findings presented in this document. The modeling team obtained the ridership data such as the regional transit boardings, regional home-to-work linked transit trips, and station level boarding data from the 2013 on- board survey and the 2012 National Transit Database (NTD). Hence, the year 2012 is referred to as the “current year” in this document.
Transit Network The modeling team obtained the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data for RTA and Laketran in December 2013. For the purposes of developing current year demand, this GTFS data is used for both the existing and no-build scenarios. The only change in the no-build scenario GTFS data was the relocation of the East 120th Red Line Station to the new Little Italy – University Circle Station at Mayfield Road. The modeling team manually added the project service in the build alternative by editing the appropriate no build scenario GTFS files. Changes were made to the underlying transit network affected by the Build alternative service definitions. All the other transit services in the build alternative remained unchanged. The GTFS files received from Laketran had numerous errors that prevented it from being used directly. These files were corrected so that they could be run within STOPS.
MPO Auto Skims STOPS uses the zone-to-zone current year peak period automobile travel times from the regional travel demand forecasting model. The modeling team obtained these skims from the 2010 year NOACA model. The demographic and highway network changes between 2010 and 2012 are minimal to have any meaningful impact on the forecasts presented in this document.
MPO Population and Employment Data STOPS uses 2000 and 2012 MPO data to estimate growth factors that help convert the 2000 Census journey-to-work travel estimates to the 2012 levels. The modeling team obtained the 2000 and 2012 MPO population and employment data from NOACA.
The original data sets from the MPO showed a huge growth in the employment for the region from 1.049 million in 2000 to 1.263 million in 2012. This is because the 2000 and 2012 datasets are based on different sources. The 2000 data is based on CTPP 2000, which is known to under-report employment and the 2012 data is based on an expanded QCEW (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) from 2010. The comparable CTPP 2000 - based 2012 employment total (projected from the 2000 data) is 1.071 million. To be consistent in the employment growth between 2000 and 2012, the modeling team factored the 2012 employment data by 0.979 (=1.049/1.071) to obtain the 2000 employment data. This results in 1.237 million total employment in 2000 (and 1.263 million in 2012).
District System STOPS uses districts to define a logical grouping of TAZs in around the transportation corridors. District definitions are used for two purposes: 1) Growth factoring of the 2000 CTPP trips to estimate forecast year (2012 for this analysis) trips using MPO forecasts, and 2) summarizing and mapping STOPS model output with a logical rationale. Figure 1 in Chapter 2 of the Ridership Methodology and Results Report (2014) shows the district definitions used for this study.
90
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
System-wide and Station Level Model Boardings STOPS requires the user to input current year regional weekday transit boardings and weekday linked journey-to-work and from-work transit trips. The modeling team used the total unlinked trips obtained from the 2013 on-board survey. The corresponding numbers for RTA and Laketran are 160,533 and 2,415 respectively for a total of 162,948 system-wide weekday unlinked transit trips. The survey also had a total of 48,890 weekday linked journey-to-work and from-work transit trips.
STOPS also requires the user to input the boardings for all fixed guideway stations in the current year transit system. These numbers are used by STOPS for station-level calibration. Currently, RTA operates one heavy rail line (the Red Line), three light rail lines (the Blue, Green and Waterfront lines) and one BRT (HealthLine). The modeling team estimated the average weekday ridership on each of these lines based on the average weekday unlinked trips reported in the 2012 NTD.
More detailed discussion of the calibration and validation of the STOPS model can be found in the Tier 2 Alternatives Ridership Forecasting Report (March 2014).
6.2.2 Ridership Forecast Results Public transportation ridership is typically quantified in two ways. Summing transit boardings is the most common measure. A transit boarding occurs whenever a passenger boards a public transportation vehicle in the course of making a trip. Boardings are calculated for peak travel in the peak direction and at stations as a means of determining system capacity at peak loading points. Station level ridership allows designs to consider the passenger flows at these critical locations along the routes being evaluated. Peak hour boardings are then factored up based on survey data to derive average daily ridership. A linked trip is the other common measure of ridership. A linked trip includes all segments of a trip that a passenger travels from a trip origin to a trip destination. For example, a linked trip could include a walk from home to a bus stop, a bus ride with a transfer to a rail route, and a walk to the final destination. A single linked trip could require more than one transit boarding, especially if transfers are required. The FTA New Starts guidance uses the linked trip as its underlying measure of system effectiveness. A transit trip is considered as a “project linked trip” if the trip involves boarding or alighting at one of the project stations. The annualization factor used to be forecast annual ridership can be computed based on the observed average daily transit ridership when compared to weekends and holidays. The STOPS model permits an annualization factor of 300. This project used an annualization factor of 300. In other words, annual ridership is 300 times the average daily forecast. Table 6-5 shows the operating statistics and average weekday transit trips on the project for the proposed Build alternatives under consideration. STOPS forecasts of linked trips on the project are very similar for all the alternatives. The Red Line extension to Babbitt Road generates the most annual trips with over 13,400 riders using the extension. The Red Line extension to Noble Road generates 3,900 daily trips. The STOPS model estimates that approximately 30 percent of the riders require a transfer.
91
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 6 -5 Forecast Transit Trips on Project (Riders) Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Technology HRT HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Shoregate/ Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate Noble Route Miles 6.5 1.3 10.5 10.4 14.0
Stations 7 2 23 23 31
Peak Period Frequency 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min
Average Daily Riders 13,400 3,900 10,082 10,424 12,592
Annualized Riders 4,022,400 1,170,000 3,024,600 3,127,200 3,777,600 Source: AECOM, STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and revisited November 2015.
Of the HealthLine extensions, Alternative G (BRT) has the highest total daily transit trips on the project at 10,424 trips when the service is terminated Shoregate, which is 600 more daily trips than when the BRT service was terminated at East 260th and Lakeshore Blvd. Alternative E (BRT) has the third highest ridership at 10,000 daily trips when the BRT service is terminated at Shoregate, which is 500 more trips than when the service is terminated at East 260th and Lakeshore Blvd. The Hybrid alternative serves both the Waterloo and Nottingham Village communities with 15 minute service. Service between Windermere and Five Points is every 7.5 minutes as is the service on Lakeshore Boulevard between East 185th Street and Shoregate Shopping Center. The Hybrid alternative generates 12,600 daily riders, of which 3,900 board Red Line trains at Shaw and Noble Road Stations. The HealthLine BRT extension of the Hybrid operating on alternating frequencies over both alignment options generates 8,700 daily riders. This is a reduction in BRT ridership when compared to Alternatives E and G. This reduction in ridership for the combined routes results from reduced frequencies on the branches of the service routes and competition from the short Red Line extension.
92
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
7 Evaluation of Alternatives
The proposed alternatives for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study were evaluated based on the project goals and objectives conceived during project scoping. Evaluation criteria were developed directly from these project goals and objectives, which flowed from the purpose of the project. These evaluation factors include transportation impacts, cost-effectiveness, potential for transit oriented development and growth near stations and likely community support. The goals, objectives and evaluation criteria were highlighted in the Purpose and Need Report and reiterated in Section 4.1 of this report. The evaluation will center on the principle goals of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study:
Goal 1: Mobility – Providing more transportation choices, especially for transit dependent groups, such as low-income and minority populations, and the aged to jobs, housing and other trip purposes. Provide high-quality bus and rapid transit service for local trips between new employment in the eastern suburbs and the core study area, as well as for access to key core destinations, including University Circle and downtown Cleveland. Increase transit ridership and mode share for all communities. Establish a more balanced transportation system which enhances modal choices and encourages walking, bicycle and transit use..
Goal 2: Economy and Economic Development – Provide cost effective solutions and value for money invested. Encourage transit-oriented mixed-use development along the corridor that would support population and employment growth along the corridor. Reinvest in the local economy by maximizing the economic impact of transportation investments as related to land use redevelopment, infrastructure improvements, and housing. Support regional economic development initiatives. Incorporate considerations into new development design that support transit as a transportation option.
Goal 3: Environmental Sustainability – Delivering world-leading performance in environmental sustainability through responsible use of resources, minimizing pollution, and preserving Cleveland’s environment. Minimize adverse air, land and water environmental impacts of transportation investments. Serve households at a range of income levels. Support lifestyle choices for environmentally sustainable communities. Implement strategies for reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Promote green and sustainable technologies and solutions that enhance economic development opportunities.
Goal 4: Strengthen Study Area Image and Identity – Support private investments in transit friendly, and pedestrian and bicycle-focused developments. Support improvements in neighborhood connectivity through attention to safety, comfort and aesthetics in the design of transportation infrastructure. Serve areas of and complement initiatives for affordable housing.
This section summarizes how each alternative promotes economic competitiveness and regional vitality by examining the improvements to regional mobility, including public transportation ridership impacts and local roadway impacts.
7.1 Goal 1 Mobility
Mobility benefits are measured by accessibility, public transport network boardings, congestion relief and other transportation system user benefits.
7.1.1 Accessibility
Ridership was highlighted separately in Chapter 6. Accessibility is measured by the number of people living or working within ½-mile of station entrances. The differences in ridership among the alternatives
93
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
under consideration are due in large measure to the access of the system as measured by the proximity of residents and jobs to the station locations for each alignment. Table 7-1 tabulates the number of residents and jobs within station catchment areas, which are the ¼-mile and ½-mile radii distances measured from the center of the station platform. The ¼-mile catchment area is the comfortable walk distance and the ½-mile catchment area is the FTA measure for evaluating land-use in station areas.
Table 7 -1 Alignment Alternatives Catchment Area Analysis
Criteria Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Shoregate/ Terminus Babbitt Shoregate Shoregate Noble
Length of alignment 6.5 8.8 8.7 15.3
Number of stations 7 23 23 31
¼-mile Station Area Catchment
Total population 7,385 27,234 24,687 32,172
Total employment 2,233 11,852 11,009 13,888
Population + employment 9,618 39,086 35,696 46,060
Total catchment per station 1,374.0 1,699.4 1,552.0 1,485.8
Total catchment per mile 1,479.7 4,441.6 4,103.0 3,010.5
½-mile Station Area Catchment
Total population 24,752 54,480 53,038 61,907
Total employment 10,050 23,504 23,326 26,755
Population + employment 34,802 77,984 76,364 88,662
Total catchment per station 4,971.7 3,390.6 3,320.2 2,860.1
Total catchment per mile 5,354.2 8,861.8 8,777.5 5,794.9
Source: US Census 2010.
The total ¼-mile catchment of Alternative B is approximately 24 -30 percent of the total catchment of Build alternatives E and G respectively. However, the total catchment per station for Alternative B is nearly identical to Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative. Total catchment per mile for Alternative B is approximately 33 – 50 percent less the total catchment per mile for Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid alternative. Total ¼-mile catchment for Alternative E when compared to Alternative G is slightly higher, with E having more people and G having more jobs within the ¼-mile catchment area. The Hybrid catchment is significantly larger because it aggregates the population and employment with
94
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
the station areas of all the HealthLine extension alternatives plus two stations for the short Red Line extension. But on per station basis it isn’t that that different than the other alternatives.
The total ½-mile catchment of Alternative B is approximately 55 percent of the total catchment of Build alternatives E and G. However, the total catchment per station for Alternative B is 1.8 times more than the total catchment per station for Alternatives E and G. Total catchment per mile for Alternative B is approximately 90 percent of the total catchment for Alternatives E and G. Total catchment for Alternative E when compared to Alternative G is nearly identical with E having slightly more people and G having slightly more jobs within the ½-mile catchment area. The Hybrid catchment is significantly larger because it aggregates the population and employment with the station areas of all the HealthLine extension alternatives plus two stations for the short Red Line extension.
7.1.2 Congestion Relief
Congestion relief is measured by the total new weekday linked transit trips (new riders) attracted to the project by the various Build alternatives being considered. This is accomplished by comparing the total weekday linked transit trips for the No Build alternative with total weekday linked transit trips for the alternatives being considered. Table 7-2 shows the average weekday riders, new daily transit riders attracted by the proposed Build alternatives and the FTA rating for congestion relief.
Table 7 -2 Congestion Relief (New Riders)
Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Technology HRT HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT
Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate Shoregate/ Noble Route Miles 6.5 1.3 10.5 10.4 14.0 Stations 7 2 23 23 31 Peak Period Frequency 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min Average Daily Riders 13,408 3,900 10,082 10,424 12,592 New Transit Riders 11,070 2,820 3,902 4,316 5,531 FTA Congestion relief Medium-high Medium Medium Medium Medium rating Source: AECOM, STOPS model runs April 2014 and March 2015.
All the alternatives would be rated medium for congestion relief except for the Red Line extension to Babbitt Road, which would be rated medium-high.
7.1.3 Mobility Benefit
FTA evaluates mobility improvements for New Start projects as the total number of linked trips using the proposed project, with a weight of two given to trips that would be made on the project by transit dependent persons. Linked trips using the proposed project include all trips made on the project whether or not the rider boards or alights on the project or elsewhere in the transit system. Trips made by transit dependent persons are trips made by persons in households that do not own a car. The mobility improvements measure is computed as follows:
95
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
푇푟푎푛푠푖푡 푑푒푝푒푛푑푒푛푡 푡푟푖푝푠 표푛 푝푟표푗푒푐푡 ∗ 2 + 푁표푛 − 푡푟푎푛푠푖푡 푑푒푝푒푛푑푒푛푡 푡푟푖푝푠 표푛 푝푟표 = 푊푒푖푔ℎ푡푒푑 푇표푡푎푙 푇푟푖푝푠 푢푠푒푑 푓표푟 푀표푏푖푙푖푡푦 퐵푒푛푒푓푖푡 푖푚푝푟표푣푒푚푒푛푡 푟푎푡푖푛푔.
Table 7-3 shows the results of the computations for each of the Alternatives under consideration. The results are for Alternative B (HRT) operating at a 7.5 minute peak period frequency between Tower City and Babbitt Road or Noble Road and BRT options of Alternatives E and G terminating at Shoregate Shopping Center. A Hybrid alternative with BRT service operating every 15-minutes alternating routes E and G to Shoregate and a short Red Line extension to Noble Road is also considered and highlighted.
Table 7 -3 New Start Mobility Improvements Criterion
Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate Shoregate /Noble
Daily trips on project 13,408 3,900 10,082 10,424 12,592
% trips from zero car households 31.8% 33% 38.4% 37.4% 33.7%
Transit dependent trips 4,270 1,287 3,871 3,902 4,244
Weighted dependent trips 8,540 2,574 7,742 7,804 8,488
Non-transit dependent trips 9,138 2,613 6,211 6,522 8,348
Weighted Total trips used for Mobility Benefit calculation 17,678 5,187 13,953 14,326 16,836
Annualized mobility improvements 5,303,400 1,556,100 4,185,900 4,297,800 5,050,800
FTA Mobility Improvement rating Medium Low Medium-low Medium-low Medium Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and November 2015 New Start template calculations.
Most of the alternatives would be rated low or low-medium using FTA’s criterion definition for mobility improvements with the threshold being 2.5 – 4.9 million trips. However, the annualized mobility improvement for Alternative B, the Red Line extension to Euclid generates 5.3 million weighted trips resulting in a medium rating. In addition, the Hybrid alternative with alternating BRT service on both routes E and G plus the short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road would generate a mobility benefit that exceeds 5 million weighted trips also resulting in a medium rating. Please note that the Red Line extension to Noble Road and the singular BRT extensions of Alternatives E and G rate low or medium- low. It is the Hybrid alternative combining all these services that generates the FTA medium rating.
7.1.4 Highway and Traffic Impacts
In this section, the effects of the Red Line/HealthLine extension on the street and highway transportation system are investigated. The Build alternatives have the potential for both positive and negative impacts on the street and highway system. On a regional level, the public transportation improvements would be 96
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
expected to improve mobility by providing an alternate choice to travel by automobile. This would be measured through changes in vehicle miles traveled by automobile. On a local level, operating BRT through city streets will affect vehicular traffic, which may cause added delay and congestion. In addition, the location of the stations could also have an effect on localized traffic flow and parking. Regional and corridor impacts on congestion are measured through changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), levels of service for freeways, street lanes, and intersections. All of these measures are for the current year of 2014 and are derived from the STOPS model. The effectiveness of the Build alternatives to alter travel patterns on a regional basis can be evaluated in the changes in VMT.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The greater the numbers of auto vehicle trips eliminated by diverting people to public transportation, the greater the reductions in regional VMT. Table 7-4 presents the tabulation of auto travel VMT for the alternatives examined. The table highlights the change in auto travel VMT for the Build alternatives when compared to the No Build alternative. All the alternatives lower regional VMT for auto travel in the region. Alternative B lowers automobile VMT more than any of the BRT alternative and is over 44 percent higher than the BRT options in Alternatives E and G and delivers more than twice the reduction in VMT as the Hybrid alternative.
Table 7 -4 Changes in Annual Automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled
Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Shoregate Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate /Noble
Daily trips on project 13,408 3,900 10,082 10,424 12,592
New transit trips 11,100 2,820 3,902 4,316 5,531
Changes in Daily VMT (-) (75,240) (15,853) (26,453) (29,480) (31,094)
Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and November 2015 New Start template calculations.
The reduction in VMT is not rated directly as part of the FTA New Starts project evaluation criteria. However, VMT plays a very important role in the calculations for environmental benefits, which are rated and discussed under Goal 3 Environment.
