Red Line/Healthline Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Final Report NOACA Transit Council - February 19, 2016 Study Rationale 2010 - 2020 Strategic Plan . Put customer needs first . Focus on access to jobs & education . Reinvest in existing transit corridors . Improve services to suburban areas . Provide cost effective transit service . Increase contribution to sustainability . Conserve natural resources RTA Strategic Plan 2010-2020 St. Clair Ave Euclid Ave HealthLine Red Line What is the purpose and need for the project? 4 Purpose • Increase competitiveness of transit service • Improve access, mobility and connectivity • Provide faster, more‐reliable transit services • Support on‐going redevelopment efforts • Focus new development in transit corridors What is the purpose and need for the project? 5 Need • Population and employment migration − Increasing suburbanization in the study area − Decreasing access to public transit network − Increasing vehicle trips − Increasing congestion − Lack of reliable travel times += Vehicle Miles Vehicle Hours Delay Population Decline Census East Cuyahoga Lake Cleveland Euclid Year Cleveland 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 Change - 25.6% 16.7% - 47.2% - 54.9% - 31.6% (1970 – 2010) - 441,178 32,840 - 354,088 - 21,757 - 22,632 Forecast Population Change 2010 -2035 Alternatives Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Alternative B (Heavy Rail Transit) EuclidEuclid Park-N-Ride Park-N-Ride Alternative E (Bus Rapid Transit) East 300th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center Alternative G (Bus Rapid Transit) East 300th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center Hybrid Alternative (BRT + Red Line MOS) EuclidEuclid –Park-N-Ride Noble Road Transit Center Alternatives Evaluation Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating Summary Rating Project Justification Rating Financial Rating (50%) (50%) Environmental Reliability/ Cost Effectiveness Land Use Current Conditions Commitment of Benefits Capacity (16.66%) (16.66%) (25%) Funds (25%) (16.66%) (50%) Mobility Economic Congestion Relief Improvements Development (16.66%) (16.66%) (16.66%) Project Justification Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Project Justification Evaluation Criteria Cost . Cost per trip Effectiveness Mobility Improvements . Trips per transit dependent Congestion Relief . Reduction in auto travel Environmental . Air quality, safety and energy Land Use . Current land use plans Economic Development . Market assessment Cost Effectiveness Annualized capital plus annual operating costs per trip. Congestion Relief Environmental Land Use Benefits Number of trips is not an Mobility Economic Improvements incremental measure but simply the Development total estimated trips. Question Answer What are we measuring? Total annualized cost per project boarding What are the sources? FTA national transit model STOPS FTA standardized cost category workbook Reporting methods New Starts template: cost effectiveness tab How did FTA determine rating breakpoints? Sampling of recent New Start project data. Cost Effectiveness Rating Breakpoints Rating Breakpoints* High <$4.00 Medium-High $4.00 - $5.99 Medium $6.00 - $9.99 Medium-Low $10.00 - $14.99 Low >$15.00 * Medium rating for cost effectiveness is generally required to obtain a medium rating for project justification. Cost Effectiveness Index Values Features Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles 6.5 10.5 10.4 15.3 Annualized Cost Expenditures ($ millions) CAPEX $25.8 $13.8 $13.7 $16.7 OPEX ($M) $11.9 $6.1 $7.0 $9.4 Total $37.7 $19.9 $20.7 $26.1 Ridership Daily customers 13,408 10,082 10,424 12,592 Annual riders 4,022,400 3,024,600 3,127,200 3,777,600 Cost Effectiveness (Annualized Cost per Rider) Cost per Rider $9.37 $6.59 $6.63 $6.90 FTA Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Economic Development Congestion Examination of the extent the Relief Cost Environmental project is likely to induce Effectiveness Benefits Mobility Land Use Improvements additional transit-supportive and oriented development. Question Answer Qualitative examination of existing local plans and policies to What are we measuring? support economic development. Local development plans and policies; zoning ordinances; What are the sources? underlying economic conditions ; availability of land in station areas. Reporting methods Deferred to project development and preliminary engineering. Collinwood Five