Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Greater Regional Transit Authority

Public Meeting and Open House Tier 1 Screening of Alternatives Agenda

. Review Purpose and Need . Alternatives Development – Discussion of technologies – Discussion of alternatives A through I – Screening of alternatives – Results of screening – Reasonable alternatives advanced to Tier 2 screening Purpose and Need

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis What is the purpose and need? 7 Purpose: Need:

• Provide more travel • Population and employment choices migration • Improve access, mobility • Increasing suburbanization and connectivity in the study area • Provide faster, more- • Decreasing access to public reliable public transit transit network services • Increasing vehicle trips • Support redevelopment • Increasing congestion and channel new • Lack of reliable travel times development

Alternatives Development

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Overview of Alternatives Analysis Technology Assessment

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Enhanced Bus

Advantages Disadvantages . Lowest capital costs . Low capacity . Flexibility in routing . Mixed-traffic operation . Ideal for low-volume . Local emissions routes and feeder services

Bus Transit (BRT) Advantages Disadvantages . Exclusive busway . Local Emissions . Traffic priority . Flexible route design . Lower capital costs . Attracts development

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis “Rapid+”

Advantages Disadvantages . High/low platform . High capital cost . Higher capacity . No flexibility once built . Attracts development . Traffic impacts . Relatively slow in traffic Diesel-Multiple Unit (DMU) Rail Transit

Advantages Disadvantages . Lower cost than HRT . Higher costs than BRT . Higher speed than BRT . Freight railroad impacts . Medium volume corridor . Fixed guideway . Attracts development . Local emissions Heavy Rail Transit (HRT)

Advantages Disadvantages . Highest capacity . Highest capital costs . Highest speeds . High O&M costs . Attracts development . No flexibility once built

Technology Assessment Would Carry serve local Capital Typical Vehicle/ Forward for Transit Typical Trip Station study Cost per Platform Right-of- Power Build Option Frequency spacing area? mile Height way System Alternative? Comments Diesel, Does not meet Local Bus 4-6/hr 1/4 mile Yes Low Low On-road CNG or Purpose and Need hybrid Would work well as Diesel, overlay service but Limited 4-6/hr 1/4 mile Yes Low Low On-road CNG or not as primary Stop Bus hybrid option for capital improvement. May be appropriate in segments of the Diesel, route alignments BRT Lite 4-6/hr 1/2 mile Yes Mid Low On-road CNG or where lack of  hybrid sufficient right-of- way width precludes “full BRT” option. Requires substantial right-of- On-road Diesel, Full BRT way width or 4-6/hr 1/2 mile Yes Mid Low Separate CNG or  conversion of one lanes hybrid traffic lane to BRT use Existing Red Line Mid to Red Line & vehicles would not Rapid+ 4-6/hr 1/2 mile Yes High/Low Electric  High On-road be able to operate in mixed traffic Grade- Limited to railroad HRT 6-8/hr 1 mile Yes High High Electric  separated corridors. Non-electrified Diesel/ High or Freight RR extension of Red DMU 6-8/hr 1 mile Yes Mid Electric low Corridor  Line operated as Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Hybrid shuttle Technologies Advanced to Tier 2

. vehicles . Heavy rail rapid transit

. Rapid + HealthLine bus rapid transit vehicle and station Red Line heavy rail “metro” railcar – High/low platform railcars . Diesel/electric DMU

High/low platform light rail vehicle (San Francisco, CA) Diesel multiple unit railcar (Austin, TX) Alignments

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Characteristics of Initial Build Alternatives Heavy Rail/DMU BRT or Rapid + Route Segments Terminus Miles Stations Miles Stations

Euclid Square 7.43 6 A CSX Short Line Mall 9.75 12 A2 CSX Short Line (LRT/tram) Downtown Euclid 9.75 12 A3 CSX Short Line (LRT/tram) Downtown Euclid

Euclid Park-N- 6.51 8 B NS Buffalo Line Ride 9.34 17 C Hayden - St Clair - E 152nd – E. 156th Lakeshore Downtown Euclid 9.21 18 D Hayden - St Clair – E 185th- Lakeshore Downtown Euclid 9.38 18 E Euclid – E 152nd- E. 156th - Lakeshore Downtown Euclid F Euclid – E 276th East 276th 6.78 15 9.26 18 G1 Euclid (Coit) – E. 185th - Lakeshore Downtown Euclid 9.52 19 G2 Euclid (Ivanhoe) – E. 185th - Lakeshore Downtown Euclid 9.07 19 H Euclid – E 222nd- Lakeshore Downtown Euclid 6.90 18 I Euclid – Chardon/E 200th- Lakeshore Downtown Euclid

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative A-1

Heavy Rail/DMU

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative A-2

Heavy Rail/DMU

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative A-3

Heavy Rail/DMU

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative A – Engineering Challenges

