Final Report - Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Transcription

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
Red Line/HealthLine Extension Major
Transportation Improvement Analysis
Preferred Alternative Report
May 9, 2016
GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
RED LINE / HEALTHLINE EXTENSION
MAJOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT
Prepared by:
AECOM
1300 East Ninth Street, Suite 500
Cleveland, OH 44114
May 9, 2016
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Quality information
Document name
Prepared for
Prepared by
Date
Reviewed by
Preferred Alternative Report
Greater Cleveland
Regional Transit Authority
K. Sislak
12/23/2015
D. Crider
Revision history
Revision
Revision date
Details
Name
Position
0
December 23, 2015
All pages
K. Sislak
Project Manager
1
February 10, 2016
All pages
K. Sislak
Project Manager
2
May 9, 2016
All pages
K. Sislak
Project Manager
This document has been prepared by AECOM for the sole use of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and in accordance with
generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the RTA. Any
information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the
document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Purpose of the Final Report ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2
What Is Covered in the Final Report ........................................................................................... 2
1.3
How Alternatives Were Selected ................................................................................................ 3
2 Study Process ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1
Defining the Study Area.............................................................................................................. 4
2.2
Consistency with Local, State, and Federal Planning Processes ................................................ 4
2.3
Alternatives Analysis Process..................................................................................................... 6
2.4
FTA Project Rating Process ....................................................................................................... 7
2.5
Public Involvement as Part of the Alternatives Analysis Process ................................................ 9
2.6
Screening and Selection Process ............................................................................................... 9
3 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.1
Purpose of the Project .............................................................................................................. 13
3.2
3.3
3.4
Problems and Needs ................................................................................................................ 14
Population Trends .................................................................................................................... 15
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations ........................................................................ 17
3.5
Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................. 17
Minority Population................................................................................................................... 17
Low Income Population ............................................................................................................ 18
Automobile Access................................................................................................................... 18
Age of Population ..................................................................................................................... 20
Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................ 21
Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage..................................................................................... 21
Development Patterns, Land Use and Geographical Constraints ............................................. 22
3.5.1
Character of the Communities in the Study Area .................................................................. 26
Cleveland (Collinwood) ............................................................................................................ 26
East Cleveland ......................................................................................................................... 27
Euclid ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Lake County Communities ....................................................................................................... 28
3.5.2
Vacant and Abandoned Properties ....................................................................................... 29
3.5.3
Activity Centers, Attractions and Cultural Resources ............................................................ 31
3.6
Employment Trends and Major Employers ............................................................................... 33
3.7
Transportation Conditions ........................................................................................................ 40
3.7.1
3.7.2
Roadways ............................................................................................................................. 40
Railroads .............................................................................................................................. 44
i
AECOM
May 9, 2016
3.7.3
3.7.4
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................... 46
Public Transit ........................................................................................................................ 47
RTA Red Line........................................................................................................................ 47
RTA HealthLine ..................................................................................................................... 49
RTA and Laketran Local and Commuter Bus Routes ............................................................ 53
Transit Centers and Park-N-Rides......................................................................................... 56
System and Study Area Ridership Trends ............................................................................. 57
3.7.5
Carpooling/Ridesharing Programs ........................................................................................ 58
3.7.6
Private Bus and Shuttle Services .......................................................................................... 59
4 Alternatives Definition and Screening ......................................................................................... 60
4.1
Development of Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 60
4.2
Technology Assessment .......................................................................................................... 62
4.2.1
Local Bus .............................................................................................................................. 62
4.2.2
Enhanced Bus ...................................................................................................................... 62
4.2.3
Bus Rapid Transit Lite (BRT Lite) .......................................................................................... 62
4.2.4
Bus Rapid Transit ................................................................................................................. 62
4.2.5
Heavy Rail Rapid Transit (HRT) ............................................................................................ 63
4.2.6
Diesel-Multiple Unit (DMU) Commuter Rail ........................................................................... 63
4.2.7
Rapid+ .................................................................................................................................. 63
4.2.8
Summary of Technology Assessment ................................................................................... 63
4.3
Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................... 64
4.3.1
No Build Alternative .............................................................................................................. 64
