Overview of Alternatives Analysis

Transcription

1 Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Public Meeting: February 11, 2016 Final Report Overview of Alternatives Analysis Public Scoping Public Meeting No 2 Public Meeting No 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS 1

2 Progress to Date Project scoping Alternatives defined Tier 1 Screening Conceptual engineering Capital expenditures Operating costs Ridership forecasts Cost effectiveness Tier 2 Screening Final Report Purpose and Need Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis 2

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

4 What is the purpose and need for the project? Purpose 7 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? Need 8 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 4

5 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 Alternatives Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis 5

6 Alternative B (Heavy Rail Transit) Euclid Park-N-Ride Alternative E (Bus Rapid Transit) East 300 th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center 6

7 Alternative G (Bus Rapid Transit) East 300 th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center Hybrid Alternative (BRT + Red Line MOS) Euclid Park-N-Ride Euclid Noble Road Transit Center 7

8 Characteristics of Alternatives Alternatives/Routes Terminus Miles Stations Technology B Norfolk Southern - Buffalo Line Euclid Park-N-Ride HRT E Euclid E 152nd - E. 156 th Lake Shore (Waterloo Arts District) E. 300 th / Shoregate BRT G Euclid E. 185th Lake Shore (Nottingham Village) E. 300 th / Shoregate BRT Hy Hybrid alternative combining BRT and E. 300 th / Shoregate Red Line minimum operable segment Noble Road Station BRT and HRT Alternatives Evaluation Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis 8

9 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%) Project Justification Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis 9

10 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 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. 10

11 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. Capital Expenditure Estimates (CAPEX) Features Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles Dedicated transit % 100% 63.8% 47.7% 55.2% Stations Vehicles Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) $ millions CAPEX ($M) $917 $431 $427 $599 Annualized CAPEX $25.8 $13.8 $13.7 $16.7 *MAP-21 Chapter 53, Title 49 USC FIXED GUIDEWAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT. The term fixed guideway bus rapid transit project means a bus capital project in which the majority of the project operates in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods. FTA guidance is more than 50%. 11

12 Operating and Maintenance Costs (OPEX) Features Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles Stations Vehicles Operating Data Change in bus service -98, , , ,500 Annual vehicle miles 988, , ,000 1,177,00 Annual vehicle hours 47,000 79,000 79,000 88,000 Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost Expenditures (OPEX) $ millions Annual OPEX ($ millions) $11.9 $6.1 $7.0 $9.4 Ridership Estimates Features Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route miles Stations Average Daily Ridership Daily customers 13,408 10,082 10,424 12,592 New customers 11,070 3,902 4,316 5,531 Annualized Riders on Project Annualized Riders 4,022,400 3,024,600 3,127,200 3,777,600 12

13 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 Mobility Improvements Land Use Congestion Relief Economic Development Question Environmental Benefits Cost Effectiveness What are we measuring? What are the sources? Reporting methods Total number of boardings using the proposed project, with a weight of two given to rides taken by transit dependent people. Reductions in daily automobile miles traveled. Answer Total project boardings with weighting of transit dependent rides. Reductions in daily automobile miles traveled (VMT) FTA national transit model STOPS New Starts template: Travel forecast and mobility tabs 13

14 Mobility Improvement Rating Breakpoints Rating Breakpoints* High 30,000,000 Medium-High 15,000,000 29,999,999 Medium 5,000,000 14,999,999 Medium-Low 2,500,000 4,999,999 Low 2,499,999 * Estimated annual rides by non-transit dependent persons PLUS rides by transit dependent persons multiplied by two. Mobility Improvements Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles Zero Car Households 1,140 4,762 3,745 5,256 Mobility Improvements Daily rides on project 13,408 10,082 10,424 12,592 % transit dependent rides 31.8% 38.4% 37.4% 33.7% Transit dependent rides 4,270 3,871 3,902 4,244 Weighted rides 8,540 7,742 7,804 8,488 Non-transit dependent rides 9,138 6,211 6,522 8,348 Total Daily Weighted rides 17,678 13,953 14,326 16,836 Annualized mobility improvements 5,303,400 4,185,900 4,297,800 5,050,800 FTA Mobility Improvement Rating Medium Medium-low Medium-low Medium 14