Travel Time Savings
Economic theory predicts that time saved from travel will have value for two reasons. First, it may be devoted instead to other activities. Second, if travel is associated with conditions such as crowding, congestion, exposure to weather, or risk other, cutting the time it requires is considered beneficial. Thus the value of saving time may vary, depending on both the purpose of travel and the conditions under which it occurs.
Out of vehicle time includes the time it takes a person to walk to a rail station or bus rapid transit stop. An increase in public transportation trips will always result in an increase in out of vehicle time reflecting the access trip to the public transportation station and the time waiting for the public transportation vehicle.
97
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Consequently, only in-vehicle travel time is a valid comparison. However, travel time savings is not computed by the STOPS model and cannot be determined.
7.2 Goal 2 Economy
For the purpose of valuing economy of the potential Build alternatives in the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study, the cost effectiveness criterion for evaluating New Starts projects in the FTA Capital Investment Grant program was used. The FTA cost effectiveness measure for New Starts projects is the annualized c cost per trip on the project. The incremental cost per transit trip on the project is calculated by adding the annualized capital expenditure of the alternative plus the annual net operating and maintenance cost to obtain the sum of annualized costs, which is then divided by annualized estimates of riders using the project.
To determine cost effectiveness of the alternatives, estimates of probable capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating and maintenance costs (OPEX) and ridership forecasts are required.. Costs and annualized costs were highlighted in Chapter 5. The number of riders using the project is determined by calculating the number of linked transit trips on the project. This was discussed in Chapter 6.
For calculation of this measure, the capital costs of scope elements considered “enrichments” are either reduced by an FTA defined percentage or eliminated entirely from the annualized capital cost calculation. “Enrichments” are improvements to the transit project that are desired by the project sponsor but are non- integral to the planned functioning of the project, and whose benefits are not captured in whole by the criteria. “Enrichments” are allowable expenses for reimbursement under a future New Starts construction grant. “Enrichments” are based on costs associated with certain Activity Line Items (ALIs) in the FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) worksheets. At the conceptual level of engineering and cost estimating, “enrichments” were identified as generalized costs and included in the capital cost estimate as such.
The annualized costs are divided by the annualized number of trips on the project for each alternative under consideration. The formula is outlined below:
퐴푛푛푢푎푙 퐶푎푝푖푡푎푙 퐸푥푝푒푛푑푖푡푢푟푒푠 + 퐴푛푛푢푎푙 푂푝푒푟푎푡푖푛푔 퐸푥푝푒푛푑푖푡푢푟푒푠 = 퐶표푠푡 푝푒푟 푇푟푖푝 = 퐶표푠푡 퐸푓푓푒푐푡푖푣푒푛푒푠푠 퐼푛푑푒푥 푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푇푟푖푝푠 표푛 푡ℎ푒 푃푟표푗푒푐푡
Table 7-5 shows the results of these calculations for the alternatives being considered and presents the cost per trip for each alternative and the FTA rating.
Table 7 -5 Cost Effectiveness Index – Cost per Trip on Project
Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate Shoregate
Annualized CAPEX ($ 000) $ 25,890 $ 5,091 $ 13,829 $ 13,734 $ 16,785
Annualized Net OPEX ($ 000) $ 11,900 $ 2,300 $ 6,100 $ 7,000 $ 9,400
Total Annualized Costs ($ 000) $ 37,790 $ 7,391 $ 19,929 $ 20,734 $ 26,185
Annualized Trips on Project (000) 4,022 1,170 3,024 3,127 3,777
98
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Cost per Trip on Project $9.41 $5.87 $6.58 6.62 $6.90
FTA cost effectiveness rating Medium Medium-high Medium Medium Medium Source: AECOM calculations.
The FTA threshold for a medium rating for cost effectiveness requires a cost per trip between $6.00 and $9.9922. All the BRT options satisfy this criterion in terms of cost per trip. The Red Line Alternative B extension to Babbitt Road has the highest cost per rider but it would also be rated medium falling below the $9.99 threshold. The Red Line Noble Road extension would be rated medium/high falling below the $6.00 threshold at $5.87 per rider. The Hybrid alternative would also be rated medium. All of the Build alternatives are cost effective.
7.3 Goal 3 Environment
During the Tier 1 screening of the alternatives the environmental review consisted of fatal flaws or showstoppers analysis and the findings are contained in the Environmental Red Flag Analysis report dated December 2013. This high level review consisted of a mapping exercise using geographic information systems (GIS) and a strategic review of potential environmental effects. There were no fatal flaws in the alternatives that advanced to the Tier 2 screening. It was determined that environmental impacts can either be avoided, minimized or can be mitigated with suitable strategies.
The FTA New Starts project justification criteria for evaluating environmental benefits examine the direct and indirect benefits to health, safety, energy consumption and air quality. The environmental benefits are evaluated based on the monetized value of the benefits resulting from changes in air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy use, and safety divided by the annualized capital and operating cost of the alternatives being considered. This is a measure of the relative benefit/cost ratio of the alternatives. This analysis is detailed in Chapter 9 Project Feasibility Determination.
The balance of the analysis is qualitative in nature and is discussed in the following subsections.
7.3.1 Decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
All the alternatives will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled on highways compared to the No Build base case. As was shown in Table 7-4, Alternative B, the Red Line extension to Babbitt Road, lowers VMT more than any of the other alternatives being considered. Tthe BRT options of build Alternatives E and G are not be as beneficial as the proposed rail extension in decreasing VMT because the Red Line extension alternatives attract substantially more new riders by diverting many more auto trips to rail. The BRT options do not attract as many new transit riders and seem to be diverting local bus riders to the faster BRT option with more direct service to University Circle. The Hybrid alternative reduces VMT more than the BRT options of Alternative E and G and is the second best alternative at reducing VMT.
22 Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Guidance FY2015; Washington, DC; August 2013.
99
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
7.3.2 Potential for Reductions in Carbon Footprint
The BRT options for Alternatives E and G will require the acquisition of 20 BRT vehicles for peak service, including spares. The proposed bus fleet will be modern, regularly maintained and could use more environmentally friendly fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG). Moreover, the articulated buses could be electric hybrid technology reducing the carbon footprint of the BRT service. During operation, the BRT will be a minor part of the overall proposed bus fleet of approximately 400 buses in Cleveland. It is not envisaged that the proposed BRT will significantly increase environmental impacts during operation.
Alternative B consists of electrically powered rail transit vehicles drawing energy from the power grid. As the US develops carbon neutral power plants using wind, solar and nuclear power generating facilities the Rail-Build alternatives will be more beneficial in lowering the carbon footprint than the BRT Alternative, which for the foreseeable future will still rely on fossil fuel to power the diesel/electric or CNG/electric hybrid propulsion system. The Hybrid alternative is a combination of the BRT and rail options and would have similar beneficial impacts.
7.3.3 Air Quality
All the Build alternatives will reduce the number of cars on the highways. However the BRT options for Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as the proposed Alternative B Red Line extension in improving local air quality because the rail alternatives attract substantially more new transit riders by diverting many more auto trips to rail. The BRT diverts local bus riders to BRT bus riders. The Hybrid alternative would be the second best alternative because it combines the benefits of both Alternatives E and G and a shore extension of the Red Line, which is an electrically propelled HRT.
The proposed service improvements will marginally improve local air quality and will not likely assist in the substantial reduction of GHGs at the regional level.
However, when the BRT options are compared to the rail alternatives, the rail alternatives will provide more air quality benefits because the rail alternatives attract substantially more new transit riders by diverting many more auto trips to rail. Alternative B (HRT) reduces auto VMT more than any of the alternatives being considered and also attracts the most new riders to the RTA system.
7.3.4 Decrease Use of Single Occupant Vehicles
All the alternatives will reduce the number of and use of single occupant vehicles (SOV) on the highways. However, the BRT options of Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as the proposed Rail-Build alternatives in decreasing the number of SOV because the Red Line extension alternatives attract substantially more new transit riders by diverting many more auto trips to rail. Alternative B (HRT) diverts the highest number of automobile trips than any of the alternatives being considered by attracting the most new riders to the RTA system. The Hybrid alternative would be the second best alternative because it combines the benefits of both Alternatives E and G and a shore extension of the Red Line, which is an electrically propelled HRT.
7.3.5 Decrease Energy Consumption
All the alternatives will reduce the number of cars on the highways compared to the base case. However the BRT options of Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as Alternative B in decreasing energy consumption because the rail alternatives attract substantially more new riders by diverting many auto trips to rail. Alternative B (HRT) diverts the highest number of automobile trips than any of the alternatives being considered by attracting the most new riders to the RTA system and results in the
100
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
highest reduction of VMT than any of the alternatives being considered. The BRT options of build Alternatives E and G attract fewer new riders and simply divert current local bus riders to trips on the BRT extension project. The Hybrid alternative would be the second best alternative because it combines the benefits of both Alternatives E and G and a shore extension of the Red Line, which is an electrically propelled HRT.
7.3.6 Natural Resources
The proposed build alternatives all have a positive impact when assessed against the baseline conditions. Because of the general urbanized setting of the study area, there would be minimal impact to the ecosystem. Construction activities and the location of tracks may disrupt the habitat of squirrels, rabbits and other animals that are adaptive to changes in the natural environment. Construction of bridge piers near the Euclid Creek for the Alternative B alignment may disturb the aquatic habitat of some aquatic species. However, the disturbance would occur during construction and would be temporary. There would be no habitat disturbance results from Alternatives E and G. The Hybrid alternative would combine the impacts of Alternatives E and G and included those impacts associated with the short Red Line extension to Noble Road.
7.4 Goal 4 Livability
The livability goal was designed to foster community development and cohesion through investment in transportation infrastructure consistent with the needs and aspirations of the residents. Several objectives were identified for this goal:
Provide linkages among neighborhoods.
Minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods and communities.
Improve health and safety for workforce, passengers and communities
Integrate transportation and land use by locating stations where there is greatest potential for transit oriented developments (TOD).
Integrate with local development plans
Enhance urban design features and complete streets program
Therefore, the evaluation of the ability of the alternatives to promote efficient land use patterns focuses on the ability of the alternatives to support development objectives, support local land use policies, provide access to major activity centers and support regional land use and related development policies. The evaluation also included environmental screening to examine whether any of the alternatives under consideration had any adverse impacts that would affect community acceptance. Community acceptance of the alternatives is highly dependent on whether adverse environmental impacts on neighborhoods can be avoided, minimized or mitigated appropriately.
Adverse impacts on neighborhoods can occur where the alternatives disrupt the community by introducing physical barriers within or between neighborhoods, creating visual impacts by building new facilities (i.e. overhead wires), creating increased local traffic in station areas and by increasing noise and vibration. Positive impacts can result from improved accessibility and by reducing traffic caused by motorists from adjacent communities driving through neighborhoods to avoid traffic congestion on major highway routes.
101
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The alternatives utilized existing transportation corridors to minimize disruption to the neighborhoods. Alternative B is located within railroad rights-of-way which have existed within the community since 1855. All of the alternatives examined provide improved linkages among and between Collinwood, East Cleveland and Euclid and University Circle and Midtown.
The alternatives have minimal adverse impacts on neighborhoods and could engender community acceptance.
7.4.1 NumberofStreetsClosedorImprovedwith“CompleteStreets”Treatments
No streets are closed by the any of project alternatives being evaluated. All segments of city streets used for BRT technology options in Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative include “complete streets” treatments. Many segments of Alternatives E and G include “full BRT” dedicated median transitway and landscaping similar to the existing HealthLine urban design in Midtown and Downtown Cleveland. The segment lengths of this full BRT treatment vary by alternative but range between 3.3 miles and 6.7 miles.
7.4.2 Number of Cultural Resources Impacted
The following existing inventories were consulted to identify cultural resources of local, state, or national historic significance:
Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s (OHPO) Online Mapping System and related inventory and administrative files (includes historic properties listed in and determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and cemeteries)
Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Historic Bridge List and Buckeye Assets (bridges and structures listed in and determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places)
Cleveland Landmarks Commission (locally designated landmarks)
Euclid Landmarks Commission (locally designated landmarks).
Alternative B contains one property located at 1743-49 Eddy Road determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Alternative E contains four properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two properties determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, one columbarium/cemetery whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known, and six Cleveland Landmarks whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known.
Alternative G contains five properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two properties determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, one columbarium/cemetery whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known, and three Cleveland Landmarks whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known.
The Hybrid alternative would be the net combination of the impacts associated with Alternatives E and G and the short extension segment of the Red Line to Noble Road.
102
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
7.4.3 Number of Households Affected within 25 yards of the Alignment
The potential disturbance to community cohesion and well-being was assessed for each alternative. It included an assessment of the impact of each alternative on individual properties located within 25 yards of the alignments. The impacts of the alternatives are minimal. The most serious impact is noise and vibration. Table 7-6 shows how many households are located adjacent to the alternative alignments and are within 25 yards of the alignment.
Table 7 -6 Alignment Alternatives Catchment Area Analysis
Criteria Alt B Alt E Alt G Hybrid
Length of alignment 6.5 10.5 10.4 15.3
Number of stations 7 23 23 31
Number of HH ½-mile catchment area 12,410 23,163 21,937 26,465
Number of HH within 25 yards of 89 1,068 1,107 1,508
% HH within 25 yards of alignment 0.72% 4.61% 5.05% 5.70% Source: US Census 2010.
Alternative B is in a freight railroad right-of-way and has less than 1 percent of total residential households located within 25 yards of the alignment. The noise from the heavy rail rapid transit trains is masked by the freight railroad trains.
Alternative E has less than 5 percent, Alternative G has a little over 5 percent and the Hybrid alternative has 5.7 percent of households living within 25 yards of the alignments. Noise generated by bus rapid transit vehicles in Alternatives E and G is not a factor because of the existing high ambient noise levels of the supporting city streets. The bus rapid transit option simply adds a few more buses to already noisy urban streets.
The Hybrid alternative combines the BRT options and serves more residential neighborhoods when combined than when operating as singular alternatives. With lower service frequencies on the branch routes (every 15 minutes) than on the shared routes (7.5 minutes), the noise levels of the added bus frequencies are completely masked by the background noise from local traffic.
It is expected that the slight or moderately adverse impacts identified for all the alternatives could be mitigated with appropriate design treatments and other environmental mitigation strategies.
7.4.4 Impacts on Public Parklands and Open Spaces
Section 4(f) refers to the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 which set the requirement for the consideration of publicly owned parks and recreation areas, publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public and privately owned historic sites. Section 4(f) applies when four conditions are met; project requires DOT funding and/or approval; project is transportation related; project requires the use of land from a Section 4(f) protected property; and no regulatory applicability rules or exceptions apply.
103
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Alternative B includes approximately eight mapped Section 4(f) resources: two playgrounds, one public pool, four parks, and one NRHP-DOE property.
Alternative E includes approximately 22 mapped Section 4(f) resources: one public school, one playground, two trails/bikeways, one state park, six parks, six NRHP Listed or NRHP-DOE properties, and six Cleveland Landmarks.
Alternative G includes approximately 20 mapped Section 4(f) resources: four public schools, one playground, two trails/bikeways, three parks, seven NRHP Listed or NRHP-DOE properties, and three Cleveland Landmarks.
The Hybrid alternative combines the net impacts of Alternatives E and G and partial impacts of Alternative B. These impacts are less the aggregate total of all the alternatives.
7.4.5 Transit Dependency and Number of Zero Car Households
A key factor in evaluating service equity is to examine the extent to which any of the build alternatives offer new and improved services to minorities, senior citizens, low-income persons and transit-dependent people.
As shown in Section 7.1.3 the FTA evaluates mobility improvements for New Starts projects as the total number of linked trips using the proposed project, with a weight of two given to trips that would be made on the project by transit dependent persons. The FTA national STOPS model calculates trips made by transit dependent persons as trips made by persons in households that do not own a car.
Therefore, the number of zero car households located within a ½-mile of system boarding points is an important measure of mobility improvements to low income households (HH). Table 7-7 presents the total number of households, the number of zero car households located and the percent of zero car households to total households within a ½-mile of stations for the alignment alternatives under study.
Table 7 -7 Transit Dependency in Study Area Criteria Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Length of alignment 6.5 10.5 10.4 15.3 Number of stations 7 23 23 31 Study Area Transit Dependency Total HH in study area 45,889 45,889 45,889 45,889 Total zero car HH in study area 5,793 5,793 5,793 5,793 % HH with zero cars in study area 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% ½-mile Station Area Transit Dependency Number of HH ½-mile station area 12,410 23,163 21,937 26,465 Zero car HH ½-mile station area 525 4,762 3,745 5,256 % HH with zero cars in station area 4.23% 20.6% 17.0% 19.9% Transit Dependent Ridership Average daily riders 13,408 10,082 10,424 12,592
104
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Criteria Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Daily transit dependent riders 4,270 3,871 3,902 4,244 % daily riders transit dependent 31.4% 38.4% 37.4% 33.7% Source: US Census 2010, AECOM calculations and ridership forecasts.
What Table 7-7 clearly shows is the study area has a very high percentage of transit dependent households. Over 30 percent of all transit riders using the Red Line extension of Alternative B are transit dependent. The highest incidence of transit dependent use is Alternative E, which has 38.4 percent of its riders coming from zero car households. Alternative G has 37.4 percent of its riders being generated from zero car households. The Hybrid alternative has the second lowest ridership coming from transit dependent households.
