Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study Greater Cleveland Regional - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
red line healthline extension study
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study Greater Cleveland Regional - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 23, 2023 291 likes •747 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Ohio Planning Conference

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Agenda

  • Background information
  • Transit-Oriented Development in urban settings
  • Alternatives examined
  • Alternatives evaluation
  • Findings and conclusions
slide-3
SLIDE 3

RTA Strategic Plan 2010-2020

  • St. Clair Ave

HealthLine Red Line

Euclid Ave

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Regional Transit Map

Laketran service area

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Economic Benefits of Transit Investments

Direct Benefits

  • Mobility improvements
  • Travel time savings
  • Cost savings
  • Transportation system efficiency
  • Accident reduction
  • Energy savings
  • Environmental quality improves

Indirect Benefits

  • Increased economic activity
  • Increased competitiveness
  • Productivity improves
  • Land-use patterns change
  • Property values increase
  • Residual impacts
  • Residual community amenity
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Transit Drives Community Revitalization

slide-7
SLIDE 7

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
slide-8
SLIDE 8

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.
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Transit Oriented Development

slide-10
SLIDE 10

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
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Transit Oriented Development (TOD):

Characteristics TOD US Average Cars per household (HH) 0.9 1.6 Percent no cars per HH 18.5% 10.7% Percent 2 cars per HH 40% 60% Percent < 2 cars per HH 63% 45%

  • 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

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Red Line Extension

Heavy Rail Transit (HRT)

Red Line railcars were originally delivered with signs for Euclid and Mentor!

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Alternative B (Heavy Rail Transit)

Euclid Park-N-Ride Euclid Park-N-Ride

slide-14
SLIDE 14

HealthLine Extension

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Alternative E (Bus Rapid Transit)

East 300th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Alternative G (Bus Rapid Transit)

East 300th Street / Shoregate Shopping Center

slide-17
SLIDE 17

FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating

Economic Development (16.66%) Mobility Improvements (16.66%) Environmental Benefits (16.66%) Congestion Relief (16.66%) Land Use (16.66%)

Project Justification Rating (50%)

Reliability/ Capacity (50%) Commitment of Funds (25%) Current Conditions (25%)

Financial Rating (50%)

Summary Rating

Cost Effectiveness (16.66%)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating

Economic Development (16.66%) Land Use (16.66%)

Project Justification Rating (50%)

Reliability/ Capacity (50%) Commitment of Funds (25%) Current Conditions (25%)

Financial Rating (50%)

Summary Rating

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Examination of the existing corridor and station area development, character, and 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.

Environmental Benefits Congestion Relief Cost Effectiveness Economic Development Mobility Improvements

Land Use

slide-20
SLIDE 20

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.

Land Use Rating Breakpoints

Rating Employment Served by System Average Population Density (persons/square 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

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Urban Fabric Analysis

slide-22
SLIDE 22

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
slide-23
SLIDE 23

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”?

slide-24
SLIDE 24

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) Population (½-mile radius) 24,752 54,470 53,012 61,907 Population density 4,475.9 2,997.8 2,917.6 2,527.8 FTA Rating Medium-low Medium-low Medium-low Low Employment CBD + University Circle 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 Study area employment 10,050 8,744 10,117 26,755 Total employment 140,050 138,744 140,117 156,755 FTA Rating Medium-high Medium Medium-high Medium-high

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Examination of the extent the project is likely to induce additional transit-supportive and oriented development.

Question Answer What are we measuring? Qualitative examination of existing local plans and policies to support economic development. What are the sources? Local development plans and policies; zoning ordinances; underlying economic conditions ; availability of land in station areas. Reporting methods Deferred to project development and preliminary engineering.

Environmental Benefits Congestion Relief Cost Effectiveness Mobility Improvements

Economic Development

Land Use

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Examination of the extent the project is likely to induce additional transit-supportive and oriented development.

Question Answer What are we measuring? Qualitative examination of existing local plans and policies to support economic development. What are the sources? Local development plans and policies; zoning ordinances; underlying economic conditions ; availability of land in station areas. Reporting methods Deferred to project development and preliminary engineering.

Environmental Benefits Congestion Relief Cost Effectiveness Mobility Improvements

Economic Development

Land Use

slide-27
SLIDE 27

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
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Economic Development Market Perspective

slide-29
SLIDE 29

TOD Choices: Distinctly Different

Alternative B: Heavy Rail Extension

  • Several stations
  • A swath of industrial land with work

destinations and redevelopment potential, but poor connectivity

Alternatives D, E, G: BRT or Rapid+

  • Several corridors
  • In the fabric of East Cleveland,

Collinwood, downtown Euclid, lake shore, neighborhoods, industry

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Collinwood Five Points

Circa 1942

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Collinwood Five Points Land-Use

Red Line/Healthline Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Page 31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

East Cleveland Land-Use (Euclid Avenue)

Red Line/Healthline Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis Page 32

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Reimagining Euclid – Noble Road

slide-34
SLIDE 34

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

slide-35
SLIDE 35

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 Rating Medium 3.16 Medium-low 2.8 Medium 3.0 Medium 3.0

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

Financial Analysis

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Funding Gap for Capital Improvements

State of Good Repair $210.9 million Bus fleet replacement $53.1 million

Rail fleet replacement

$280 million

slide-38
SLIDE 38

State Investment in Transit

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0 $45.0 $50.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Transit Funding (Million $)

Ohio General Revenue Funding For Public Transit

slide-39
SLIDE 39

State Funding for Public Transit

(2000 – 2014)

Source: ODOT; Transit Needs Study, January 2015.

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Summary of Financial Rating

Current conditions

Low

Local financial commitment

Low

Reliability and capacity

Low

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Summary Rating – Not Eligible for New Starts

Financial rating = Low Project justification rating = Medium

slide-42
SLIDE 42

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 Rating Medium 3.16 Medium-low 2.8 Medium 3.0 Medium 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

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Conclusions

  • Defer selection of preferred alternative

– Red Line & HealthLine options satisfy FTA project justification criteria, but... – Inadequate local/state financial support for New Starts project.

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Next Steps

  • Continue project planning.

– Study the alternatives in segments – Work with local communities to plan for transit improvements – Continue to develop transit-supportive land use policies with partners – Develop support from other partners for a major capital investment

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major Transportation Improvement Analysis

Thank you!