15 Congestion Relief Congestion Relief Mobility Mobility benefits Benefit Land Use Environmental Land Use Environmental Benefits Benefits Economic Cost Cost Economic Development Effectiveness Effectiveness Development Total new weekday transit riders using the proposed project. Reductions in daily automobile miles traveled. Question What are we measuring? What are the sources? Reporting methods Answer Total project boardings with emphasis on new transit riders. Reductions in automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT). FTA national transit model STOPS New Starts template: Travel forecast and congestion relief tabs. Congestion Relief Rating Breakpoints Rating Breakpoints* High 18,000 Medium-High 10,000 17,999 Medium 2,500 9,999 Medium-Low 500 2,499 Low * New transit rides are calculated by comparing total weekday transit rides for the No Build alternative with total weekday transit rides for each alternative once the proposed project is implemented. 15

16 Congestion Relief Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles Average Daily Rides on Project Daily rides on project 13,408 10,082 10,424 12,592 New transit riders 11,100 3,902 4,316 5,531 Congestion Relief Rating Medium-high Medium Medium Medium Average Daily Reductions in Automobile Miles Traveled (VMT) Daily automobile VMT (75,240) (26,453) (29,480) (31,094) Environmental Benefits Congestion Relief Cost Effectiveness Land Use Economic Development Land Use Mobility Improvements Examination of the direct and indirect benefits to health, safety, energy and air quality. Question What are we measuring? What are the sources? Reporting methods Answer The dollar value of the anticipated direct and indirect environmental benefits based on the change in VMT resulting from the project. FTA travel demand model STOPS New Starts template: Travel forecasting and environmental benefit tabs. 16

17 Environmental Benefit Rating Breakpoints Rating Breakpoints* High 10 % Medium-High 5% to 10% Medium 0 to 4.99% Medium-Low 0% to -10% Low - 10% * Environmental benefit 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 annualized capital and operating cost of the project as used in the cost effectiveness measure expressed as a percentage.. Environmental Benefit Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Route Miles Annualized Cost Expenditures ($ millions) Annualized CAPEX $25.8 $13.8 $13.7 $16.8 Annual OPEX ($M) $11.9 $6.1 $7.0 $9.4 Total annualized costs $37.7 $19.9 $20.7 $26.2 Average Daily Reductions in Automobile Miles Traveled (VMT) Daily automobile VMT (75,240) (26,453) (29,480) (31,094) Environmental Benefits Annual monetized value $6,134,191 $2,156,675 $2,403,455 $2,535,029 % of annualized cost 16.3% 10.8% 11.6% 9.7% Environmental benefit rating High High High Medium-high 17

18 Land Use Congestion Relief Cost Effectiveness Economic Development Environmental Benefits Mobility Improvements Examination of the existing corridor and station area development, character, and affordability housing. Question What are we measuring? What are the sources? Answer Number of legally binding affordable housing units. Density of population and employment within ½-mile of stations. Census data; affordable housing policies Reporting methods Land Use Template (Quantitative) Table of quantitative data on land use characteristics Supporting documentation to substantiate statements made in the template. Land Use Rating Breakpoints Rating Employment Served by System Average Population Density (persons/square mile) High 220,000 15,000 Medium-High 140, ,999 9,600-15,000 Medium 70, ,999 5,760 9,599 Medium-Low 40,000-69,999 2,561 5,759 Low 40,000 2,560 The land use measure includes an examination of existing corridor and station area development and character; existing station area pedestrian facilities, existing corridor and station area parking supply and population and Employment living or working within a one-seat ride of the project station.. 18