7.5 Summary of Evaluation Analysis Key differences exist when comparing the Red Line and HealthLine extension alternatives. The Red Line extension (Alternative B) attracts more riders, has more mobility benefits, diverts more auto trips and generally has higher levels of environmental benefit than the HealthLine extension alternatives (Alternatives E and G) and the Hybrid alternative. But the Red Line extension costs $916 million when compared to the less costly and more cost effective HealthLine alternatives costing approximately $430 million on average or the Hybrid alternative costing approximately $599 million.
7.5.1 Goal 1: Mobility
Accessibility: Accessibility is measured by the number of people living or working within ½- mile of station entrances, which is the FTA New Starts criterion for project evaluation. The total ½-mile catchment of Alternative B is approximately 55 percent of the total catchment of Build alternatives E and G. However, the total catchment per station for Alternative B is 1.8 times more than the total catchment per station for Alternatives E and G. Total catchment per mile for Alternative B is approximately 90 percent of the total catchment for Alternatives E and G. Total catchment for Alternative E when compared to Alternative G is nearly identical with E having slightly more people and G having slightly more jobs within the ½-mile catchment area. The Hybrid alternative simply has higher accessibility because of its length and higher station area catchment. However, population density within the ½-mile station area catchment is highest for the Red Line extension, Alternative B and lowest for the Hybrid alternative.
Ridership. Alternative B (HRT) and the Hybrid alternative have the highest total daily transit trips on the project at 13,408 and 12,592 respectively. Alternative G (BRT) has the second highest ridership at 10,424 trips and Alternative E (BRT) attracts about 400 fewer daily riders than Alternative G. .
Mobility Benefit: HealthLine extension Alternatives E and G and Red Line extension Alternative B to Noble Road would be rated low-medium using FTA’s criterion definition for mobility improvements with the threshold being 2.5 – 4.9 million annual trips. Alternative B Red Line extension to Babbitt Road generates 5.3 million annual trips resulting in a medium rating. The Hybrid alternative would also generate a medium rating.
Highway and Traffic Impacts. All the alternatives lower regional VMT for auto travel in the region. However, the Alternative B Red Line extension to Babbitt Road lowers VMT more than 44 percent greater than the BRT options in Alternatives E and G. Over 75,200 daily VMT are removed from local roads in the study area when compared to 26,453 and 29,480 VMT reductions for HealthLine extensions E and G respectively. The Hybrid alternative reduces 31,094 VMT daily.
105
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
7.5.2 Goal 2 Economy
Capital Expenditure (CAPEX). The most expensive alternative is Alternative B at over $916 million. The Red Line extension to Noble Road costs $176.2 million. The least expensive BRT alternative is Alternative G at $427 million. However, Alternative G does not meet the FTA requirement of more than 50 percent of the project length being in a dedicated transitway. Alternative E satisfies this requirement. Alternative E costs $431 million. The Hybrid BRT alternative costs $599.5 million and satisfies the 50 percent requirement with the short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road with 56.8 percent of its length in dedicated transit ways. Operating and Maintenance Expenditures (OPEX). Alternative E has the lowest cost to operate because many of the existing local services operating along Lake Shore Boulevard are re-routed or eliminated resulting in considerable cost savings. The net increase in OPEX is a little over $6 million annually for Alternative E. The underlying bus service plan under Alternative G does not change from the existing service patterns resulting in almost no operating cost savings. The net increase in OPEX is $7.1 million. Alternative B adds $11.9 million to the annual cost of operating the Red Line when operating 7.5-minute headways during peak periods. The Hybrid alternative adds $9.4 million to OPEX annually.
Cost-Effectiveness. Alternative B Red Line extension to Noble Road is the most cost effective alternative being examined. It is 1.25 mile extension with two stations – one at Shaw and the terminus at Noble Road. This extension generates 3,900 trips per day and would cost $5.87 per trip. This would qualify for a medium/high rating. Alternative E (BRT) is the most cost effective of all the alternatives considered at $6.58 annualized cost per trip for the Shoregate terminus. Alternative G has $6.62 cost per trip but does not meet the FTA requirement of more than 50 percent of the project length being in a dedicated transitway. Alternative B (Babbitt Road) has a cost per trip of $9.41. The Hybrid alternative has a cost per trip of $6.90. Alternatives B (Babbitt Road), E, G and the Hybrid alternative would all qualify for a medium rating for cost effectiveness.
7.5.3 Goal 3 Environment
Energy Consumption and Vehicle Kilometers Traveled. All the alternatives will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled on highways compared to the No Build base case. However, the BRT options of build Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as the proposed Red Line extension in decreasing VMT because the rail extension attracts substantially more new riders by diverting many more auto trips to rail than the BRT options. The BRT options seem to convert local bus riders to BRT bus riders. Alternative B reduces VMT more than the BRT options of Alternative E and G and is the best alternative at reducing VMT. The Hybrid alternative generates less than half the VMT savings as the Red Line extension Alternative B.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. All the Build alternatives will reduce the number of cars on the highways. However the BRT options for Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative will not be as beneficial as the proposed Alternative B Red Line extension in improving local air quality because the rail alternative attracts substantially more new riders by diverting many more auto trips to rail than does the BRT options.
Congestion Mitigation. All the alternatives will reduce the number of and use of single occupant vehicles (SOV) on the highways. However, the BRT options of Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as the proposed Red Line extension in decreasing the number of SOV because rail extension alternative attracts substantially more new transit riders by diverting
106
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
many more auto trips to rail than the BRT alternatives. Alternative B (HRT) diverts the highest number of automobile trips than any of the alternatives being considered by attracting the most new riders to the RTA system.
7.5.4 Goal 4 Livability
. Number of Streets Closed. No streets are closed by the project alternatives being evaluated. All segments of city streets used for the BRT technology option in Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative include “complete streets” treatments. Many segments of Alternatives E and G include “full BRT” dedicated median transitway and landscaping similar to the existing HealthLine urban design in Midtown and Downtown Cleveland. The segment lengths of this full BRT treatment vary by alternative and terminus but range between 3.3 miles and 6.7 miles.
. Number of Cultural Resources Impacted. Alternative B impacts one historic property determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Alternative E contains four properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two properties determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, one columbarium/cemetery whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known, and six Cleveland Landmarks whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known. Alternative G contains five properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two properties determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, one columbarium/cemetery whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known, and three Cleveland Landmarks whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known. The Hybrid is a combination of the three other alternatives.
. Number of Households Affected within 25 yards of Alignment. Alternative B is in a freight railroad right-of-way and has less than 1 percent of total residential households located within 25 yards of the alignment. Alternatives E and G both have approximately 5 percent of residential households located within 25 yards of BRT alignments. The Hybrid alternative has slightly more than 5 percent of the households within 25 yards of the alignment because of the longer length of the project definition.
. Impacts on Parklands and Open Spaces. Alternative B includes approximately eight mapped Section 4(f) resources: two playgrounds, one public pool, four parks, and one NRHP-DOE property. Alternative E includes approximately 22 mapped Section 4(f) resources: one public school, one playground, two trails/bikeways, one state park, six parks, six NRHP Listed or NRHP- DOE properties, and six Cleveland Landmarks. Alternative G includes approximately 20 mapped Section 4(f) resources: four public schools, one playground, two trails/bikeways, three parks, seven NRHP Listed or NRHP-DOE properties, and three Cleveland Landmarks. The Hybrid alternative is a combination of all three other Build alternatives.
. Number of Zero Car Households. A key factor in evaluating service equity is to examine the extent to which any of the build alternatives offer new and improved services to minorities, senior citizens, low-income persons and transit-dependent people. Therefore, the number of zero car households located within a ½-mile of system boarding points is an important measure of mobility improvements to low income households. Alternative E has over 4,760 zero car households within ½ mile of station entrances, Alternative G has over 3,745 and Alternative B has 525 zero car households. The Hybrid alternative has the most zero car households within ½-mile of the stations because of its longer length and more stations.
107
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
. Potential for Transit-Oriented Development. The HealthLine extension alternatives have the greatest potential for TOD because of the length and number of stations. Alternative B could have significant TOD at Noble Road Station and the Babbitt Road terminus. The Hybrid alternative is more likely to have the greatest potential for redevelopment because of the many routes and neighborhoods it traverses.
. Integration with Public Transport. All Build alternatives are integrated with the existing and committed future bus system.
7.5.5 Other Considerations
Rail transit tends to provide better service quality, which attracts more riders, particularly discretionary users as shown in the ridership forecasts. Bus based transport systems are best when serving less dense areas with more dispersed destinations and lower demand.
As has been shown in the comparative evaluation of the alternatives, Alternative B contributes more to relieve congestion than the BRT options but costs significantly more to design, build, operate and maintain than improving RTA bus services in the study area. The rail extension seems to be favored by many of the stakeholders based on future vision, aspirations and city building.
Both bus and rail systems become more efficient and effective at achieving planning objectives if implemented with supportive policies that improve service quality, create supportive land use patterns and encourage ridership.
Table 7 -8 Summary Matrix Criteria Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Goal 1 Mobility
Length of alignment 6.5 10.5 10.4 15.3
Number of stations 7 23 23 31
Population ½ mile station area 24,752 54,480 53,038 61,907
Total employment ½-mile 10,050 23,504 23,326 26,755
Population + employment 34,802 77,984 76,364 88,662
Total catchment per station 4,971.7 3,390.6 3,320.2 2,860.1
Total catchment per line mile 5,354.2 8,861.8 8,777.5 5,794.9
Total zero car HH in study area 5,790 5,790 5,790 5,790
% HH with zero cars in study area 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6%
Number of HH ½-mile station area 12,410 23,163 21,937 26,465
Zero car HH ½-mile station area 525 4,762 3,745 5,256
% HH with zero cars in station area 4.23% 20.6% 17.0% 19.9%
108
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Criteria Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Average Daily Riders 13,408 10,082 10,424 12,592
New Transit Riders 11,070 3,902 4,316 5,531
Transit dependent trips 4,270 3,871 3,902 4,244
% daily riders transit dependent 31.4% 38.4% 37.4% 33.7%
Weighted transit dependent trips 8,540 7,742 7,804 8,488
Non-transit dependent trips 9,138 6,211 6,522 8,348 Weighted Total trips used for 17,678 13,953 14,326 16,836 Mobility Benefit calculation Annualized mobility improvements 5,303,400 4,185,900 4,297,800 5,050,800
Goal 2 Economy
Annualized CAPEX ($ 000) $ 25,890 $ 13,829 $ 13,734 $ 16,785
Annualized Net OPEX ($ 000) $ 11,900 $ 6,100 $ 7,000 $ 9,400
Total Annualized Costs ($ 000) $ 37,790 $ 19,929 $ 20,734 $ 26,185
Annualized Trips on Project (riders) 4,022,400 3,024,600 3,127,200 3,777,600
Cost per Trip on Project $9.37 $6.59 6.63 $6.90
FTA cost effectiveness rating Medium Medium Medium Medium
Goal 3 Environment
Changes in Daily VMT (-) (75,240) (26,453) (29,480) (31,094)
Qualitative assessment
Goal 4 Livability
Number of streets closed 0 0 0 0
Number of HH ½-mile station area 12,410 23,163 21,937 26,465
Number of HH within 25 yards of 89 1,068 1,107 1,508
% HH within 25 yards of alignment 0.72% 4.61% 5.05% 5.70%
Qualitative assessment
109
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
8 Agency Coordination and Public Outreach
This section describes the public and agency coordination efforts for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study. The RTA has a continuing commitment to a collaborative planning process by respecting applicable local practices and ensuring compliance with federal planning process requirements. Throughout all phases of this study process, the RTA illustrated this dedication by continuing to ensure this process remained broad, diverse, inclusive, engaging and transparent. This process was designed to strengthen the foundation for project decisions.
RTA implemented a tailored and innovative Community Involvement and Engagement Plan designed to:
Keep public agencies, stakeholders and the general public informed while soliciting their feedback on the project at each phase.
Define responsibilities, details, and schedules for each service and deliverable.
Quantify the outreach effort relative to performance goals. Special efforts were made to engage traditionally underrepresented populations throughout this outreach process.
Public and agency involvement is critical to the success of any project that could affect the community. The planning for the Red Line/HealthLine extension has involved extensive coordination and consultation with the affected community and agencies. The affected community includes not only the residents in the study area but also individuals, businesses, groups, and others interested in study outcomes. The planning process was structured and implemented to ensure that all relevant factors were considered, including the affected community’s concerns and issues related to the project’s purpose and need, engineering solutions, social impacts, environmental impacts, economic effects, financing, and other items of concern to the community.
The goal of the public and agency involvement program and process was to have an informed local community and government leadership to help make decisions regarding the selection and implementation of an LPA. The public and agency involvement process is open to ensure that interested parties have an opportunity to be involved in planning. Stakeholders had an opportunity to direct, review, and comment during the entire course of the AA study.
The study team encouraged the general public, especially those who frequently use and rely on public transportation, to attend, participate and provide comments at each public meeting and throughout the process via traditional feedback mechanisms and social media. Public comments informed transit alternatives, which influenced interim and ultimate recommendations.
A series of four public open house events were planned. Each of the community open houses were held in each of the three municipalities (Cleveland, East Cleveland and Euclid) during the early evening of a weekday. Public meetings accessibility and notice requirements were in compliance with typical local practices and ADA requirements. Project presentations, maps, graphics and information boards were provided, and throughout each round of meetings, there was substantial public participation in the question and answer sessions after the presentations.
Since many potential participants were unable to attend the in-person events due to other commitments, mobility limitations or other factors, all documents presented at the public meetings have been made available on-line on a project website now hosted by RTA. The public meetings were broadly publicized via conventional and social media in the weeks leading up to and during the week in which the in-person events were held.
110
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
8.1 Technical Steering and Stakeholder Involvement Committees
As a part of public involvement, the RTA study team worked with local businesses, community members and organizations, and municipal and residential advocates to develop two committees representing the diverse and inclusive interests of all neighborhoods within the study area. Steering and Stakeholder Committees were developed to provide the study team with valuable insights and feedback throughout the study process, as well as serve as a conduit for information between the study team and general public. Both technical steering and stakeholder involvement committees (advisory groups) were deeply involved in the screening of the alternatives under review in this report. The participation of these groups has been essential to completion of the work of the technical consultants leading to this report.
Before each round of public meetings, the study team held a meeting each with the Steering and Stakeholder Committees to update them on the study progress, and provide them an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the proposed presentation for the upcoming public meetings. The study team received valuable recommendations from each Committee on how to make the presentation more engaging, easier to understand, and more visual, which was in turn well received by the general public.
Social media played a significant role in informing the public of upcoming meetings as well as keep them informed of study updates and important information related to the project. Throughout the course of the study we saw a consistent increase in social media followers. The team utilized several social media platforms to inform the public, including: Website: http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/ Online feedback form: http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/contact-us Online survey: http://clevel.he3039.vps.webenabled.net/tell-us Hotline phone number: 216-282-6113 Twitter: https://twitter.com/RedlineHLStudy Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RedlineHealthlineStudy YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=redline+healthline+extension+study
8.1.1 Technical Steering Committee
The Steering Committee comprised individuals from the economic development, planning, and community development departments from each city in the study area. The Technical Steering Committee provided a means for the project team to identify, discuss, and address important issues related to the project from the viewpoint of the affected cities so decisions could be made that reflected the development goals of those cities. The general public was not invited to attend the Technical Steering Committee meetings. This permitted the public agency stakeholders to comment freely and openly.
The Technical Steering Committee met eight times during the project. The dates are: May 23, 2013 – 9:00 am May 30, 2013 – 9:00 am November 26, 2013 – 1:00 pm January 17, 2014 – 2:00 pm May 6, 2014 – 9:30 am September 15, 2014 – 3:00 pm February 3, 2016 – 12:00 noon
111
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
8.1.2 Stakeholder Involvement Committee
The Stakeholder Involvement Committee was selected after a series of small meetings with the Steering Committee as well as community leaders, who made recommendations to the study team on the organizations and individuals with whom they should engage. Stakeholder Involvement Committee provided another means for the project team to gather public comment and to identify, discuss, and address important issues related to the project so decisions could be made that reflected the aspirations of those who live, work, and travel in the study area. The general public was welcome to attend the Stakeholder Involvement Committee meetings as observers. But the meetings were not broadly advertised. The purposes of the Stakeholder Involvement Committee are to:
Provide a focused way for the community to share concerns and issues with project team members.
Provide a way for the project team to share information with the stakeholder members, who then educated others in their communities and neighborhood organizations.
The Stakeholder Involvement Committee met five times during the project. The dates are: June 20, 2013 – noon September 6, 2013 – 8:30 am December 3, 2013 – 12:00 noon May 8, 2014 – 11:30 am February 3, 2016 12:00 noon
8.2 Community Outreach
In addition to agency and stakeholder coordination, public outreach was important to developing sound recommendations and selecting transit alternatives that are supported by the community. RTA’s commitment at the beginning of this study process was to proactively involve the public so decisions could be made that reflect the aspirations and concerns of those who live, work, and travel in the study area. Throughout this process, the project team has kept the public informed, incorporated their feedback, and helped identify issues and develop solutions to improve transportation in the corridor. The community outreach has reached out to the public and given the public an opportunity to provide input into and collaborate on the processes of defining the project purpose and identifying the alternatives.