4.3.2
Do Minimum Alternative ........................................................................................................ 65
4.3.3
Build Alternatives Considered and Dismissed ....................................................................... 65
4.3.4
Summary Findings of Alternatives Screening ........................................................................ 66
4.3.5
Build Alternatives Advanced and Considered........................................................................ 70
4.3.6
Tier 3 Screening: Business Case .......................................................................................... 70
5 Financial Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 75
5.1
Capital Cost Expenditures ........................................................................................................ 75
5.1.1
Estimates of Probable Capital Cost Expenditures ................................................................. 76
5.1.2
Estimates of Annualized Costs.............................................................................................. 77
5.2
Operating and Maintenance Cost Expenditures (OPEX) .......................................................... 78
5.3
Sources of Funds ..................................................................................................................... 79
5.3.1
Sales and Use Tax................................................................................................................ 80
5.3.2
Federal and State Grant Assistance...................................................................................... 81
5.4
Fiscal Capacity and Financial Analysis ..................................................................................... 82
5.5
Risk and Uncertainty ................................................................................................................ 84
5.5.1
Operating Risks .................................................................................................................... 84
5.5.2
Capital Cost Risks................................................................................................................. 85
5.6
Financial Analysis Conclusion .................................................................................................. 85
6 Access and Ridership Estimates ................................................................................................. 86
6.1
Accessibility .............................................................................................................................. 86
6.1.1
6.1.2
Alternative B ......................................................................................................................... 86
Alternative E ......................................................................................................................... 87
ii
AECOM
May 9, 2016
6.1.3
Alternative G ......................................................................................................................... 87
6.1.4
Hybrid Alternative.................................................................................................................. 88
6.2
Ridership Forecasting Methods and Results ............................................................................ 88
6.2.1
Forecasting Methods using the STOPS Model ...................................................................... 89
6.2.2
Ridership Forecast Results ................................................................................................... 91
7 Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 93
7.1
Goal 1 Mobility.......................................................................................................................... 93
7.1.1
Accessibility .......................................................................................................................... 93
7.1.2
Congestion Relief ................................................................................................................. 95
7.1.3
Mobility Benefit ..................................................................................................................... 95
7.1.4
Highway and Traffic Impacts ................................................................................................. 96
7.2
Goal 2 Economy ....................................................................................................................... 98
7.3
Goal 3 Environment .................................................................................................................. 99
7.3.1
Decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ............................................................................... 99
7.3.2
Potential for Reductions in Carbon Footprint ....................................................................... 100
7.3.3
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 100
7.3.4
Decrease Use of Single Occupant Vehicles ........................................................................ 100
7.3.5
Decrease Energy Consumption .......................................................................................... 100
7.3.6
Natural Resources .............................................................................................................. 101
7.4
Goal 4 Livability ...................................................................................................................... 101
7.4.1
Number of Streets Closed or Improved with “Complete Streets” Treatments ...................... 102
7.4.2
Number of Cultural Resources Impacted ............................................................................ 102
7.4.3
Number of Households Affected within 25 yards of the Alignment ...................................... 103
7.4.4
Impacts on Public Parklands and Open Spaces .................................................................. 103
7.4.5
Transit Dependency and Number of Zero Car Households ................................................. 104
7.5
Summary of Evaluation Analysis ............................................................................................ 105
7.5.1
Goal 1: Mobility ................................................................................................................... 105
7.5.2
Goal 2 Economy ................................................................................................................. 106
7.5.3
Goal 3 Environment ............................................................................................................ 106
7.5.4
Goal 4 Livability .................................................................................................................. 107
7.5.5
Other Considerations .......................................................................................................... 108
8 Agency Coordination and Public Outreach ............................................................................... 110
8.1
Technical Steering and Stakeholder Involvement Committees ............................................... 111
8.1.1
Technical Steering Committee ............................................................................................ 111
8.1.2
Stakeholder Involvement Committee................................................................................... 112
8.2
Community Outreach.............................................................................................................. 112
8.2.1
Public Meetings – Round 1 ................................................................................................. 112
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8.3
Community and Development Workshops .............................................................................. 120
8.3.1
NOACA Transit Council and RTA Citizens Advisory Board ................................................. 122
8.3.2
Other Outreach Activities .................................................................................................... 123
8.3.3