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative B

Heavy Rail/DMU

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative C

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative D

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative E-1

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative E-2

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative E-3

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative F

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative G-1

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative G-2

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative G-3

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative H

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative I

BRT or Rapid+

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Tier 1 Evaluation Criteria 40

• Number of residents • Number of jobs • Access to activity centers • TOD potential • Economic development potential • Safety and security • “Red Flag” Environmental • Operational efficiency • Engineering “fatal flaws” • Network length • Costs (indicative)

Population and Jobs within Station Areas

Alternatives A B C D E F G H I

¼-Mile Catchment Area Population 4,489 7,385 20,108 18,342 20,696 12,604 18,901 15,359 18,852 Jobs 1,882 2,233 3,392 3,899 4,109 4,224 4,224 5,170 5,026 Total 6,371 9,618 23,500 22,241 24,805 16,828 23,125 20,529 23,878

½-Mile Catchment Area Population 18,164 24,752 40,496 39,041 47,089 31,273 41,844 35,688 40,360 Jobs 7,322 10,050 6,887 8,355 7,905 11,009 9,045 11,703 10,012 Total 25,486 34,802 47,383 47,396 54,994 42,282 50,889 47,391 50,372 Community Enhancement

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Development Vision: Streetcar and Bus

H Street NE • Better transfer connections • Better links to downtown • Better neighborhood links • New businesses • New streetscape

Sustainability and Development: Housing

L Street SE • Maintain existing housing • Infill with new housing • Improve streetscape Development Potential of Alternatives Summary Evaluation

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Summary Evaluation Screening Criteria Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F Alt G Alt H Alt I People 4,489 7,385 20,108 18,342 20,696 12,604 18,901 15,359 18,852 ¼ Jobs 1,882 2,233 3,392 3,899 4,109 4,224 4,224 5,170 5,026 mile Total 6,371 9,618 23,500 22,241 24,805 16,828 23,125 20,529 23,878 People 18,164 24,752 40,496 39,041 47,089 31,273 41,844 35,688 40,360 ½ Jobs 7,322 10,050 6,887 8,355 7,905 11,009 9,045 11,703 10,012 mile Mobility Total 25,486 34,802 47,383 47,396 54,994 42,282 50,889 47,391 50,372 Intermodal connections          Attractions/activity centers          HRT/DMU          Technology BRT          Rapid+          Local plan consistency          High 1 4 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 TOD Low 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 Economy Total 2 4 4 5 5 4 6 4 5 Joint development          Operational issues          Capital cost/utility impacts          Potential noise impacts          Environment Potential impacts  (-)    (-) (-) (-) (-) Environmental Red Flags   (-)   (-)   (-) Length (miles) 7.43 6.51 9.34 9.21 9.38 6.78 9.26 9.07 9.07 Stations 6 8 17 18 18 15 19 19 18 Livability Spacing (miles) 1.49 0.93 0.58 0.54 0.55 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.53 Affordable housing (units) 674 1,546 1,091 731 1,351 2,229 991 984 984 Parks/green space (acres) 6 0 20.2 20.2 19.8 0 20 123.6 20.2 Advanced to Tier 2 Analysis?          Severe High High Second Highest Does not Does not Legend: = Yes;  = No Red Line Similar Comments impact TOD TOD lowest TOD serve serve extension to Alt E to CSX potential potential pop/emp potential Collinwood Collinwood

Alternatives Recommended to Advance Features of Alternatives Alternative B Alternative D Alternative E Alternative G Red Line extension Hayden – St Clair – Euclid – Coit (Noble or Euclid – Coit (Noble or adjacent to NS East 185th – Lake Shore Ivanhoe) – E. 152nd – Ivanhoe) – St Clair - East Route segments (DMU shuttle from Waterloo - Lake Shore 185th - Lake Shore ) Length (miles) 6.5 9.2 9.3 9.5 Number of New Stations 7 17 17 18 Population within ½-mile 24,752 39,041 47,089 41,844 Jobs within ½-mile 10,050 8,355 7,905 9,045 Total population/jobs 34,802 47,396 54,944 50,889 Technologies

Heavy rail transit (HRT)

Diesel-multiple unit (DMU)

Bus rapid transit (BRT)

“Rapid+” (high/low LRT)

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Next Steps

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Next Steps . Refine definition of alternatives – Conceptual engineering – Typical sections and quantities . Capital cost estimate using Standardized Cost Categories . Operations planning – Develop No Build and Do Minimum alternative – Operating plans for each Build alternative – Operations and maintenance cost estimate for all alternatives . Ridership forecasts – Use STOPS model for Build alternatives – Use NOACA model for comparative Business Case analysis Tell Us What You Think!

Written Comments Study Comment/Answer Line Telephone: (216) 282-6113 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 1240 West Sixth Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Attn: Valerie Shea

@RedlineHLStudy www.facebook.com/RedlineHealthlineStudy

For more study information or to make comments visit the Red Line/HealthLine study website:

http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com

Thank you!

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis