Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Ohio Planning Conference
Agenda Background information Transit-Oriented Development in urban settings Alternatives examined Alternatives evaluation Findings and conclusions
RTA Strategic Plan 2010-2020 St. Clair Ave Euclid Ave HealthLine Red Line
Regional Transit Map Laketran service area
Economic Benefits of Transit Investments Indirect Benefits Direct Benefits Increased economic activity Mobility improvements Increased competitiveness Travel time savings Productivity improves Cost savings Land-use patterns change Transportation system efficiency Property values increase Accident reduction Residual impacts Energy savings Residual community amenity Environmental quality improves
Transit Drives Community Revitalization
Transit and Economic Opportunity Connects workers with jobs The choice is “public transit or public assistance” Transit saves the typical rider over $8,000 annually (AAA) Location efficient mortgage
Transit Economic Development Multipliers Public transit spurs economic growth and development $1 billion of federal investment in public transit creates 50,000 jobs. $10 million in capital investment yields $30 million in business sales. $10 million in transit operations yields $32 million in business sales. Home values increase 42 percent near high quality public transit.
Transit Oriented Development
Transit Oriented Development What Do We Mean? Patterns of land use and development that feature: • Transit-supportive density within walking or shuttle distance • Mixed-use station areas or corridors • A safe, walkable environment • Sustainable and resilient infrastructure
Transit Oriented Development (TOD): Balancing mobility & development – Builds neighborhood and community – Provides diversity and mixed-use, creates place – Respects the human scale – Creates quality pedestrian realm – Lowers automobile use – Improves sustainability US Characteristics TOD Average Cars per household 0.9 1.6 (HH) Percent no cars per HH 18.5% 10.7% Percent 2 cars per HH 40% 60% Percent < 2 cars per 63% 45% HH
Red Line Extension Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Red Line railcars were originally delivered with signs for Euclid and Mentor!
Alternative B (Heavy Rail Transit) Euclid Park-N-Ride Euclid Park-N-Ride
HealthLine Extension Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Alternative E (Bus Rapid Transit) East 300 th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center
Alternative G (Bus Rapid Transit) East 300 th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center
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%)
FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating Summary Rating Project Justification Rating Financial Rating (50%) (50%) Reliability/ Land Use Current Conditions Commitment of Capacity (16.66%) (25%) Funds (25%) (50%) Economic Development (16.66%)
Land Use Examination of the existing Congestion Relief corridor and station area Cost Environmental Effectiveness Benefits development, character, and Mobility Economic Improvements Development affordability housing. Question Answer What are we measuring? Number of legally binding affordable housing units. Density of population and employment within ½-mile of stations. What are the sources? 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 Average Population Employment Served by Rating Density (persons/square System mile) High ≥ 220,000 ≥ 15,000 Medium-High 140,000-219,999 9,600 - 15,000 Medium 70,000-139,999 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.
Urban Fabric Analysis
Urban Fabric: Heavy Rail Extension Station spacing and location Pedestrian connectivity: – station design concept – horizontal and vertical connections – Is there something to connect to ? Industrial land: – Land redevelopment opportunities vs. active employment centers Last-mile shuttle connections
Urban Fabric: BRT, Rapid+ How would Euclid Avenue, Lakeshore Boulevard, St. Clair Avenue, and the north-south connecting streets work as transit corridors? Can they accommodate: – Distinctive stations in strategic spots? – BRT or streetcar running ways? – BRT or streetcar on “complete streets”?
Station Area Population and Employment Alternative B Alternative E Alternative G Hybrid Technology HRT BRT BRT BRT/HRT Stations 7 23 23 31 Square miles 5.53 18.17 18.17 24.49 Population and Population Density (persons per square mile of station area) 24,752 54,470 53,012 61,907 Population (½-mile radius) Population density 4,475.9 2,997.8 2,917.6 2,527.8 Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Low FTA Rating Employment 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 CBD + University Circle 10,050 8,744 10,117 26,755 Study area employment 140,050 138,744 140,117 156,755 Total employment Medium-high Medium Medium-high Medium-high FTA Rating
Economic Development Examination of the extent the Congestion Relief project is likely to induce Cost Environmental Effectiveness Benefits additional transit-supportive Mobility Improvements Land Use 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. Deferred to project development and preliminary engineering. Reporting methods
Economic Development Examination of the extent the Congestion Relief project is likely to induce Cost Environmental Effectiveness Benefits additional transit-supportive Mobility Improvements Land Use 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. Deferred to project development and preliminary engineering. Reporting methods
Transit Supportive & 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
Economic Development Market Perspective
TOD Choices: Distinctly Different Alternative B: Alternatives D, E, G: Heavy Rail Extension BRT or Rapid+ Several stations Several corridors A swath of industrial land with work In the fabric of East Cleveland, destinations and redevelopment Collinwood, downtown Euclid, lake potential, but poor connectivity shore, neighborhoods, industry
Collinwood Five Points Circa 1942
Collinwood Five Points Land-Use Red Line/Healthline Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Page 31
East Cleveland Land-Use (Euclid Avenue) Red Line/Healthline Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Page 32
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 Medium TOD implementation tools 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 Medium-low Medium Medium Medium Economic Development Rating
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 High High High Medium-high Environmental benefits Medium Medium-low Medium Medium-low Land use Medium-low Medium Medium Medium Economic development Project Justification Medium Medium-low Medium Medium Rating 3.16 2.8 3.0 3.0
Recommend
More recommend