Outreach Interaction Measures ........................................................................................... 123
8.4
Outreach Summary ................................................................................................................ 124
iii
AECOM
May 9, 2016
9 Project Feasibility Determination ............................................................................................... 125
9.1
Project Justification ................................................................................................................ 125
9.1.1
Mobility Improvements ........................................................................................................ 125
9.1.2
Congestion Relief................................................................................................................ 126
9.1.3
Environmental Benefits ....................................................................................................... 127
9.1.4
Economic Development Effects .......................................................................................... 130
9.1.5
Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 135
9.1.6
Cost Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 138
9.1.7
Summary Project Justification Rating .................................................................................. 138
9.2
Local Financial Commitment .................................................................................................. 139
9.2.1
Current Capital and Operating Condition ............................................................................ 140
9.2.2
Commitment of Funds ......................................................................................................... 142
9.2.3
Reasonableness of Financial Plan ...................................................................................... 142
9.2.4
Summary Rating for Local Financial Commitment............................................................... 142
9.3
Overall Project Evaluation Rating ........................................................................................... 142
10 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 144
10.1 Findings and Determinations .................................................................................................. 144
10.2
No Build Alternative Recommended ....................................................................................... 147
10.2.1 Planned and Committed No Build Highway Improvements ................................................. 147
10.2.2 Planned and Committed No Build Transit Improvements .................................................... 147
10.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 148
11 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 149
References ....................................................................................................................................... 150
iv
AECOM
May 9, 2016
List of Tables
Table ‎3-1 Population of Counties and Cities in Study Area ..................................................................... 16
Table 3-2 Racial Breakdown of Population ............................................................................................. 18
Table 3-3 Population Below Poverty Level.............................................................................................. 18
Table 3-4 Zero Car Households (HH) .................................................................................................... 20
Table 3-5 Age Breakdown of Population (2010) ..................................................................................... 20
Table 3-6 Educational Attainment ........................................................................................................... 21
Table 3-7 Study Area Land Use by Type (Number of Acres and Percent of Total).................................. 26
Table 3-8 Vacant Land by Type (Acres) ................................................................................................. 29
Table 3-9 Study Area Labor Force Characteristics ................................................................................. 35
Table 3-10 Major Employers in the Study Area (Alphabetical) ................................................................ 36
Table 3-11 Existing Highways and Roads .............................................................................................. 41
Table 3-12 Railroad At-Grade Highway and Road Crossings ................................................................. 46
Table 3-13 Red Line Ridership ............................................................................................................... 48
Table 3-14 HealthLine Ridership ............................................................................................................ 49
Table 3-15 Annual Ridership, Local and Commuter Routes ................................................................... 53
Table 3-16 Service Descriptions for Local and Commuter Routes Operating in the Study Area.............. 54
Table 3-17 Parking at Transit Locations ................................................................................................. 57
Table 3-18 RTA and Laketran System-Wide Ridership Trends ............................................................... 58
Table 3-19 Study Area Ridership Trends by RTA Route ......................................................................... 58
Table ‎4-1 Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................................. 61
Table ‎4-2 Alternatives Considered and Results of Screening Process.................................................... 67
Table ‎5-1 Estimates of Probable Capital Expenditures ($000s) ............................................................. 76
Table ‎5-2 Estimates of Probable Operating Expenditures (OPEX) ......................................................... 78
Table ‎5-3 RTA Farebox Receipts and Passenger ................................................................................... 79
Table ‎5-4 RTA Sales and Use Tax (2004 – 2014) .................................................................................. 80
Table ‎5-5 Federal and State Grants........................................................................................................ 82
Table ‎6-1 Alternative B - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area ........................................ 87
Table ‎6-2 Alternative E - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area ........................................ 87
Table ‎6-3 Alternative G - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area ....................................... 87
Table ‎6-4 Hybrid Alternative - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area ................................ 88
Table ‎7-1 Alignment Alternatives Catchment Area Analysis ................................................................... 94
Table ‎7-2 Congestion Relief (New Riders) .............................................................................................. 95
Table ‎7-3 New Start Mobility Improvements Criterion ............................................................................. 96
Table ‎7-4 Changes in Annual Automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled .......................................................... 97
Table ‎7-5 Cost Effectiveness Index – Cost per Trip on Project ............................................................... 98
Table ‎7-6 Alignment Alternatives Catchment Area Analysis ................................................................. 103
Table ‎7-7 Transit Dependency in Study Area ....................................................................................... 104
Table ‎7-8 Summary Matrix ................................................................................................................... 108
Table ‎8-1 Public Meeting Round 1 – Summary of Issues and Comments ............................................. 113
Table 8-5 Summary of Outreach Interactions ...................................................................................... 124
