Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

Transcription

1 Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Final Report NOACA Transit Council - February 19, 2016

2 Study Rationale 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

3 RTA Strategic Plan St. Clair Ave Euclid Ave HealthLine Red Line

4 What is the purpose and need for the project? 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 4

5 What is the purpose and need for the project? Need 5 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

6 Population Decline Census Year Cuyahoga Lake Cleveland East Cleveland Euclid ,721, , ,903 39,600 71, ,480, , ,822 36,957 60, ,412, , ,616 33,096 54, ,393, , ,403 27,217 52, ,280, , ,815 17,843 48,920 Change ( ) % 16.7% % % % - 441,178 32, ,088-21,757-22,632 Forecast Population Change

7 Alternatives Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

8 Alternative B (Heavy Rail Transit) Euclid Park-N-Ride

9 Alternative E (Bus Rapid Transit) East 300 th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center

10 Alternative G (Bus Rapid Transit) East 300 th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center

11 Hybrid Alternative (BRT + Red Line MOS) Euclid Park-N-Ride Euclid Noble Road Transit Center

12 Alternatives Evaluation Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

13 FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating Summary Rating Project Justification Rating (50%) Financial Rating (50%) Environmental Benefits (16.66%) Cost Effectiveness (16.66%) Land Use (16.66%) Current Conditions (25%) Commitment of Funds (25%) Reliability/ Capacity (50%) Congestion Relief (16.66%) Mobility Improvements (16.66%) Economic Development (16.66%)

14 Project Justification Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

15 Project Justification Evaluation Criteria Cost Effectiveness Mobility Improvements Congestion Relief Environmental Cost per trip Trips per transit dependent Reduction in auto travel Air quality, safety and energy Land Use Economic Development Current land use plans Market assessment

16 Cost Effectiveness Land Use Congestion Relief Economic Development Environmental Benefits Mobility Improvements Annualized capital plus annual operating costs per trip. Number of trips is not an incremental measure but simply the total estimated trips. Question What are we measuring? What are the sources? Reporting methods How did FTA determine rating breakpoints? Answer Total annualized cost per project boarding FTA national transit model STOPS FTA standardized cost category workbook New Starts template: cost effectiveness tab Sampling of recent New Start project data.

17 Cost Effectiveness Rating Breakpoints Rating Breakpoints* High <$4.00 Medium-High $ $5.99 Medium $ $9.99 Medium-Low $ $14.99 Low >$15.00 * Medium rating for cost effectiveness is generally required to obtain a medium rating for project justification.

18 Cost Effectiveness Index Values Features Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles 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

19 Economic Development Congestion Relief Cost Effectiveness Land Use Environmental Benefits Mobility Improvements Examination of the extent the project is likely to induce additional transit-supportive and oriented development. Question What are we measuring? What are the sources? Reporting methods Answer Qualitative examination of existing local plans and policies to support economic development. Local development plans and policies; zoning ordinances; underlying economic conditions ; availability of land in station areas. Deferred to project development and preliminary engineering.

20 Collinwood Five Points Circa 1942

21 Collinwood Five Points Alternatives E, G (BRT) Historic CBD of Collinwood; a major revitalization priority for City and community leaders. Collinwood Yards ½ mile Residential streets close to center. E. 152 nd Street Collinwood High School at station crossroads. NW, SW, and SE corners are soft and under-developed, within ¼ mile of station/crossroads. Collinwood High School Revitalization at crossroads would influence spokes along St. Clair, 152 nd, and Ivanhoe, regardless of which of those streets includes the selected alignment. Industrial opportunity in the Ivanhoe/152 nd pie wedge south of Five Points. St. Clair Avenue ¼ mile Euclid Avenue

22 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

23 Reimagining Euclid Noble Road

24 Summary Project Justification Evaluation Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles 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 Rating Medium 3.16 Medium-low 2.8 Medium 3.0 Medium 3.0

25 Financial Analysis Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

26 Funding Partners and Allocations Source of Funds HealthLine Alternative B Alternative E ($ millions) Percentage Allocations Allocations FTA New Starts $ % $447.6 $210.1 Other federal $ % $3.3 $1.5 RTA $ % $95.8 $45.0 ODOT $ % $272.3 $127.8 City of Cleveland $ % $43.6 $20.5 NOACA $ % $54.5 $25.6 New Starts Total $ % $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.

27 Sales and Use Tax $200,000,000 $190,000,000 $180,000,000 $67.9 million less due to population loss $197,118,776 $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,

28 Funding Gap for Capital Improvements State of Good Repair $210.9 million Bus fleet replacement $53.1 million Rail fleet replacement $280 million

29 Summary of Financial Rating Current conditions Local financial commitment Reliability and capacity Low Low Low

30 Summary Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

31 Summary Rating Not Eligible for New Starts Financial rating = Low Project justification rating = Medium

32 Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles 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 Rating Medium 3.16 Medium low 2.8 New Start Financial Rating Medium 3.0 Medium 3.0 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

33 What have we learned? Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

34 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

35 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)

36 Service Improvements Timed bus transfers at Windermere Adjusted schedules of all bus routes serving Windermere station Routes arrive and leave within minutes of each other Reduces wait time for passengers transferring from one bus to another Windermere Bus Loop infrastructure improvements Reconstructed to bus loop to facilitate easier bus movements Improved connectivity from bus to rail Allows more buses to layover at the station rather than off-site

37 Next Steps Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

38 Next Steps Continue project planning. Continue to develop transit-supportive land use policies with partners Develop support from local partners for a major capital investment Study the alternatives in segments Work with local communities to plan for transit improvements