19 Urban Fabric Analysis Station Area Population and Employment Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Stations Square miles Population and Population Density (persons per square mile of station area) Population (½-mile radius) 24,752 54,470 53,012 61,907 Population density 4, , , ,527.8 FTA Rating Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Low Employment CBD + University Circle 130, , , ,000 Study area employment 10,050 8,744 10,117 26,755 Total employment 140, , , ,755 FTA Rating Medium-high Medium Medium-high Medium-high 19

20 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. Transit Supportive and Oriented Development Patterns of land use and development that feature: Existing transit-supportive density within walking distance Mixed-use station areas or corridors A safe, walkable environment Adapting the model to industrial employment centers 20

21 Economic Development Market Perspective Collinwood Five Points Circa

22 Collinwood Five Points Alternatives E, G (BRT) Historic CBD of Collinwood; a major revitalization priority for City and community leaders. Residential streets close to center. Collinwood High School at station crossroads. NW, SW, and SE corners are soft and under-developed, within ¼ mile of station/crossroads. 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 E. 152 nd Street ¼ mile Collinwood Yards Collinwood High School ½ mile Euclid Avenue Drilling Down: Five Points (Collinwood) Red Line/Healthline Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Page 44 22

23 Reimagining Euclid Noble Road 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

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 Financial Analysis Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis 24

25 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. Funding Challenges 25

26 RTA Expense Breakdown Insurance/Pension/B ond Transfers 6% Capital Expenses 29% Operating Expenses 65% Source: 2015 Budget RTA Revenue Sources Other Revenue/Investment Income 7% State 1% General Obligation Debt Proceeds 7% Federal 19% Sales and Use Tax 53% Passenger Fares 13% Source: 2015 Budget 26

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, Fare Revenue $60,000,000 $55,000,000 $50,000,000 $49,757,083 $49,085,267 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $37,289,919 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,

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

29 Status Quo Federal Transportation Bill No increase in federal gas tax unstable funding source New Starts remain 50/50 while highways are 80/20 Project Development planning costs are nearly 100% local State Funding for Public Transit ( ) Source: ODOT; Transit Needs Study, January

30 Summary of Financial Rating Current conditions Local financial commitment Reliability and capacity Low Low Low Summary Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis 30

31 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 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 31

32 Summary Evaluation: Alternative B Red Line extension is rated medium for project justification HRT option provides significant mobility benefits HRT option attracts the most new transit riders HRT option provides highest environmental benefits HRT option medium rating for cost-effectiveness without right-of-way costs. HRT costs twice as much as the BRT options and is less cost effective. HRT could encourage development at Euclid Square Mall and Noble Road Summary Evaluation: Alternative E BRT option is rated medium-low for project justification. BRT option has fewer mobility benefits than Alternative B. BRT option would qualify for a medium rating for cost-effectiveness. BRT option would qualify for a high rating for environmental benefits Satisfies statutory requirement for dedicated transit lanes. Future "transit village" development along Lake Shore Blvd. 32

33 Summary Evaluation: Alternative G Alternative G would be rated medium for project justification BRT option has fewer mobility benefits than Alternative B. BRT option has high environmental benefit BRT option would qualify for a medium rating for cost-effectiveness. BRT option would qualify for a high rating for environmental benefits. Does NOT satisfy statutory requirement for dedicated transit lanes. Future "transit village" development along Lake Shore Blvd. Summary Evaluation: Hybrid Alternative Hybrid alternative would be rated medium for project justification Hybrid option has fewer mobility benefits than Alternative B. Hybrid option has medium-high environmental benefit. Hybrid option would qualify for a medium rating for cost-effectiveness. Satisfies statutory requirement for dedicated transit lanes. Future "transit village" development on Lake Shore Blvd and at Noble Road. 33

34 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 34

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) 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 35

36 Next Steps Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Next Steps Defer selection of preferred alternative Red Line & HealthLine options satisfy FTA project justification criteria, but... Inadequate local/state financial support for New Starts project. 36

37 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 Tell Us What You Think! Written Comments within 45 days Comments Online Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 1240 West Sixth Street Cleveland, OH Attn: Valerie Shea For more study information or to make comments visit the study website: 37

38 Thank you! Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis 38