The initial public meeting encouraged the public to develop possible solutions and identify issues regarding a proposed project. This project scoping process also helped determine the needs, objectives, resources, constraints, potential alternatives, and any additional requirements for screening criteria used to screen the preliminary alternatives.
RTA relied on public comments made during the study period. Comments regarding alignment alternatives were most prevalent, followed by comments about environmental issues and statements of preference. Many comments were received regarding ridership/travel demand. There were also many comments concerning safety, property values, and cost. The following sections describe the public meetings and summarize the comments for each of the public meetings.
8.2.1 Public Meetings – Round 1
The first round of public meetings occurred the week of September 9, 2013, as follows:
September 9 – City of East Cleveland – East Cleveland Public Library
112
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
September 10 – City of Cleveland – Western Reserve Historical Society September 12 – City of Euclid – Moore Counseling and Mediation Services, Inc. (MCMS)
The purpose of this first series of public meetings was to introduce the study, invite people to discuss their transportation and mobility issues and suggest improvements. Below is a summary of each meeting, including number of attendees, number of comment cards and a summary of attendee concerns. Table 8-1 Public Meeting Round 1 – Summary of Issues and Comments City Summary of issues Meeting 1 Reach out to faith/church community and present study Bus and/or rail expansion is welcome in the city What exists already needs repair If the service is going to be expanded, the buses running now need to provide better basic service and amenities to users. The buses that service the east side of Cleveland and into E. Cleveland need to be better serviced. The seats need to be washed, the floors kept clean and sanitary, the air-conditioning system in working order. There was a sense that the buses servicing these areas were not as "up to par" as those servicing the west side of Cleveland. City of East Cleveland Ideas about expanding rapid are good, such as down Lake Shore to downtown Euclid Number of attendees: 21 Would like to see DMU option for Red Line to Lake County Number of comment cards: 3 Need street level service Extending to Lake County promotes urban sprawl Waterloo needs better connection terminals to encourage development; it’s one of the only places I have to drive. West 25th Street needs a larger bus because it’s always packed. Greater wheelchair access is needed RTA needs to think about the affordability of fare, particularly for women and their children RTA needs to extend the Red Line and improve transit services west along the West Shore to Westlake and North Olmsted. The #37 bus needs to be extended Don’t like the HealthLine in the middle of the street
City of Cleveland Want to see: o the HealthLine extended to Lake County (specifically Number of attendees: 17 Mentor) Number of comment cards: 2 o the Red Line extended to Lake and Geauga Counties; lots of elderly people live in Willowick and rely on public transportation Like the concept of expanding current transit routes
113
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
City Summary of issues Meeting 1 City of Euclid How is paratransit affected by this study? How are children, students affected by this study? Number of attendees: 36 Will there be new transit vehicles that create less pollution on the Number of comment cards: 7 road? Would like to see Red Line extended from Windermere to Euclid Square Mall, and less stops on the HealthLine With all the development downtown and along the HealthLine and in University Circle, I feel that the Red Line should run east into Euclid and possibly Lake County. Buses make frequent stops and aren’t as reliable as the Red Line. I work at Juvenile Court and we were moved east from downtown to E. 105th and several people I work with live in Euclid and Lake County. I know we would utilize a park and ride lot for the Red Line in Euclid. I live near Shoregate and would like to see transit extended along Lake Shore Blvd. There is an important immediate need for the disabled population. We’re Lake County residents and would like to see collaboration between the RTA Paratransit and Laketran Dial-A- Ride systems. Our son uses a wheelchair and individuals like himself have limited access to Cuyahoga County. Better access would open up opportunities for employment and social interaction. I’m concerned your study doesn’t address high density area around 260th and Lake Shore. At minimum RTA needs to consider timing routes so that riders can have the option to transfer without a long layover or just run the #30 all the way to Shoregate during rush hour. Stick to areas of greatest population density along Lake Shore. Love the concept of no transfer from downtown Euclid to University Circle. Red Line through Waterloo neighborhood arts district – E. 152nd to Lake Shore. Focus on residential areas along Lake Erie; this is supported by demographic projections by national realtors association and my own personal experience. Young people don’t want cars, they want community and to live in neighborhoods with easy access to work and the arts and the downtown area. This will lead to redevelopment in East Cleveland. Street cars would put us on the map as a progressive place to live and work.
Some key themes that emerged from each of the meetings were:
Most are in favor of extending the Red Line People want more stops in and better connections to emerging districts like Waterloo and University Circle People are concerned about affordability, and accessibility for the disabled
General comments received via the study website:
114
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Whatever plan you come up with, the eastern most terminus must have regular, frequent, and scheduled service and a large parking lot. It should connect with the Windermere station, preferably timed with every rail departure. There needs to be improved transit through University Circle and Midtown. Rail needs to be brought into these areas and parts of downtown that are distant from the only rail station right in downtown, Tower City. RTA should extend the Red Line. This is hands down the most expensive option, but it is the best for many reasons. Most importantly is that more people and types of people are willing to take a train. Trains provide a level of certainty that buses do not, people feel more comfortable on trains. Trains also represent such a significant investment that typically, they generate higher levels of economic activity. The HealthLine generated a lot of economic activity but that was in the area where it is most like a train. It seems like RTA should be able to take advantage of TIFF financing or some other non-traditional funding stream to get some of the work done. I would imagine that the success of the HealthLine could also get developers to participate in the construction of stations in exchange for the rights to the nearby land. I would support additional taxes or funding for rail, but not bus (nothing against buses, I just don't think they are the right mode for this project.) 8.2.2 Public Meetings – Round 2
The second round of public meetings occurred during the week of December 9, 2013:
December 10 – City of Euclid – MCMS December 11 – City of East Cleveland – East Cleveland Public Library December 12 – City of Cleveland – Collinwood Recreation Center
Overall, the public meetings were well attended and individuals provided valuable input and ideas that will help inform our next phase of the study. There were several new faces at this round of meetings, which was encouraging to the study team. Attendees liked the presentation and appreciated the visual boards as it helps them to better understand the proposed transportation alternatives. Table 8-2 Public Meeting Round 2 – Summary of Issues and Comments City Summary of issues Meeting 2 City of East Cleveland A few attendees were concerned that the City is very poorly served by public transit. Specifically, they felt that getting to a Number of attendees: 21 farmer’s market or a museum or University Circle is difficult Number of comment cards: 9 without taking several buses or a very long walk. Reliability of ticket machines is a problem; some machines didn’t take credit and/or debit cards. Bus service to areas in Cleveland Heights such as South Taylor Road, Lee Road and Coventry are seen as unreliable by riders. Some attendees are concerned that some areas such as St. Clair Avenue and E. 185th will lose car traffic because of congestion due to increased Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Rapid+. Some are concerned that BRT might be slow and crowded, turning people away from using it. Some attendees: o Favor commuter rail for suburban attendees to get to work and entertainment, and BRT/streetcar for city attendees who
115
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
City Summary of issues Meeting 2 rely on bus service to get around. o Favor Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) to Euclid and BRT to encourage development and improve current service. o Felt that the Waterloo Arts District has high potential for development. o Are concerned that fares might go up with new service. o Prefer routes that travel east from Windermere via Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road before turning to Five Points. City of Cleveland Some attendees: o Wondered if it’s possible to get an Express or Limited Line Number of attendees: 17 (Rapid) to Tower City and the airport. Number of comment cards: 2 o Wondered if it’s possible to get a route that serves both the Waterloo Arts District and E. 185th (rather than one or the other). o Were concerned about Route 39 to downtown Cleveland being too crowded on the weekends. City of Euclid Residents favored the following remaining build alternatives: o A streetcar down St. Clair/E. 185th through Five Points Number of attendees: 22 o Extending the Red Line as soon as possible to the county Number of comment cards: 4 line, providing a one seat ride to the airport from Euclid Some attendees: o Wondered if either proposed extension would bring new people into the area and if it would bring new money into Cleveland. o Were concerned about keeping cars off the road (less traffic and air pollution) with the proposed increase of public transit, as well as being able to get around the entire county to destinations such as hospitals, schools, shopping, entertainment, etc. If a street-running alternative is used in the extension, attendees indicated they would like to see a route from Windermere through either Five Points or Waterloo Road to Euclid via Lake Shore Blvd., or Five Points down St. Clair Avenue to E. 185th to Euclid. Residents want the study team to look into extending the eastern terminus of the street-running alternatives further east from downtown Euclid to accommodate the residential towers on Lake Shore Blvd near E. 260th Street.
The key themes arising from all meetings were:
Some attendees favored an extension of the Red Line east to the county line providing a one seat ride to the Airport from Euclid (or extended into Lake County). If a street-running alternative is used in the extension, attendees indicated they would like to see a route from Windermere through either: Five Points and Waterloo Road to Euclid via Lake Shore Blvd, or Five Points down St. Clair to E. 185th to Euclid. Many attendees favored Rapid+ or BRT for city residents that rely on bus service to encourage more ridership and attract more transit-oriented development (TOD) that will hopefully bring people back to city (idea of live, work and play). 116
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Many East Cleveland residents preferred the routes that travel east from Windermere via Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road before turning to Five Points. The cities of Cleveland and Euclid were very pleased with all the alternatives being advanced. The City of Euclid has suggested to the study team to extend the eastern terminus several streets east from Downtown Euclid to accommodate the residential towers on Lake Shore Blvd near E. 260th Street. Most Lake County residents who attended the meetings favored the Red Line extension. Most Cuyahoga County residents favored investing in the street running alternatives (HealthLine and Rapid+) to better serve existing neighborhoods. Many people asked if there is a possibility of developing hybrid alternatives.
8.2.3 Public Meetings – Round 3
The third round of public meetings were held during the week of May 22, 2014 and included:
May 20 – City of East Cleveland – East Cleveland Public Library City May 21 – City of Euclid – MCMS May 22 – City of Cleveland – Collinwood Recreation Center
As with prior public meetings, on May 6, 2014, and May 8, 2014, the study team facilitated a Steering Committee meeting and a Stakeholder Involvement Committee meeting. These sessions focused on updating the Committees on the progress of the study, delivering updated information on the testing results for route alternatives presented in the second round of public meetings, discussing these findings, and soliciting feedback from Committee members on how to enhance the presentation prior to the public meetings. Table 8-3 Public Meeting Round 3 – Summary of Issues and Comments City Summary of Issues Meeting 3 Cleveland Largely favored Alternative B (Red Line extension). Inquired about when they would know what final option was Number of attendees: 22 selected, and whether RTA would let them know when/if they will Number of comment cards: 1 be officially moving forward with construction. Some resident attendees were interested in the development opportunities that would arise. Some attendees wondered if it’s possible to get a route that serves the Waterloo Arts District and the Nottingham Village/E. 185th Street rather than one or the other.
East Cleveland Discussed how pleased they were that RTA was involving the community in these decisions. Number of attendees: 18 Are concerned about potential fare increases. Number of comment cards: 1 Prefer routes that travel east from Windermere via Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road before turning to Five Points. Bus service to areas in Cleveland Heights such as South Taylor Road, Lee Road and Coventry are seen as unreliable by riders. Some attendees favor commuter rail for suburban attendees to get to work and entertainment, and BRT/streetcar for city attendees who rely on bus service to get around. Favored Alternatives “E” due to cost savings and their worries of fare increases. 117
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
City Summary of Issues Meeting 3 Were interested in what economic development opportunities would come from each alternative under consideration.
Euclid Residents favored the following build alternatives and suggestions: Alternative B (HRT). A resident advised this was “by far” his/her Number of attendees: 28 favorite alternative because it would make the difference Number of comment cards: 4 between making trips East of University Circle using the Red Line instead of the HealthLine. The same resident advised that they regularly use the Healthline, but it goes out of his/her way to use the Red Line whenever possible. E. 185 to Waterloo via Villaview rather than St. Clair. This would help retain ridership of G and the cost savings of E. Extension of Red Line to Noble or Ivanhoe. Preference for Alternative “E”, with the Red Line extended to Noble Rd. Intersection. Some attendees: o Wondered if either proposed extension would bring new people into the area and if it would bring new money into Cleveland. o Hope that the proposed increase of public transit helps to keep cars off the road (less traffic and air pollution), as well as make it easier to get around the entire county to destinations such as hospitals, schools, shopping, entertainment, etc. Residents want the study team to look into extending the eastern terminus of the street-running alternatives further east from downtown Euclid to accommodate the residential towers on Lake Shore Blvd near E. 260th Street.
The key themes arising from all meetings were:
Some attendees favored Route Alternative B Red Line extension as the best route option. If a street-running alternative is used in the extension, attendees indicated they would like to see a route from Windermere through either: Five Points and Waterloo Road to Euclid via Lake Shore Blvd, or Five Points down St. Clair to E. 185th to Euclid. Many attendees favored BRT for city residents that rely on bus service to encourage more ridership and attract more transit-oriented development (TOD) that will hopefully bring people back to city (idea of live, work and play). Many East Cleveland residents preferred the routes that travel east from Windermere via Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road before turning to Five Points. The cities of Cleveland and Euclid were very pleased with all the alternatives being advanced. The City of Euclid has suggested to the study team to extend the eastern terminus several streets east from Downtown Euclid to accommodate the residential towers on Lake Shore Blvd near E. 260th Street. The route was extended to Shoregate Shopping Center in adjacent Lake County. Most Lake County residents who attended the meetings favored the Red Line extension. Most Cuyahoga County residents favored investing in the street running alternatives (HealthLine and Rapid+) to better serve existing neighborhoods.
118
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Many people asked if there is a possibility of developing hybrid alternatives.
Summary of issues/ideas:
The “Hybrid” alternative described in the body of this report was developed as a response to the public inquiries and comments regarding the choices among the remaining alternatives. The public could not make a clear, consensus driven choice of what alternative they preferred. It was determined that a Hybrid alternative, combining the two BRT options Alternatives E and G with a short extension of the Red Line HRT to Noble Road, might result in an alternative that could gain community consensus. The Hybrid alternative was developed as a direct result of public comment. .
8.2.4 Public Meetings – Round 4
The last public meeting was held on February 11, 2016. The purpose of this last meeting was to share the study findings and recommendations for future action and project development. The meeting was organized around the FTA Project Evaluation Summary rating criteria and weighting. A presentation and display boards explained the alternatives under active consideration and illustrated how the project was evaluated. The presentation materials can be found on the project page of the RTA website. Table 8-4 Public Meeting Round 4 – Summary of Questions and Comments Attendees Summary of Issues Meeting 4 Number of attendees: 15 Q: Has the RTA considered private funding sources and/or corporate Number of comment cards: 0 partnerships?
A: Yes, Cleveland Clinic, University Hospital, and Cleveland State University all fund us in some small way but it’s still not enough to make up for lost sales tax revenue and other costs. Ideally, developers will develop the vacant land in the recommended corridors – this causes the land value to increase, causing the taxes to increase, and we need to find a way to capture the revenue from this.
Q: What about the Greater Cleveland Partnership? It seems they only fund projects they want to happen, which doesn’t include transit projects.
A: GCP won’t fund projects they don’t consider to be economically viable. We’ve had many conversations with them over the years but unfortunately that’s their policy.
Q: What about Lake County – can RTA partner with them? Can RTA and Laketran combine? If there is service to Lake County than they should be paying RTA the sales tax too.
A: We’ve had many conversations with Laketran over the years to discuss combining the organizations and services, but even if we did it would cost more than $1 billion to extend to rail line to Lake County. We don’t have the money. Lake County just passed their own tax increase last year to increase funding for Laketran.
Q: What stakeholders have seen this presentation?
A: Our project stakeholder and steering committees have both seen
119
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Attendees Summary of Issues Meeting 4 this presentation, including representatives from all three cities in the study area and many local economic development and community development organizations.
Q: In Nashville, buses are allowed to use the HOV lanes on the highway. Why doesn’t Ohio have this?
A: RTA and Laketran buses can use the shoulders during times of high volume traffic on I-90. Unfortunately the shoulders on I-77 and I- 71 can’t support this.
Q: Why can’t the City of Cleveland or Cuyahoga County require parking garages to pay taxes on parking spaces that goes directly to the RTA?
A: Too much pushback from the owners, they would start losing revenue because people would stop driving and parking – they would never agree to it.
Q: Is there a way to connect the 37 bus better or more efficiently to University Circle? Right now you have to take several connections from Severance Center (which isn’t much of a destination anymore) and nobody wants to do that.
A: Possibility – RTA can look into that.
Q: The 39 bus is always packed – can RTA provide a longer bus to carry more riders at a time, or more service on this line?
A: Possibility – RTA can look into that.
A: Most buses come in the same sizes and actually the longer CNG buses are more cost effective to run and maintain than any other buses.
8.2.5 Public Meetings – Summary
Overall, the public meetings were well attended and individuals provided valuable comment and ideas that helped inform the study and its outcomes. The public meetings were informative and kept the general public attending the meetings apprised of the current status of the study. There were several repeat attendees, which directly illustrated the vested interest of the public, and the importance of these decisions as it relates to RTA’s next steps. The attendees liked the presentations and appreciated the visual display boards, which assisted in providing tangible illustrations of real opportunities for their communities. All in all, the general public feedback was positive, and meeting attendees have felt confident and appreciated RTA’s outreach efforts. 8.3 Community and Development Workshops A series of Community and development workshops also took place during the same week as Round 2 of the Public Meetings. The workshops were working meetings to give key stakeholders, community organizations and developers a chance to provide their input about potential station sites and their impact
120
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
on development. It was also an opportunity to update these key individuals and groups on the study’s progress. These workshops occurred during the week of December 9, 2013.