Points Circa 1942 Collinwood Five Points Alternatives E, G (BRT) Collinwood . Historic CBD of Collinwood; a major Yards revitalization priority for City and community leaders. ½ mile E. 152nd . Residential streets close to center. Street . Collinwood High School at station crossroads. NW, SW, and SE corners are soft Collinwood and under-developed, within ¼ mile High School of station/crossroads. Revitalization at crossroads would influence “spokes” along St. Clair, 152nd, and Ivanhoe, regardless of which of those streets includes the selected alignment. Industrial opportunity in the ¼ mile Ivanhoe/152nd “pie wedge” south of Five Points. Euclid Avenue St. Clair Avenue Economic Development Criteria 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 TOD implementation tools Medium Medium Medium Medium Performance of TOD policies Medium‐High High High High Potential TOD impact Medium Medium Medium Medium Affordable housing policies Medium Medium Medium Medium Economic Development Rating Medium‐low Medium Medium Medium Reimagining Euclid – Noble Road Summary Project Justification Evaluation Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles 6.5 10.4 10.3 15.3 New Start Project Justification Ratings Cost effectiveness Medium Medium Medium Medium Mobility Medium Medium-low Medium-low Medium Congestion relief Medium Medium-low Medium-low Medium Environmental benefits High High High Medium-high Land use Medium Medium-low Medium Medium-low Economic development Medium-low Medium Medium Medium Project Justification Medium Medium-low Medium Medium Rating 3.16 2.8 3.0 3.0 Financial Analysis Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Funding Partners and Allocations HealthLine Alternative B Alternative E Source of Funds ($ millions) Percentage Allocations Allocations FTA New Starts $82.2 48.8% $447.6 $210.1 Other federal $0.6 0.4% $3.3 $1.5 RTA $17.6 10.5% $95.8 $45.0 ODOT $50.0 29.7% $272.3 $127.8 City of Cleveland $8.0 4.8% $43.6 $20.5 NOACA $10.0 5.9% $54.5 $25.6 New Starts Total $168.4 100.0% $917.0 $430.5 ODOT TRAC funds $25.0 Additional RTA $3.8 Other local partners $2.8 Total Project Cost $200.0 * $31.6 million in additional local funding for project enhancements. Total cost of project was $200 million. Sales and Use Tax $200,000,000 $197,118,776 $190,000,000 $67.9 million less due to population loss $180,000,000 $170,000,000 $165,433,059 $160,000,000 $154,586,220 $150,000,000 $140,000,000 $130,000,000 $120,000,000 $110,000,000 $100,000,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Funding Gap for Capital Improvements State of Good Repair $210.9 million Bus fleet replacement $53.1 million Rail fleet replacement $280 million Summary of Financial Rating Current conditions Low Local financial Low commitment Reliability and capacity Low Summary Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Summary Rating – Not Eligible for New Starts Financial rating = Low Project justification rating = Medium Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles 6.5 10.4 10.3 15.3 New Start Project Justification Ratings Cost effectiveness Medium Medium Medium Medium Mobility Medium Medium‐low Medium‐low Medium Congestion relief Medium Medium‐low Medium‐low Medium Environmental benefits High High High Medium‐high Land use Medium Medium‐low Medium Medium‐low Economic development Medium‐low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium‐low Medium Medium Project Justification Rating 3.16 2.8 3.0 3.0 New Start Financial Rating Current Condition Low Low Low Low Local financial commitment Low Low Low Low Reliability and capacity Low Low Low Low Financial Rating Low Low Low Low Summary Rating New Starts Summary Rating Medium‐low Medium‐low Medium‐low Medium‐low What have we learned? Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis What we have learned… . Study area is ripe for major transit investment . There are four potential solutions when the funding situation changes . Improvements to local bus service creates immediate benefit for RTA customers – Have already made many improvements – Continuing to study the routes in the corridor Service Improvements . Improved frequency – HealthLine (midday) – Red Line (off-peak) – Routes 1, 30, 41/41F . Improved span of service – Red Line (weekend) – Routes 1, 37, 41/41F . Improved connections – HealthLine (@ Public Square) – Route 28 (to Laketran) – Route 30 (to Shoregate, Route 28 and Laketran) – Route 94 (to Routes 34, 37 and E. 185th St institutions) Service Improvements