December 10 – City of Cleveland (1:00pm); December 10 – City of Euclid (3:00pm); December 11 – City of East Cleveland December 12 – Developer and Community Stakeholder
City of Cleveland Workshop - The City of Cleveland workshop was attended by members of the study team as well as representatives from the City of Cleveland Planning Commission and Cleveland Neighborhood Development. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of the study and to review the economic development opportunities with the Collinwood community in the study area. The discussion focused on the Five Points and Nottingham Village sub-areas of the study. The summary of ideas and issues from the workshop are:
The City is very interested in the development potential of Five Points. The site directly south of the new ball fields and the industrial sites between E. 152 and Ivanhoe are of particular interest. There is not much vacancy in the immediate vicinity of the intersection so these parcels likely have the most potential for redevelopment. The triangular area between E. 152 and Ivanhoe has already been re-zoned to local retail. The current land uses in the Five Points area are industry-related; however, the City’s desire for this area is for it to be more focused on local retail. This would require some land remediation since there will be repurposing of industrial sites. One challenge is that people want to be right in front of the transit station; the closer you can get people living near transit the better. There needs to be a significant start and end point so you can fill up the middle of the ride with people. E. 185th is a good corridor to re-energize with new transit routes. The Waterloo Arts District is up and coming and another good corridor to consider. Once station locations are specifically defined, the City can identify vacant land, see what is available in the land bank, find strategic opportunities to add to the land bank and put a “hold” on this land until an appropriate development opportunity presents itself. E. 152nd and Ivanhoe Road is a huge piece of vacant land with tremendous development opportunity. We need to make sure these areas are zoned for the type of transit-supportive development that would be envisioned for this area. The consultant team pointed out that if development were going to occur around bus routes it would have already happened. Therefore, we need to take the alternatives a step further and enhance them by making a major investment in infrastructure including substantial stations.
City of Euclid Workshop - The City of Euclid workshop was attended by members of the study team as well as representatives from the Planning and Development Department along with the Urban Design. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of the study and to review the economic development opportunities within the City of Euclid. The discussion focused on the East 185th Street commercial district and Downtown Euclid including the former St. Roberts land acquired by the city. A summary of issues and ideas from the workshop are:
The City has heard from residents that they want to see anything from a water park to a travel center to Euclid Square Mall. The City is interested in seeing an economic analysis to see what is truly feasible in terms of TOD at this site. The last major retailer moved out of Euclid Square Mall in 2013; 2014 might be a critical year for this site.
121
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The City sees a lot of potential in the E. 185th Street corridor given its proximity to affordable housing and the existing neighborhood amenities. Are there practical ways to integrate transit into downtown Euclid? There are now three major shopping areas now and Lake Shore Plaza is ripe for redevelopment. Downtown has generally tended towards an entertainment district. North of Lake Shore Blvd. is a water treatment plant that needs to be taken into consideration during transit planning. The Saint Roberts Church site (owned by the City) is seven acres on the south side of Lake Shore Blvd. at E. 238th St. This site is in close proximity to high end commercial buildings – could this have potential to be a terminus? E. 200th and Lake Shore has a small amount of retail and Our Lady of the Lake Church which has a strong congregation. The intersection of E. 185th and Lake Shore Blvd. has two hospitals and a high school. Euclid is working with the City of Cleveland to promote this area as an educational and medical campus.
City of East Cleveland workshop – The workshop in East Cleveland was attended by members of the study team as well as Joe Mazzola (City of East Cleveland Director of Economic Development and Mike Smedley (City of East Cleveland Mayor’s Office). The summary of issues and ideas coming from this workshop included:
Agreed with the proposed alternatives and felt that they are in the appropriate places and make sense. Questioned how the study team would choose between Coit, Noble and Ivanhoe as a way to get from Euclid Ave to Five Points. The team responded that it depends on City and public interested for how far east the service runs in East Cleveland, as well as travel time for the service. Preliminary thoughts are leaning toward Ivanhoe Road since it provides improved service to the longest stretch of Euclid Avenue; it’s a direct shot to Five Points, and an opportunity for development on both sides of E. 152nd. Joe Mazzola mentioned that having some photos on what the development could like would be beneficial. Supports Bus Rapid Transit as their preferred technology choice as they feel it best serves Euclid Avenue, which is the front door of their community. Is in the midst of a Target Area Neighborhood Stabilization Plan, which they plan to complete by March 2014. The Land Bank bought anything available on Euclid Avenue, but there is no strategy for development beyond that; the study team needs to know what properties may be sold for tax purposes.
The summary of the three workshops resulted in decisions to extend the HealthLine route alternatives to Ivanhoe Road to maximize the length of the BRT in East Cleveland and to Shoregate Shopping Center in adjacent Lake County to maximize the length of the BRT in Euclid. This would also provide good timed transfer connections to Laketran services. The Five Points commercial district and the Noble Road areas would become focal points for development incentives.
8.3.1 NOACA Transit Council and RTA Citizens Advisory Board
There were four additional meetings during the study period addressing the study: a NOACA Transit Council meeting on November 15, 2013 and February 19, 2016 and an RTA Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) meeting on December 17, 2013 and February 11, 2016. During the NOACA meeting, RTA reviewed the study process at a high level with Transit Council members to which there were no questions. During the CAB December 17, 2013 meeting, RTA staff presented the status of the study. One member had a question about the proposed alternatives:
122
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Would RTA consider combinations of alternatives because it seems that the Norfolk Southern and Euclid corridors and the “neighborhood” corridors of Collinwood/Nottingham serve distinct and different purposes?
RTA addressed the question by responding that the next tier of screening would consider combinations of alternatives if the strength of the operational and travel market analysis called for serving various markets. Costs would then need to be considered as more corridors served equates to more capital and operating expenses. This report reflects the “Hybrid” alternative responding to this concern.
8.3.2 Other Outreach Activities
The project team also engaged the community using a variety of social media and other methods. The list below describes some of the other outreach methods used for this project: Project Phone Line. A project telephone line was maintained to answer questions from the public. Project Website. The project employed a project website which has been taken over and hosted by RTA. This is referenced on the RTA home page and allows the public to view current Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study project information. The website provides all project-related materials and is updated periodically as new information becomes available. Comments can be submitted to the project public involvement coordinator through the website at any time. http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/redlinehealthlineextension Project videos. Three project videos were produced for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study. The first video was published as a part of the initial project scoping process in September 2013; the second video was published in December 2013 to discuss the initial alternatives and a third video was produced after the second-tier screening was completed. All the videos are hosted on the project website. E-mail. The project team developed a comprehensive mailing list of agencies, stakeholders, and members of the general public for the purpose of sending announcements, invitations to meetings and study reports. Twitter. The project managed a Twitter account for two years through the second tier screening. Facebook. The project developed a Facebook page, which has been absorbed into the RTA Facebook page.
8.3.3 Outreach Interaction Measures
Table 8-5 tabulates all the outreach interactions tracked by the project team for the first two years of the study. The study website created exclusively for the study was migrated to the RTA website in August 2015 when resources to manage the exclusive website were exhausted. Consequently, the total interactions reflect only the known totals as of August 2015.
123
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 8 -5 Summary of Outreach Interactions INTERACTION TYPE TOTAL
Public Meeting Attendees 207 Public Comments: Submitters - Online (Website/Email) 23 Public Comments: Submitters- Hard Copy-Comment Cards 33 Survey Participants -Online and Other 213 Hot Line Calls 8 Website Visits 5,697 Facebook Followers/Likes 63 Facebook Messages 224 Twitter Followers 0 Twitter Messages 218 YouTube Views - Video #1, #2, #3 and #4 873 TOTAL = PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INTERACTIONS 7,568
It is quite apparent that public meetings, while important, are less effective in communicating project goals, objectives and findings. Only 207 people attended public meetings while the project received nearly 5,700 website visits resulting in 873 video viewings. There were over 7,500 total public involvement interactions. 8.4 Outreach Summary Numerous comments were received from public agencies and the general public throughout the study. These comments generally fall into the following categories:
Concerns about traffic congestion, property values, public safety, and noise and visual impacts associated with the various alternatives. Several groups and a number of individuals have expressed support for extending the Red Line along the Norfolk Southern right-of-way. Other individuals have indicated support for the BRT alternatives. Questions were received about the criteria used for defining and evaluating the alternatives, particularly mobility impacts and cost effectiveness. Some questions have been raised about noise impacts related to the BRT options routed through residential neighborhoods. Comments were received from the cities of East Cleveland, Euclid and Cleveland supporting the alternatives still under active consideration, including the Red Line extension along the Norfolk Southern owned right-of-way and the BRT alignments serving Five Points, Waterloo and Nottingham Village. The public could not make a clear, consensus driven choice of what alternative they preferred. It was suggested that a Hybrid alternative, combining the two BRT options Alternatives E and G with a short extension of the Red Line HRT to Noble Road, be developed and explored during the Tier 3 screening.
124
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
9 Project Feasibility Determination
This feasibility determination was intended to investigate the eligibility of any of the Build alternatives under active consideration for a competitive FTA Capital Investment Grant (CIG) under the New Starts program. This section of the Preferred Alternative Report is based on the findings of the detailed technical investigations of the alternatives under active consideration with regard to project justification and financial ratings. This section summarizes the assessment of benefits and impacts of the proposed Red Line/HealthLine extensions and evaluation criteria ratings in accordance with the FTA Capital Investment Grant Program Final Interim Policy Guidance issued August 2015.
New Starts projects are evaluated and rated according to CIG criteria set forth in law. The project justification criteria outlined in law include: mobility improvements, environmental benefits, congestion relief, economic development effects, land use, and cost-effectiveness. The law also requires FTA to examine and rate local financial commitment, which includes availability of reasonable contingency funds, availability of stable and dependable capital and operating funding sources, and availability of local resources to recapitalize, maintain, and operate the overall existing and proposed system extension without requiring a reduction in existing services. By law, each criterion is to be rated on a five point scale, from low to high. Summary project justification and local financial commitment ratings are prepared and combined to arrive at an overall project rating. The rating scheme and weightings were illustrated in Figure 2-1.
RTA has elected to use the FTA Simplified Trips-on-Projects Software (STOPS) to estimate trips on the project. The STOPS model has been used to generate ridership forecasts and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) information for use in the mobility, congestion relief, and cost effectiveness evaluation measures and environmental benefits measure. The following sections highlight the feasibility determination based on the FTA project justification and local financial commitment evaluation.
9.1 Project Justification As noted, the project justification criteria outlined in law include: mobility improvements, congestion relief, environmental benefits, economic development effects, land use, and cost-effectiveness. Each criterion is discussed below in terms of the measure, how the evaluation measure is calculated and what the resulting rating would be based on the computed values when compared to current FTA rating values.
9.1.1 Mobility Improvements
Mobility benefits are measured by accessibility, public transport network boardings, trips and transportation system user benefits. All forecasts of ridership and mobility improvements are the product of STOPS model runs. FTA evaluates mobility improvements for New Starts projects as the total number of linked trips using the proposed project, with a weight of two given to trips that would be made on the project by transit dependent persons. Linked trips using the proposed project include all trips made on the project whether or not the rider boards or alights on the project or elsewhere in the transit system. If a project sponsor chooses to estimate trips using STOPS, then trips made by transit dependent persons are trips made by persons in households that do not own a car. If a project sponsor chooses to estimate trips using their local travel forecasting model, trips made by transit dependent persons are defined in local travel models generally in one of two ways: as trips made by persons in households having no cars or as trips made by persons living in households in the lowest income bracket as defined locally.
The mobility improvements measure is computed by adding together the estimated number of linked transit trips on the project taken by non-transit dependent persons and the number of linked transit trips taken by transit dependent persons multiplied by a factor of two, thereby giving extra weight to these trips. 125
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 9-1 shows the results of the computations for each of the Alternatives under consideration. The results are for Alternative B (HRT) operating at a 7.5 minute peak period frequency between Tower City and Babbitt Road or Noble Road and BRT options of Alternatives E and G terminating at Shoregate Shopping Center. A Hybrid BRT alternative operates every 7.5 minutes on the common route segments and 15-minutes alternating along the branch routes of Alternatives E and G to Shoregate is also considered and highlighted.
Table 9 -1 New Start Mobility Improvements Criterion Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate Shore/Noble
Daily trips on project 13,408 3,900 10,082 10,424 12,592
% trips from zero car households 31.8% 33% 38.4% 37.4% 33.7%
Transit dependent trips 4,270 1,287 3,871 3,902 4,244 Weighted dependent trips 8,540 2,574 7,742 7,804 8,488 Non-transit dependent trips 9,138 2,613 6,211 6,522 8,348 Weighted Total trips used for 17,678 5,187 13,953 14,326 16,836 Mobility Benefit calculation Annualized mobility improvements 5,303,400 1,556,100 4,185,900 4,297,800 5,050,800 FTA Mobility Improvement rating Medium Low Medium-low Medium-low Medium Source: AECOM, STOPS model runs April 2014, and March 2015 and calculations .
Alternatives E and G would be rated MEDIUM-LOW using FTA’s criterion definition for mobility improvements with the threshold being 2.5 – 4.9 million trips. The Hybrid BRT alternative alternating service on both routes E and G would generate a mobility benefit that exceeds 5.2 million also resulting in a MEDIUM rating.
However, the mobility improvement criterion value for Alternative B Red Line extension to Euclid operating on 7½ -minute frequency is 5.3 million resulting in a MEDIUM rating. The Red Line extension has the highest mobility improvement absolute value.
9.1.2 Congestion Relief
FTA evaluates congestion relief based on the number of new weekday linked transit trips (new transit riders) resulting from implementation of the proposed project. FTA recognizes that this is an indirect measure of roadway congestion relief resulting from implementation of a transit project, but it serves as an indicator of potential cars taken off the road. Additionally, it keeps FTA from double counting the total transit trips evaluated under the mobility criterion or the vehicle miles traveled evaluated under the environmental benefits criterion.
Because the measure of new weekday linked transit trips is an incremental value, a basis for comparison is required. The Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study evaluated the ridership and mobility benefits using current year inputs of population and employment. Consequently, the proposed Build alternatives are compared to the existing transit system as defined in the No Build alternative.
126
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 9 -2 New Start Congestion Relief Criterion Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Technology HRT HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Shoregate/ Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate Noble Route Miles 6.5 1.3 10.5 10.4 14.0
Stations 7 2 23 23 31
Peak Period Frequency 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min 7.5 min
Average Daily Riders 13,408 3,900 10,082 10,424 12,592
New Transit Riders 11,070 2,820 3,902 4,316 5,531
Congestion Relief Rating Medium-high Medium Medium Medium Medium Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and calculations.
Based on the number of new trips attracted to the transit system, the Red Line extension would be rated MEDIUM-HIGH while the HealthLine extensions of Alternatives E and G would likely be rated MEDIUM. The Hybrid alternative also would be rated MEDIUM.
9.1.3 Environmental Benefits
FTA evaluates and rates the environmental benefits criterion for New Starts projects based upon the dollar value of the anticipated direct and indirect benefits to human health, safety, energy, and the air quality environment scaled by the annualized capital and operating cost of the project. These benefits are computed based on the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Because change in VMT is an incremental measure, a point of comparison is necessary to calculate environmental benefits. To calculate the measures for the current year, the point of comparison is the existing transit system as defined by the No Build alternative. The estimated environmental benefits are monetized and compared to the same annualized capital and operating cost of the proposed New Starts project as used in the cost effectiveness calculation.
Environmental benefits include the following subfactors: change in air quality criteria pollutants, change in greenhouse gas emissions, change in energy use, and change in safety. Values for change in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions have been established so as to not double count. The subfactors are calculated from forecasts of changes in automobile and transit vehicle miles traveled (VMT). All measures are converted from VMT into their native units (e.g., tons of emissions or total accidents) using national-level standard conversion factors. The native units are monetized based on standard dollar values established by research. For air quality subfactors, weights are applied to reflect FTA judgment that higher priority be given to projects achieving reductions in nonattainment and maintenance areas. The monetized and weighted values of the various environmental benefits are summed and compared to the same annualized capital and operating cost of the proposed project as is used in the cost effectiveness calculation for New Starts projects.
127
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Green Book” listings, Cleveland is considered:
CO – Maintenance NO2 – Attainment Ozone – Nonattainment PM 2.5 - Maintenance
Air Quality Criteria Pollutants – Air quality improvements are measured by determining the changes in Carbon Monoxide (CO), Mono-Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM2.5), and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) by calculating emission rates per VMT for automobiles (cars and light trucks) and transit vehicles including buses (diesel, hybrid-electric, and CNG, light rail transit vehicles and heavy rail vehicles. Because of the potential for double counting the value in reductions of PM2.5 and PM10, FTA includes only PM2.5 in the air quality measure.
Table 9 -3 New Start Air Quality Criterion Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Annualized changes in VMT -22,572,000 -7,935,923 -8,440,000 -9,328,154 CO (kg) -378,532 -133,085 -148,313 -156,433
NOx (kg) -20,540 -7,222 -8,048 -8,489 VOC (kg) -13,543 -4,761 -5,306 -5,596 PM2.5 (kg) -225 -79 -88 -93 Monetized Value $557,832 $195,966 $218,390 $230,345 Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and New Starts templates November 2015.
It is clear from Table 9-3 that Alternative B, the Red Line extension, is clearly superior to the HealthLine extension alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative. The Red Line attracts more new riders from automobiles and reduces VMT significantly resulting in greatly improved air quality when compared to the BRT options.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions - The calculation of the proposed unit rates for GHG emissions includes the application of emissions factors by fuel type. To capture the monetary value of change in GHG emissions, FTA uses the $38 midrange estimate of the social cost of carbon obtained from the Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866 (May 2013), which is a document developed and updated periodically by an Interagency Working Group comprised of a number of Federal agencies. The $38 value is the 2015 midrange estimate based on a 3 percent discount rate. Using the latest New Starts template, the following reductions in GHG emission are determined and highlighted in Table 9-4.
Table 9 -4 New Start Greenhouse Gas Criterion Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Annualized changes in VMT -22,572,000 -7,935,923 -8,440,000 -9,328,154 Emission decrease (tons) -12,008 -4,222 -4,705 -4,962 Monetized Value $456,315 $160,432 $178,790 $188,578 Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and New Starts templates November 2015.
128
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Again it is clear from Table 9-4 that Alternative B, the Red Line extension, is clearly superior to the HealthLine extension alternatives E and G in reducing GHG. The Red Line attracts more new riders from automobiles, reduces VMT significantly and the Red Line railcars are powered by electricity resulting in greatly reduced GHG when compared to the BRT options.
Energy Use - A significant part of the benefits that come from reducing energy use is already accounted for by the resulting reduction in pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. In this measure, FTA is attempting to capture the benefit coming from reduced reliance on foreign fuels. Thus, the change in energy use is only computed for modes that use petroleum fuel. The measure estimates the change in energy consumption rates for transit and automobile modes based on the forecasted change in VMT.
FTA then monetizes the change in energy use based on the economic cost of dependence on imported petroleum for fuels. FTA uses a value of $0.20 per gallon of petroleum fuel (Leiby/ORNL 2012). To convert from Btu to gallons of petroleum fuel, FTA uses conversion factors (from the GREET model) of 116,090 Btu per gallon of gasoline and 128,450 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel. Therefore, the monetization factors are $1.72 per million Btu for gasoline and $1.56 per million Btu for diesel fuel. Gasoline is assumed to be the sole fuel for changes in automobile VMT for simplicity in the computation.
Using the latest New Starts template, the following reductions in energy use are determined and highlighted in Table 9-5.
Table 9 -5 New Start Energy Savings Criterion Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Annualized changes in VMT -22,572,000 -7,935,923 -8,440,000 -9,328,154
Energy use decrease (millions Btu) -170,621 -59,987 -66,851 -70,511 Monetized Value $293,469 $103,178 $114,985 $121,280 Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and New Starts templates November 2015.
Alternative B, the Red Line extension, is clearly superior to the HealthLine extension alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative in reducing energy use. The Red Line attracts more new riders from automobiles, reduces VMT significantly and the Red Line railcars are powered by electricity resulting in greatly reduced oil consumption when compared to the BRT options.
Safety - To measure change in safety, FTA uses the change in VMT to calculate changes in disabling injuries and fatalities for automobiles and transit. FTA does not attempt to capture the changes in pedestrian or bicyclist accidents or injuries resulting from changes in VMT because of the difficulty in accounting for such changes using readily available national data. To monetize the estimated changes in safety, FTA uses USDOT guidance on the value of a statistical life and injuries. According to the most recent guidance, published in 2014, the current value of a statistical life is $9.2 million. The value FTA uses for a disabling injury for both transit and automobiles is $490,000, which is 5.39 percent of the USDOT value of a statistical life, based on the KABCO23 scale in the 2009 Highway Safety Manual published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration.
23 KABCO is not an abbreviation or acronym. It is a catenation of the coding system police use to categorize injuries. 129
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Using the latest New Starts template, the following decrease in the number of fatalities and injuries are determined and highlighted in Table 9-6.
Table 9 -6 New Start Safety Criterion Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Annualized changes in VMT -22,572,000 -7,935,923 -8,440,000 -9,328,154 Decrease in fatalities per million VMT -0.29 -0.10 0.11 0.12 Decrease in injuries per million VMT -4.4 -1.55 1.72 1.82 Monetized Value $4,827,021 $1,694,096 $1,891,289 $1,994,825 Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and New Starts templates November 2015.
The Red Line extension Alternative B is clearly superior to the HealthLine extension alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative in reducing fatalities and injuries and improving safety. The Red Line attracts more new riders from automobiles, reduces VMT significantly resulting in fewer automobile accidents when compared to the BRT options.
Summary Rating for Environmental Benefits - The environmental benefits measure for New Starts projects is the sum of the monetized value of the benefits resulting from the changes in air quality and GHG emissions, energy use, and safety divided by the same annualized capital and operating cost of the project as used in the cost effectiveness measure. FTA multiplies the resulting ratio by 100 and expresses the environmental benefit measure as a percentage. The resulting calculations and ratings are highlighted in Table 9-7.
Table 9 -7 New Start Environmental Benefits Criterion Rating Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Annualized changes in VMT -22,572,000 -7,935,923 -8,440,000 -9,328,154 Total monetized value of benefits $6,134,191 $2,156,675 $2,403,455 $2,535,029 Annualized cost of alternative $37,700,000 $19,900,000 $20,700,000 $26,200,000 Ratio of benefits to annualized cost 16.2% 10.8% 11.6% 9.7% Environmental Benefits Rating High High High Medium-High Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and New Starts templates November 2015.
The Red Line extension would be rated HIGH. The HealthLine extension alternatives E and G also would be rated HIGH. The Hybrid alternative would be rated MEDIUM-HIGH. The Red Line clearly attracts more new riders from automobiles, reduces VMT significantly more than the BRT options resulting in fewer emissions, fewer GHG, reductions in energy use and automobile accidents when compared to the BRT options including the Hybrid alternative. However, the lower CAPEX and OPEX of the BRT options result in significantly lower annualized cost of the BRT options, which in turn boost the environmental benefits rating by being slightly higher than 10 percent of the annualized cost.
9.1.4 Economic Development Effects
The measure of economic development effects is the extent to which a proposed project is likely to induce additional, transit-supportive development in the future based on a qualitative examination of the
130
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
existing local plans and policies to support economic development proximate to the project. FTA evaluates transit supportive plans and policies, the demonstrated performance of those plans and policies, and the policies and tools in place to preserve or increase the amount of affordable housing in the project corridor.
Urban Fabric Analysis24 and Market Perspective analysis25 were prepared to illustrate the applicable set of economic development and urban design challenges and opportunities, which differ considerably across transit technologies and community settings of each of the alternatives under active consideration. In fact, the urban fabric analysis did not, by itself, give the complete economic development picture. A companion report on development market analysis outlines, in preliminary fashion, the extent to which future economic conditions in the study area and Northeast Ohio might be expected to support the kinds of development outcomes identified as part of the evaluation of the Red Line/HealthLine extension alternatives.
The work of the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium (NEOSCC) delineated a broad public policy choice between a “business as usual” or “trend” scenario and a series of alternative futures for the region. The scenario planning effort is an aspirational framework for long-term growth and transportation planning which the state, NOACA, the region’s counties and municipalities, and several regional advocacy groups have developed collaboratively. The extent to which the affected jurisdictions adopt policies consistent with this framework remains to be seen, and there is no guarantee that adopting such policies would influence the market sufficiently to favor the study area. But a major transit investment, capitalizing on University Circle, Five Points, Nottingham Village/East 185th Street, Downtown Euclid and Lake Shore Blvd, coupled with the study area’s exceptional highway and rail access, would fall squarely in the Growing Differently regional vision
One of NEOSCC’s policy statements addresses the drivers of the region’s long-term outward migration of population and jobs and the corresponding barriers to redevelopment of older areas undergoing disinvestment and abandonment. While the underlying economic barriers are significant enough, the outward flow is exacerbated by the location-neutrality of most existing state and local development incentives. NEOSCC concluded that “there is nothing in Northeast Ohio’s primary economic development incentives that directs development toward communities that have particular transportation infrastructure, housing characteristics, or population attributes, such as median income or poverty level. These programs are silent on questions of how to maximize location-based assets and meet location-based needs. This absence is particularly true for state programs.”
If a major transit investment is to succeed over time in attracting economic development and transit oriented development (TOD) to the study area, a multi-faceted public intervention will be required. There are important differences in how the three alternatives intersect the urban fabric, both in its present condition (which determines whether existing land use patterns are transit-supportive and adequately connected to the stations) and in the opportunity for future TOD. Those differences can be summarized as follows:
Alternative B Red Line Extension:
Alternative B interfaces meaningfully with existing residential neighborhoods and community institutions only in its first two station areas, Shaw Avenue and Noble Road. These stations also
24 AECOM, “Urban Fabric Analysis,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Red Line/Healthline Extension Major Investment Analysis; June 20, 2014. 25 AECOM, “Market Perspective,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Red Line/Healthline Extension Major Investment Analysis; June 18, 2014. 131
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
place Alternative B within close walking distance, and even within eye contact, of the Euclid Avenue corridor. However, much of the Noble Road station area, and all of the station areas east of Noble, are dominated by a mix of active, underutilized, and vacant industrial land, with relatively little pedestrian connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. Alternative B is on the fringes of Five Points and a two-mile bus ride from Downtown Euclid. In terms of existing transit- supportive land uses, or proximity to main streets and neighborhood business districts in need of revitalization, Alternative B, except at Shaw and Noble, is relatively “off the grid”.
Alternative B would directly serve the study area’s two district-scale opportunities for transit- oriented redevelopment: the industrial triangle at Noble Road station and the expanse of vacant land and shuttered malls at Babbitt Road. In the face of its weak population and employment densities, the transformative scale of these two opportunities (albeit over what might be a long period of time) is an argument for considering Alternative B. The increased ridership generated by the Red Line extension is equivalent to the current average combined daily ridership of the Blue and Green Lines serving residential neighborhoods in Shaker Heights.
Alternative B would involve stations removed from the normal pedestrian environment. While they would generate streetscape improvements in their immediate environs, these would be, by nature, routes to and from the station rather than investments in the fabric of busy streets and intersections. Again, the exceptions would be Shaw, Noble, and, in the sense of creating a new street grid from scratch, Babbitt.
Alternatives E, G and Hybrid HealthLine Extension:
By contrast, the street-running BRT technologies of Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative are woven, from end to end, into the fabric of the three communities. The stations are all in the street, either at the curb with the platforms integrated into the sidewalk or in the center median in the iconic style of the HealthLine. People will walk to these stations, which are closer together and part of a highly visible streetscape upgrade along the corridor. The BRT alternatives were designed to serve Euclid Avenue, Five Points, Lakeshore Boulevard, and Downtown Euclid, traditional “main streets” served historically by streetcar lines. Where Alternatives E and G diverge, the choice is between similar opportunities. No single BRT station would have the ridership impact of one Red Line station, but BRT offers, in each segment, a series of stations in full contact with their surroundings and as the spine of an enhanced public realm.
Alternatives E and G are similar but not identical, and their unique segments traverse areas where BRT would reinforce the urban fabric. Alternative G would serve two very different corridors. On St. Clair Avenue, from Five Points to Nottingham Village, the transit line would serve residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including the study area’s largest concentration of industrial land designated for future light industrial use. On East 185th Street, Alternative G would be woven into one of the strongest neighborhood commercial corridors in the region, yet one that needs reinforcement and is a priority for both Cleveland and Euclid, whose mutual boundary it forms.
Alternative E would reinforce the Waterloo Arts District, serve the residential neighborhood along East 156th Street, and cover more of Lakeshore Boulevard. As worthwhile as these urban fabric interventions would be in their own terms, the greater need and the greater upside appears to lie with Alternative G.
132
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The Hybrid alternative combines the characteristics and design features of both Alternatives E and G and adds a short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road. The Red Line extension could be a catalyst for the redevelopment of the long abandoned industrial land north of Euclid Avenue between Noble Road and Ivanhoe Road in East Cleveland and could be designed to be in harmony with General Electric’s NELA Park. The possibilities are only limited by imagination and developer interest and funding.
The choice of any of the Build alternatives would involve some degree of aspiration with respect to future economic development. That said, the four alternatives, with their different relationships to the urban fabric, would address different potential market futures.
A choice of Alternative E or G would primarily target the infill market, using the transit and associated public realm investments to help attract a mix of residential, retail, civic, and employment uses to Euclid Avenue, Five Points, the Waterloo Arts District (Alternative E), St. Clair Avenue and East 185th Street (Alternative G), Lakeshore Boulevard, and Downtown Euclid. The HealthLine BRT extensions would also seek to support a transformational market outcome in the "industrial triangle" between Euclid Avenue and Five Points. If Alternative G were chosen, the BRT investment would support the industrial market on St. Clair Avenue, where the City of Cleveland has designated large area for light industrial reuse. This is the inspiration for developing the Hybrid alternative. No choice between Alternatives E and G need be made. But the higher cost of implementing the Hybrid alternative could become a showstopper.
A choice of Alternative B as a Red Line extension, with its high cost, weak existing population and employment density, extensive vacant land, and fragmented pedestrian environment, would primarily target the transformational market at the “industrial triangle” Noble Road Station bounded by East 152nd Street, Noble Road, Ivanhoe Road and Euclid Avenue and at its terminus at Babbitt Road near Euclid Square Mall. The Red Line would also serve the industrial market along the entire extension from Noble Road eastward. This alternative would provide bi-directional mobility from the study area into University Circle and Downtown Cleveland to the west and the industrial employment center in Lake County to the east with transfers to Laketran local bus services.
Based on the findings of the Urban Fabric Analysis and Market Perspective Analysis, ratings for economic development would likely be:
Growth Management: Limited consideration has been given to implementing growth management and land conservation policies; adopted policies may be weak and apply to only a limited area. Existing and/or planned densities and market trends are minimally or not supportive of transit. This has been changing slightly over time and cities are now aware of the importance of transit investment to encourage redevelopment. This would result in a MEDIUM-LOW rating.
Transit-Supportive Corridor Policies: Limited progress, to date, has been made toward developing station area conceptual plans or revising local comprehensive or small area plans. Station area uses identified in local comprehensive plans are marginally or not transit-supportive but recent planning work has been attempting to address some deficiencies. But, more supportive policies are needed to improve the rating. This would result in MEDIUM-LOW rating.
Supportive Zoning Near Transit: The study area is a transit supportive area of the city with dense housing and network of highly patronized transit route. A conceptual planning process is underway to recommend zoning changes for station areas. Local jurisdictions are in the process of committing to examining and changing zoning regulations where necessary. This would result in a MEDIUM rating.
133
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Tools to Implement Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies: RTA and the affected municipalities have conducted some outreach to promote transit-supportive planning and station area development. The agencies are investigating regulatory and financial incentives to promote transit-oriented development. Capital improvements are being identified that support station area plans, which would leverage the Federal investment in the proposed major transit corridor. This would result in a MEDIUM rating.
Performance of Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies: A significant number of development proposals are being received for transit-supportive housing and employment in station areas in Uptown in University Circle. This development pattern is beginning to spill over into adjacent parts of East Cleveland that border University Circle. Significant amounts of transit-supportive development have occurred in other, existing transit corridors and station areas in the region, notably the Euclid Corridor in Cleveland. This would result in a HIGH rating.
Potential Impact of Transit Project on Regional Development: A significant amount of land in station areas is available for new development or redevelopment at transit-supportive densities. Local plans, policies, and development programs, as well as real estate market conditions, moderately support such development. This would result in a MEDIUM rating.
Plans and Policies to Maintain or Increase Affordable Housing in Corridor: Affordable housing plans are being developed that identify and address the current and prospective housing affordability needs along the corridor. The plans include efforts to preserve existing subsidized housing. The plans also explicitly address the needs of very- and extremely-low income households. Some financial incentives are available along the proposed corridor to support affordable housing acquisition (including acquisition of land and/or properties intended to be converted to affordable housing), development and/or preservation consistent with adopted plans and policies. These commitments may include early phase or acquisition financing as well as permanent financing. Local policies and zoning codes support affordable housing development in and near transit corridors to a moderate extent. Some developers are starting to work in the corridor to secure priority development sites and/or maintain affordability levels in existing housing units. This would result in a MEDIUM rating.
Table 9-8 tabulates the qualitative assessment and assigned ratings based on experience and review of prior FTA New Start project evaluations and rating of economic development criteria. Because these ratings are qualitative in nature, they are subject to discussion and debate. However, the underlying assumption is the projected continued out-migration of population from Cuyahoga County to adjacent counties suggests an underlying weakness in developer interest and demand for renewal of aging communities and its attendant infrastructure. A major public transportation investment could help arrest and reverse this trend. Table 9-8 New Starts Economic Development Criterion Rating Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Growth management Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Transit supportive policies Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Supportive zoning near transit Medium Medium Medium Medium Implementation tools for TOD Medium Medium Medium Medium Performance of TOD policies Medium-High High High High Potential TOD impact of project Medium Medium Medium Medium
134
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Plans and policies affordable housing Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium-low Medium Medium Medium Economic Development Rating 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 Source: AECOM qualitative analysis.
The overall rating for economic development for Alternative B HRT would likely be MEDIUM-LOW with a very strong chance of being elevated as the project is defined during the project development and engineering phases of the New Starts rating process. The BRT options would be rated MEDIUM.
The affected cities served by these alternatives can begin to develop the transit supportive and growth management policies and programs necessary to create the incentives and tools essential to achieve the regeneration and redevelopment desired in the station areas previewed in this report. By so doing, the ratings for growth management and transit-supportive policies specific criteria can be raised from low to medium thereby raising the summary rating to medium.
A major transit investment using any of the Build alternative alignments under active consideration would help focus public and private investment in a long-established employment and residential area of regional importance. This study area represents over a century of prior infrastructure investment and its revitalization over time would advance the region’s growth management goals. All the infrastructure and building blocks for revitalization are present. What the area needs is the stimulus a major transit infrastructure investment can provide.
9.1.5 Land Use
The land use measure includes an examination of existing corridor and station area development; existing corridor and station area development character; existing station area pedestrian facilities, including access for persons with disabilities; existing corridor and station area parking supply; and the proportion of existing “legally binding affordability restricted” housing within ½ mile of station areas to the proportion of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing in the counties through which the project travels.
A legally binding affordability restriction is a lien, deed of trust or other legal instrument attached to a property and/or housing structure that restricts the cost of housing units to be affordable to households at specified income levels for a defined period of time and requires that households at these income levels occupy these units. This definition, includes, but is not limited to, state or federally supported public housing, and housing owned by organizations dedicated to providing affordable housing. For the land use measure looking at existing affordable housing, FTA is seeking legally binding affordability restricted units to renters with incomes below 60 percent of the area median income and/or owners with incomes below the area median that are within ½ mile of station areas and in the counties through which the project travels.
FTA bases the rating primarily on quantitative measures, including station area population densities, total employment served by the project, and the proportion of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing within ½ mile of stations areas to the proportion of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing in the counties through which the project travels. Poor pedestrian accessibility may reduce the rating, as it reduces the effective amount of population and employment directly served by the system. Otherwise, the presence of high trip generators, a pedestrian-accessible and friendly station area environment, and
135
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
limited availability of parking all serve to support the rating. A station area encompasses a ½ mile radius of the station.
The value, affordability, and condition of housing are important dimensions of an area’s socioeconomic status. Three common measures are described below and summarized in Table 9-9.
Percent Owner-Occupied. While rental housing is often a valuable and important part of a community’s housing stock (and much of the currently available capital for new housing development, both affordable and market-rate is in the rental market), home ownership is traditionally seen as an indicator of community strength. There is a clear divide between the Cuyahoga and Lake communities. Home ownership is lowest in East Cleveland and Collinwood, but on this measure the difference between Euclid and the immediately adjacent Lake County communities of Wickliffe and Willowick is also pronounced—48% versus 85% and 86%.
Median Gross Rent. While 2010 rental prices in Euclid were comparable to those in Lake County, those in East Cleveland and Collinwood were measurably, although not dramatically, lower.
Percent vacant. This measure is averaged over five years (2006-2010) to provide a meaningful indicator of conditions in each community. There is 11% of the units in Euclid and 35% of the units in East Cleveland were vacant.
Table 9 -9 Housing Stock Characteristics Percent Owner Median Monthly Percent Units Vacant Community Occupied (2010) Rent (2010) (2005-10) Cleveland (Collinwood) 36% $ 649.31 18% East Cleveland 22% $ 604.18 35% Euclid 48% $ 806.19 11% Study Area Average 35% $686.55 21% Source: US Census 2010; NEOCANDO (Case Western Reserve) from US Census
Housing affordability is an important concept in evaluating potential transit improvements for two distinct reasons. First, thanks to the recent work of both the Urban Land Institute and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), housing affordability is increasingly understood as just one side of a more complex measure that combines housing costs and daily transportation costs. Housing on the fringe of a metropolitan area may cost less than housing closer to the core, but if the suburban or exurban alternative requires a long daily commute (with the all-in costs of an additional car, parking, and gasoline) the difference may be eliminated or reversed. While housing is traditionally considered affordable at 30 percent of a household’s income, CNT has demonstrated that the threshold for housing plus transportation is 45 percent of income. By CNT’s metric Collinwood and East Cleveland are largely affordable; Euclid, Wickliffe, and Willowick are mixed; and Eastlake, Willoughby, Mentor, and Mentor-on- the-Lake are largely not affordable when post-recession incomes, housing prices (mostly for-sale), and commuting costs are all factored in.
Housing units in the study area were identified that are officially categorized as affordable, with legally binding income eligibility criteria, as part of the Baseline Conditions Report. Error! Reference source not found. Figure 17 in the Baseline Conditions Report (2013) locates such units, as provided by the Ohio Housing Finance Agency. The number of affordable housing units within ½-mile of stations was not tallied, but it was demonstrated that the study area has sufficient affordable housing units to qualify for a MEDIUM rating. The proportion of legally binding affordability restricted housing in the project corridor is within the lower boundary of the MEDIUM rating.
136
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Another measure of land-use is the density of population and total employment within ½-mile of stations. The average population density should exceed 5,760 people per square mile to achieve a medium rating. Employment within the same ½-mile radius of stations includes all jobs that can be reached by a one- seat ride using the project alternative being considered. In addition to the study area, the Red Line and HealthLine extension serve University Circle and Downtown Cleveland with one-seat ride services. These are, among the highest employment centers in the State of Ohio.
Table 9 -10 Population Density and Employment Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Stations 7 23 23 31 Square miles 5.53 18.17 18.17 24.49 Population ½-mile station catchment 24,752 54,480 53,038 61,907 Population density per mile2 4,479.9 2,998.3 2,918.9 2,527.8 Population Density Rating Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Low Study area employment 10,050 8,744 10,117 26,755 Downtown + University Circle 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 Total Employment 140,050 138,744 140,117 156,755 Employment Rating Medium-high Medium Medium-high Medium-high Source: US Census 2010, AECOM calculations.
Average population densities within a ½-mile of the stations of the planned extensions of the Red line and HealthLine do not exceed the lower boundary for a medium rating for land-use. Alternatives B, E and G would all be rated MEDIUM-LOW and Table 9-11 tabulates the individual land-use criteria used to develop a summary rating for the land-use criterion. The study area has a diverse land-use base and is characterized by very large tracts of industrial land. The study area also includes major railroad infrastructure including the CSXT Collinwood Yard and the NS Euclid Yard. The relatively low population density per station area is affected by this industrial land-use. However, the residential neighborhoods are very dense and walkable having been developed at the turn of the prior century when streetcars were the primary mode of transportation. Consequently, land-use would likely be rated MEDIUM for all the alternatives being considered.
Table 9 -11 Summary Land-Use Criterion Rating Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Affordable housing rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Population density rating Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Low Employment rating Medium-high Medium Medium-high Medium-high Land-Use Rating Medium Medium-low Medium Medium-low Source: AECOM calculations and qualitative analysis.
137
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
9.1.6 Cost Effectiveness
The law requires that the cost-effectiveness criterion for New Starts projects be based on a cost per trip measure. Therefore, the cost effectiveness measure for New Starts projects is the annual capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) cost per trip on the project. The number of trips on the project is not an incremental measure but simply total estimated trips on the project. Costs and annualized costs were highlighted in Chapter 5. The incremental cost per transit trip on the project is calculated by determining the annualized capital expenditure of the alternative and adding the annual net operating cost to obtain the sum of annualized costs. In Section 7.2 the cost effectiveness indices were calculated for the Build alternatives under consideration. Table 9-12 again illustrates the results of these calculations for the alternatives being considered and presents the cost per trip for each alternative and the FTA cost effectiveness rating. The FTA threshold for a medium rating for cost effectiveness requires a cost per trip between $6.00 and $9.9926. All the BRT options, Alternative E and G including the Hybrid alternative satisfy this criterion in terms of cost per trip. Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid alternative would all achieve a MEDIUM rating. The Red Line Alternative B extension to Babbitt Road has the highest cost per rider but it would also be rated MEDIUM falling below the $9.99 threshold. The Red Line Noble Road extension if examined as a minimum operable segment of Alternative B would be rated MEDIUM/HIGH falling below the $6.00 threshold at $5.87 per rider. All of the Build alternatives are cost effective.
Table 9 -12 Cost Effectiveness Index – Cost per Trip Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid
Terminus Babbitt Noble Shoregate Shoregate Shoregate
Annualized CAPEX ($ 000) $ 25,890 $ 5,091 $ 13,829 $ 13,734 $ 16,785
Annualized Net OPEX ($ 000) $ 11,900 $ 2,300 $ 6,100 $ 7,000 $ 9,400
Total Annualized Costs ($ 000) $ 37,790 $ 7,391 $ 19,929 $ 20,734 $ 26,185
Annualized Trips on Project (000) 4,022 1,170 3,024 3,127 3,777
Cost per Trip on Project $9.41 $5.87 $6.58 6.62 $6.90
Cost Effectiveness Rating Medium Medium-high Medium Medium Medium Source: AECOM calculations.
9.1.7 Summary Project Justification Rating
The resulting tabulations and ratings are summarized and highlighted in Table 9-13.
26 Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Guidance FY2015; Washington, DC; August 2013.
138
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Table 9 -13 Summary Project Justification Rating Criteria Alt B Alt E Alt G Hybrid
Mobility Medium Medium-low Medium-low Medium Congestion relief Medium Medium-low Medium-low Medium Environmental benefits High High High Medium-High Economic development Medium-low Medium Medium Medium Land-use Medium Medium-low Medium Medium-low Cost effectiveness Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium-low Medium Medium Project Justification Rating 3.16 2.8 3.0 3.0 Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and New Starts templates November 2015.
It is important to recognize how the FTA Project Justification Criteria are being used at this early stage of project discernment and evaluation. The data being generated and being applied for rating purposes cannot be viewed as rigid metrics to choose among alternatives being considered. Rather, the evaluation of potential projects is based on locally-established goals and objectives. As part of that process, the rough, preliminary, partial estimates of the Project Justification Criteria are being used to see if the any of the alternatives appear to be markedly differentiated—i.e., whether one choice would clearly have a better chance in a future national competition for federal Capital Investment Grant program funding.
Clearly, each of the alternatives under consideration could be rated MEDIUM for project justification. With Alternative E being rated slightly below the other alternatives at MEDIUM-LOW, there is room to speculate that this rating would also be MEDIUM if a few other changes were made to the economic development rating. As one would expect, each alternative has its own strengths and weaknesses and an evaluation that weights all the criteria equally does not allow a proper discernment of the total benefits of the alternatives. As a consequence, it will be difficult to recommend a preferred alternative from a project justification perspective.
The Red Line extension Alternative B receives higher ratings for mobility and congestion relief when compared to the BRT options of Alternatives E and G. Alternative B is equal to the Hybrid alternative in those criteria that evaluate transportation benefits. But Alternative B costs $917 million and is more than twice as expensive to plan, design and construct as the BRT options and is one-third more expensive than the Hybrid alternative. Alternative B, E and G all receive high ratings for environmental benefits despite the Red Line extension generating significantly more new transit riders thereby reducing daily VMT. Although the BRT options have significantly less mobility benefits and attracts fewer new transit riders, the lower CAPEX and OPEX when compared to the HRT option results in the same high rating for environmental benefits as a percent of annualized cost.
9.2 Local Financial Commitment The law requires that proposed New Starts projects be supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain and operate the transit system or extension, and maintain and operate the entire public transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing services.
139
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
A financial plan and 20-year cash flow statement must be prepared in accordance with FTA’s Guidance for Transit Financial Plans. The measures FTA uses for the evaluation of local financial commitment for proposed New Starts projects are:
The proposed share of total project capital costs from sources other than the Section 5309 CIG program;
The current financial condition, both capital and operating, of the RTA;
The commitment of funds for both the capital cost of the proposed project and the ongoing transit system operation and maintenance;
The reasonableness of the financial plan, including planning assumptions, cost estimates, and the capacity to withstand funding shortfalls or cost overruns.
Individual ratings will be given to each of the following measures:
Current Capital and Operating Condition - The rating for the current capital and operating condition will be based upon the average fleet age, bond ratings if given within the last two years, the current ratio as shown in the project sponsor’s most recent audited financial statement (ratio of current assets to current liabilities), and recent service history including whether there have been significant cuts in service. In arriving at a current condition rating, the majority of the emphasis will be placed on the fleet age and current ratio. The bond rating and service history will have less emphasis. Temporary aberrations in any of these measures would have less of an effect than ongoing systemic concerns.
Commitment of Funds - The rating for commitment of funds will be based on the percentage of funds (both capital and operating) that are committed or budgeted versus those considered only planned or unspecified.
Reasonableness of Financial Plan - The rating for the reasonableness of the financial plan will be based upon whether capital and operating planning assumptions are comparable to historical experience, the reasonableness of the capital cost estimate of the project, adequacy of meeting state of good repair needs, and the project sponsor’s financial capacity to withstand cost increases or funding shortfalls.
The summary local financial commitment rating will also take into consideration the share of CIG funding requested. If the summary local financial commitment rating is rated at least Medium and the CIG share is less than 50 percent of the project’s capital cost (i.e., the project sponsor is providing significant overmatch), then the summary local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.
9.2.1 Current Capital and Operating Condition
The average age of the existing RTA bus and rail fleets are instructive. The average age of the RTA bus fleet is approximately 9.2 years old reflecting heavy purchases of new buses in the earlier part of the century. Purchases tapered off over the past 10 years. RTA has begun a bus replacement campaign that will include the purchase of 240 new CNG buses over the next four years. RTA commenced this campaign in 2015 by purchasing 90 new Gillig 40-foot CNG buses replacing some of the oldest buses in its fleet, which were purchased in 2001. This campaign will continue to reduce the average age of the bus fleet to about 7.2 years by 2018. There is a $6.0 million per year funding gap from local and federal formula funds to maintain this fleet replacement program. RTA has been seeking competitive grant funds to close this gap.
140
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
The RTA replaced the entire rail fleet it inherited from the Cleveland Transit System and Shaker Heights Rapid Transit shortly after commencing operations in 1975. The RTA replaced its low platform PCC streetcar rail fleet between 1980 and 1982 with 48 light rail vehicles built by Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie. RTA replaced its fleet of St Louis Car and Pullman-Standard high platform heavy rail vehicles with 60 stainless railcars manufactured by Tokyu Car Corporation between 1984-1985. The current average age of the rail fleet is 33 years. This is approximately eight years beyond the life expectancy of the rail fleet. RTA began a campaign to rebuild and overhaul its aging rail fleet about eight years ago. It is expected the overhaul will extend the rail fleet life another 10 years. The rail fleet is expected to be replaced in 2025. The estimated cost to replace the rail fleet is in excess of $280 million. There is no source of funding sufficient to generate the local matching share for the rail fleet replacement.
In 2014, RTA reported it has $254 million in unfunded projects that are needed to restore the system to a state-of-good-repair. The stark math of the shortfall was discussed during the Board hearings on the 2016 budget for infrastructure investments. RTA took a five-year look at its needs through 2020.
RTA’s 2016-2019 CIP has identified federal, state and local sources for $309 million in improvements over the next five years, though $100 million of that will be for simply maintaining buses, trains and track. The biggest new projects include the purchase of CNG buses as noted above ($67 million), bridge repair ($23.8 million), upgrading the overhead power distribution and catenary of the rail transit lines ($19.3 million) and rehabilitating stretches of rail track ($31.3 million). But RTA's plan for vehicle, track and station improvements also cites more than a quarter of a billion dollars in work that languishes without money to pay for it. And this does not include the $280 million for railcar fleet replacement.
RTA has the ability to borrow funds up to limits prescribed by law or it can seek an increase in its ad valorem taxes. As pointed out in Section 5, RTA needs approximately 0.3 – 0.05 percent increase in the sales and use tax to bring the system up to a state-of-good-repair and provide local match for system expansion. RTA has not indicated any willingness to present a tax increase to the voters of Cuyahoga County.
The RTA has sold un-voted general obligation (capital improvement) bonds to partially finance the purchase and construction of various capital assets. Payment of debt service on the outstanding un- voted general obligation bonds of the RTA is secured by a pledge of all revenues of the RTA, except those specifically limited to another use or prohibited from that use by the Ohio Constitution (state or federal law, or any revenue bond trust agreement that RTA might execute). In practice, debt service has been paid from the receipts of the RTA sales and use tax.
Subject to the approval of the County Budget Commission, the debt service can also be paid, in the event it is not paid from other sources, from the proceeds of the levy by the RTA of ad valorem taxes within the ten-mill limitation provided by Ohio law. The RTA can also, with the approval of the voters within the territory of the RTA, issue general obligation bonds that, unless paid from other sources, are payable from the proceeds of the levy by the RTA of ad valorem taxes that are outside that ten-mill limitation.
The RTA had $153.2 million of outstanding capital improvement bonds as of September 2015. Of this amount $11.3 million is non-callable and $43.6 million is callable. The RTA general obligation debt is rated ‘Aa2’ by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and ‘AAA’ by Standard & Poors. The sales tax revenue bonds were rated AAA by S&P and Aa2 by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
Current sales and use tax is not generating sufficient revenue to fund on-going capital improvement and system operations. RTA has signaled the general public that a fare increase and another round of
141
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
service cuts and adjustments are necessary to balance the 2016 budget. System expansion is not possible.
Because of the significant backlog in state-of-good-repair and no identified sources of funding to pay for deferred capital replacement, renovation and overhaul and system expansion, this aspect of local financial commitment would likely be rated LOW.
9.2.2 Commitment of Funds
RTA is unable to commit any substantial percentage of the capital cost of any of the alternatives under active consideration in light of the foregoing discussion on current capital and operating condition. In addition, there is no ability to fund additional operating costs for service expansion given the current limited revenue sources. This aspect of local financial commitment would likely be rated LOW.
9.2.3 Reasonableness of Financial Plan
While the fare paid by transit users pays a portion of the cost of transit, the majority of the cost of RTA’s public transit service is provided by county sales tax revenues. The balance of the funding is from state and federal funding. State funding is near zero with no prospect of any increases in state support despite the findings from the ODOT sponsored Transit Needs Assessment. Like the rest of the transit agencies in Ohio, RTA has struggled with declining revenues and must continue to investigate and pursue alternative, reliable and adequate funding sources. Deciding the best way to invest in capital resources to receive the best return on the dollar for customers is vital. RTA must aggressively pursue new funding sources and investments to sustain its financial future. One such consideration is to seek an increase in the percentage of sales and use taxes. Until the RTA can demonstrate the ability to bring the system up to a state-of-good-repair, find the funding necessary to replace the rail fleet and do so without cutting existing service, this aspect of local financial commitment also would be rated LOW.
9.2.4 Summary Rating for Local Financial Commitment
Given that all aspects of local financial commitment would likely be rated LOW, the overall rating for local financial commitment also would be rated LOW. This is 50 percent of the summary rating for any of the alternatives and would decrease the summary rating when combined with the overall rating for project justification.
9.3 Overall Project Evaluation Rating The overall project evaluation ratings are highlighted in Table 9-14.
Table 9 -14 Summary Project Justification Rating Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Mobility Medium Medium-low Medium-low Medium Congestion relief Medium Medium-low Medium-low Medium Environmental benefits High High High Medium-High Economic development Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Land-use Medium Medium-low Medium Medium Cost effectiveness Medium Medium Medium Medium Project Justification Summary Rating Medium Medium-low Medium Medium Current capital and operating condition 3.33Low 3.16Low 3.16Low 3.33Low
142
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Commitment of funds Low Low Low Low Reasonableness of financial plan Low Low Low Low Local Financial Commitment Summary Low Low Low Low Overall rating Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Source: AECOM; New Starts templates, calculations and qualitative assessments.
As expected, the very low rating for financial commitment lowers the overall project evaluation rating below the MEDIUM threshold needed to qualify for federal funding. Consequently, despite the medium ratings for project justification, RTA cannot afford to move any of these projects forward without significant financial assistance from state and federal sources.
143
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
10 Summary and Conclusions
The alternatives screening and evaluation process was structured around criteria and indicators designed to reflect the study goals and objectives as endorsed by the RTA, affected cities and involved stakeholders.
Comparative evaluations of several alternatives were undertaken as part of the alternatives analysis process. Based on the technical analysis, study results, meeting records, along with feedback provided by the general public and stakeholders throughout the identification and evaluation of the study alternatives, the project team screened the alternatives and was unable to reach consensus on selecting a preferred alternative based on local goals and objectives and the feasibility assessment using the FTA New Starts project justification and local financial commitment criteria.
The public and concerned stakeholders will be given an opportunity to review the alternatives analysis study findings and to ask RTA staff and the consultant team questions regarding the alternatives and the study findings and determinations.
10.1 Findings and Determinations Based on a variety of evaluation criteria, none of the alternatives being actively considered rise to the locally preferred alternative (LPA) designation. Arguments can be made for and against any of the alternatives under consideration. These arguments are presented in the paragraphs below based on the locally developed goals and objectives of the study:
Mobility The mobility goal was to provide more transportation choices and to increase transit ridership and mode share for all communities in the study area. Alternative B best meets the purpose of the project, which is to accommodate existing and projected travel demand in the corridor. The Red Line extension alternative is projected to attract over 4 million annual riders, which are nearly 1 million more riders than the BRT options. The BRT Alternatives E and G are projected to attract over 3.0 and 3.1 million annual riders respectively. Alternative B attracts the most new riders. The Red Line extension attracts 11,100 new daily riders who had not previously used transit when compared to Alternatives E and G, which attract 3,800 and 4,300 new daily transit riders respectively. The Hybrid alternative attracts only 5,531 new transit riders, which is about half of the Red Line extensions attraction.
Alternative B attracts more new transit riders and decreases VMT more than the BRT options. Automobile emissions and GHG decrease more with Alternative B as daily VMT and daily congested VMT decrease at significantly greater rates than with the BRT options of Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid alternative. Consequently, Alternative B scores higher on the evaluation criteria for many of the components of the project purpose.
Alternative B provides a logical phasing terminus for a minimum operable segment (MOS), the Noble Road Station. This station could attract significant redevelopment as it serves General Electric’s NELA Park Research Center. The station could also shift some local bus services and provide a major transfer point and logical terminus for the Route 41 Warrensville crosstown bus line. Initial construction of the MOS from the Louis Stokes Station at Windermere to the Noble Road Station would capture about ¼ of the ridership while constructing one-sixth (1/6) of the total full-build distance. The capital cost for the MOS is substantially less than the capital cost of the full-build Alternative B Red Line extension ($176 million compared to $917 million). The total annualized cost for the MOS is also substantially less than the full- build Alternative B Red Line extension ($6.8 million compared to $37.7 million). Phasing of the project
144
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
would spread the capital cost requirements for the preferred Build alternative over more years than would construction all in one phase. Constructing the project in phases is a suggested risk-management technique.
Economy - Although the HealthLine BRT extension Alternatives E and G do not generate the same level of ridership, mobility, congestion relief and environmental benefits as does the Red Line extension, these options are significantly cheaper to build. Moreover, this feasibility assessment assumed a very aggressive urban design component that duplicated the design features of the HealthLine in the Downtown, Midtown and University Circle segments of the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project. These urban design features can be scaled back to be more in line with the recent implementation of the Cleveland State University Viking Line, which is considered to be BRT Lite. This would substantially reduce the capital cost of the project.
Alternative B is so much more costly in absolute terms that the difference cannot be ignored. Every alternative is unaffordable today, but Alternative B presents a much higher CAPEX and OPEX hurdle to financial feasibility and a higher opportunity cost in terms of other projects that would have to be foregone to accommodate it.
However, it was determined RTA does not have the fiscal capacity to undertake any of the Build alternatives without a substantial infusion of capital funding from local and state sources. Without any state support, the burden of providing additional capital funds necessary to bring RTA up to a state-of- good repair falls to the Greater Cleveland community. The existing 1 percent Sales and Use tax can no longer support system renewal and expansion without further cuts to existing services. RTA does not have the local funding necessary to support the required studies to advance any of the alternatives under consideration nor does it have any future sources of funding for the required local match for a Build alternative.
Livability – This local goal examines the environmental benefits of the alternatives including conserving energy, supporting lifestyle choices involving sustainable development. The Urban Fabric Analysis showed in detail what is obvious on its face. The BRT alternatives are woven into the built community, while the Red Line extension is isolated. Three Red Line stations—Shaw, London, and East 193rd Street (Indian Hills)—have enough residential population nearby (and not blocked by vacant industrial properties) to capture substantial walk-in ridership, assuming streetscape improvements. The other new Red Line stations would be far more isolated. One of the metrics within the Land Use criterion is existing station area character with respect to pedestrian-bike access, mix of uses, and isolation-versus- integration. By this measure, while Alternative E goes through some badly disinvested places (Euclid Avenue, Ivanhoe), it does it by traveling on streets that were historic streetcar corridors where some fabric still exists. In other segments (Waterloo, East 156th, Lakeshore Boulevard) it serves areas of normal, built-out, functioning community fabric.
The quantitative population density metrics are also interesting to consider. When you calculate population per square mile across all the station areas using half-mile radii (the specific metric in the FTA Guidance), Alternative B is somewhat higher than Alternative E (4,418 to 3,321)—but that’s an artifact of Alternative B having seven stations and Alternative E having 23. When total population within a half-mile of stations is examined, the half-mile population for Alternative E is more than double that of Alternative B (54,740 versus 24,275). And if you drill down to a quarter-mile - not the FTA metric, but a better indication of what the station areas are like on the ground - the quarter-mile population for Alternative E is almost four times that of Alternative B (27,242 versus 7,385). The latter number is a very low number for a seven-station heavy rail project. Also, at the quarter-mile catchment, Alternative E has the higher average population per square mile (6,610 to 5,376).
145
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
When employment in the station areas is examined, Alternative E is much stronger in the quarter-mile catchment; Alternative B is slightly stronger in the half-mile. However, the main FTA metric for employment is total employment within a half-mile of any station served by a one-seat ride on the corridor. Thus, both Alternatives B and E get the benefit of all the jobs in University Circle and Downtown. B also gets the west-side jobs on the Red Line between Tower Square and the airport, but Alternatives E likely has more jobs within a half-mile of station stops between University Circle and downtown. The Hybrid alternative gets the benefit of all Alternatives B, E and G. In short, the in-depth qualitative Urban Fabric Analysis and the quantitative catchment area analysis are telling the same story - on Land Use, Alternatives E and the Hybrid are better than Alternative B.
From an environmental benefits point of view, all the alternatives are rated equally despite the higher absolute reductions in VMT, GHG, energy consumption and fatalities and injuries
Economic Development - On its face, one could argue that all four alternatives are equally weak on economic development because there are no fully formed plans and policies, or equally strong because each alternative has an abundance of land that could be redeveloped and the corridor as a whole represents a regional-scale smart growth opportunity. The Market Perspective Report went deeper, identifying three distinct types of market aspirations:
the infill market (along the traditional neighborhood centers and corridors); the transformational market (large-scale redevelopment of derelict industrial or commercial lands, especially the Noble-Ivanhoe Triangle and the vacant malls in Euclid); The industrial market (the extent to which traditional or new industries can be supported in the industrial/rail/Euclid/St. Clair corridor.
The report concluded that the transit alternatives potentially serve different markets: Alternative B would serve the industrial market and the transformational market. With respect to the latter, “Mini-B” would terminate at the Noble-Ivanhoe Triangle, but in order to reach the vacant malls, “Full B” would have to be built out to Babbitt. Alternatives E and G would be designed to serve the infill market. But they could be routed in a way to support the transformational opportunity at the Noble-Ivanhoe Triangle. Alternative G, on St. Clair, would support the industrial market.
A strategic argument for Alternative E (and its future opportunity to add a “G branch” as part of the Hybrid alternative lies in these relationships between alternatives and markets. The infill market served by Alternatives E and G (and the Hybrid alternative is arguably the most realistic and multi-faceted over time, the easiest (relatively speaking) to get going, and the most likely to combine jobs, community development, and affordable housing.
Affordable housing along an Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid alternative alignments would have good pedestrian access to stations along established streets, while affordable housing near most proposed Red Line stations would either be surrounded by vacant industrial land or not within a quarter-mile walk. Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative is the most versatile, serve one of the two large-scale transformational sites, the core of the industrial market as well. Extending the existing Red Line also expands opportunity for transit-oriented development, especially surrounding the Noble Road and Babbitt Road Stations.
The FTA Economic Development criterion is ultimately seeking the extent to which an LPA (given proper plans and policies) could support future development at a transit-supportive level and future affordable
146
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
housing. It’s easier to make that argument for Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid alternative than the Red Line extension of Alternative B.
To advance any of the alternatives to the Project Development phase of the New Starts process, RTA must identify and document the funding available and committed to conduct the Project Development work. This can be an expensive undertaking as it must include an anticipated timeline for completing the Project Development phase including:
Preparing an environmental document in compliance with NEPA and related environmental laws; Selecting a locally preferred alternative (LPA); adoption of the LPA in the fiscally constrained long range transportation plan; and Completing the activities required to obtain a project rating under the evaluation criteria outlined in law.
Therefore, RTA cannot select a locally preferred alternative and advance it into Project Development. The only action is to adopt the No Build alternative as the recommended alternative and continue the planning necessary to discern the LPA while attempting to secure the local or state funding necessary to achieve the financial stability necessary to become eligible for Capital Improvement Grant funding under the New Starts program.
10.2 No Build Alternative Recommended The No Build alternative is the recommended alternative because of the lack of financial commitment from local and state sources that would provide the needed 50 percent match for FTA Capital Improvement Grant funds. The No Build alternative includes planned and committed highway and transit facilities that are likely to exist in 2035. NOACA’s long-range transportation plan, Connections+ 2035 (updated in May 2013), provides a vision for the region’s transportation system through 2035. The 2035 long-range transportation plan was developed within the constraints of reasonable financial assumptions. The list of specific highway and transit facility improvements contains only those projects that can be funded between now and 2035.
The No Build Alternative assumes normal maintenance and replacement of existing facilities and equipment as their design life is exceeded. The No Build Alternative provides a baseline for comparing travel benefits and other environmental impacts associated with the other alternatives.
10.2.1 Planned and Committed No Build Highway Improvements
The highway improvements included in the background highway network under the No Build Alternative are those projects from the updated NOACA long-range transportation plan. Highway improvements in the study area included in the No Build Alternative are the following:
Improvements to Wade Park Opportunity Corridor, linking I-490 to University Circle
10.2.2 Planned and Committed No Build Transit Improvements
Transit services under the No Build Alternative consist of RTA routes and operating schedules in the region as of December 2015 and include all existing facilities, plus other planned and committed transit projects in the NOACA long-range transportation plan.
147
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
Other planned projects include bus service improvements on several corridors as outlined in the RTA Strategic Plan and other planned and committed infrastructure renewal projects identified in the RTA Capital Improvement Program.
The proposed Red Line/HealthLine extension is not part of the planned and committed projects identified by NOACA. Therefore the Red Line and HealthLine extension projects were not included in the background travel demand network. This was done to isolate only those travel benefits and environmental impacts resulting from the proposed extension of the Red Line and HealthLine alternatives from Louis Stokes Station at Windermere to Babbitt Road and Shoregate Shopping Center respectively.
10.3 Conclusions The RTA must forego the significant increase in new ridership that would result from extending the Red Line east to Euclid. RTA would also forego the marginal increase in ridership if the HealthLine was to be extended on either of two alignments serving East Cleveland, Five Points and Euclid and either the Waterloo Arts District or Nottingham Village/East 185th Street. The Greater Cleveland community would lose the potential benefits derived from lowering VMT, including reductions in congestion, pollutant emissions, GHG, and automobile accidents. Without the major transit investment these alternatives represent, the affected communities will lose a potential catalyst for economic development. However, RTA must focus its limited financial resources to bring the system up to a state-of-good-repair, replace aging railcars and maintain its current services.
148
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
11 Next Steps
The completion of this report is generally the first step in moving a preferred Build alternative forward in the FTA New Starts process commencing with Project Development. The next steps would usually include:
Adoption of the preferred Build alternative as the LPA by the RTA Board of Trustees and the NOACA Governing Board); Commencing environmental scoping with a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental document that complies with NEPA and other environmental law and regulations; Requesting entry into the FTA Project Development phase of the New Starts process.
With the documented need for RTA to focus its resources on bringing the system into a State of Good Repair, none of the Build alternatives are being recommended as the LPA. Therefore, the study is being concluded with the No Build Alternative as the recommended alternative. However, the No Build Alternative is not going to be formally adopted as the LPA in order to preserve the ability to re-evaluate the Build alternatives if the RTA financial condition and availability of other funding sources were to change.
149
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
References
AECOM
2013a Travel Market Analysis (July 29). 2013b Baseline Conditions Report (August 28) 2013c Purpose and Need Report (October 14) 2013d Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report (November 12) 2013e Initial Alternatives Screening Report (December 9) 2013f Environmental Red Flag Analysis (December 19) – ASC Group
2014a Technology Assessment (January 15) – Virginkar & Associates 2014b Capital Cost Methodology and Estimates Report (January 16) 2014c Operating Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report (March 17) 2014d Ridership Methodology and Results Report (March 25) 2014e Financial Analysis Report (May 20) 2014f Urban Fabric Analysis (June 20) 2014g Market Perspective (June 24) 2014h Detailed Alternatives Screening Report (August 25)
City of Cleveland
2004a Lakes Shore Boulevard Revitalization Strategy (December) 2004b St Clair Revitalization Plan
2005 Five Points Development Plan (December 27) 200x Connecting Cleveland Citywide Plan 2020
City of East Cleveland
2003 City of East Cleveland Master Plan
City of Euclid
2007 Downtown Euclid Transportation and Redevelopment Plan (December) 2009 Euclid Waterfront Improvements Plan (November)
Federal Transit Administration
2011 Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning (December) 2015 Final Interim Policy Guidance for Capital Investment Grant Program (August)
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
2007 Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines (February)
150
AECOM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT May 9, 2016
2012 Strategic Plan (May) 2014 Annual Report 2015 Capital Improvement Plan (July)
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
2013 Connections 2015 Long Range Transportation Plan (May)
151