Table 9-1 New Start Mobility Improvements Criterion ........................................................................... 126
Table 9-2 New Start Congestion Relief Criterion................................................................................... 127
Table 9-3 New Start Air Quality Criterion .............................................................................................. 128
Table 9-4 New Start Greenhouse Gas Criterion ................................................................................... 128
Table 9-5 New Start Energy Savings Criterion ...................................................................................... 129
Table 9-6 New Start Safety Criterion .................................................................................................... 130
Table 9-7 New Start Environmental Benefits Criterion Rating ............................................................... 130
v
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Table 9-8 New Starts Economic Development Criterion Rating ............................................................ 134
Table 9-9 Housing Stock Characteristics .............................................................................................. 136
Table 9-10 Population Density and Employment ................................................................................. 137
Table 9-11 Summary Land-Use Criterion Rating .................................................................................. 137
Table 9-12 Cost Effectiveness Index – Cost per Trip ............................................................................ 138
Table 9-13 Summary Project Justification Rating.................................................................................. 139
Table 9-14 Summary Project Justification Rating.................................................................................. 142
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2-1 FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating Criteria and Weights.............................................. 6
Figure 2-2 Alternatives Analysis Flow Chart ....................................................................................... 11
Figure 3-1 Population Change 2010 -2035 ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 3-2: Percentage of Minority Population by Census Tract ............................................................. 19
Figure 3-3: Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage ................................................................................. 23
Figure 3-4: Study Area Land Use ........................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3-5: Non-Residential Building Vacancy Properties by Location and Type .................................... 30
Figure 3-6: Major Destinations and Activity Centers ............................................................................... 32
Figure 3-7: 2010 – 2035 Employment Change ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 3-8: Businesses with 50 or More Employees in Study Area ......................................................... 38
Figure 3-9: Businesses with 50 Employees or More by Industry and Size .............................................. 39
Figure 3-10: Study Area Major Roadways .............................................................................................. 43
Figure 3-11: Study Area Railroads .......................................................................................................... 45
Figure 3-12 Red Line Annual Ridership 2000 - 2014 .............................................................................. 48
Figure 3-13: RTA Red Line ..................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3-14 HealthLine Annual Ridership 2007 - 2014 ........................................................................... 49
Figure 3-15: RTA HealthLine .................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 3-16: Major Study Area Bus Routes, Transit Centers, and Park-N-Rides .................................... 52
Figure 4-1: Alternative B Red Line Extension ......................................................................................... 71
Figure 4-2: Alternative E HealthLine Extension via East 152nd Street/Waterloo Arts District ................... 72
Figure 4-3: Alternative G HealthLine Extension via St. Clair Avenue/Nottingham Village ........................ 73
Figure 4-4: Hybrid Alternative: .............................................................................................................. 74
vi
AECOM
May 9, 2016
1 Overview
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) examined potential extensions of rail and bus
rapid transit and other enhanced transit services in the northeast section of Cuyahoga County as an
outgrowth of its 2010 – 2020 Strategic Plan. RTA’s Strategic Plan serves as a roadmap to reimagining
its future. The plan describes actions for refocusing, restructuring, renovating, reallocating and
reenergizing RTA’s services and capital investment programs in existing transit supportive corridors.
This report was prepared to document the development and evaluation of alternatives for future
transportation system improvements in the study area needed to address travel demand and associated
congestion in the northeastern part of Cuyahoga County.
Specifically, the study area for the Red Line/HealthLine extension major transportation improvement
analysis is centered on the St. Clair Avenue corridor running east from Downtown Cleveland to Euclid.
The western boundary of the study area starts at the CSX Short Line right-of-way ( in and adjacent to the
former Cleveland Union Terminal railroad) and extends east along the southern boundary, which is the
escarpment separating the lake plain from the heights area of Cleveland. The study area is also
bounded by Lake Erie on the north and Lake County on the east and contains portions of three cities:
Cleveland, East Cleveland, and Euclid. As noted in Section 2.1, for certain limited purposes the study
area extended into some of the western portions of Lake County. The transit alternatives that will be
evaluated are located within the defined limits of this study area, which is illustrated by Figure 1-1 below.
Figure 1-1 Study Area
1
AECOM
May 9, 2016
The resulting project would improve transportation mobility and connectivity; provide faster, more reliable
public transport services and linkages; increase the capacity of the total transportation system; and
provide more travel choices for residents, commuters, visitors and tourists in the region.
1.1
Purpose of the Final Report
This Final Report is being prepared to document the appraisal of the financial and wider economic
impacts of the proposed transit investment within the context of improving the urban vitality and
competitiveness of the communities being served.
1.2
What Is Covered in the Final Report
The Final Report presents transit alignment and technology alternatives selected through a public
participation process, which was used to screen initial alternatives. This report presents a comparative
analysis to refine previous assumptions developed for the alternatives.
The alternatives analysis employed is a locally managed study process that follows Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) guidelines for capital investment planning and project appraisal. It uses local
information related to regional travel patterns, problems, and needs. This information is typically
generated as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process. This information has been
gathered during past systems planning efforts by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
(NOACA), which is Greater Cleveland’s metropolitan planning organization, and RTA.
From FTA guidance1, an “effective alternatives analysis answers the questions: What are the problems in
a corridor? What are their underlying causes? What are viable options for addressing these problems?
What are their costs? What are their benefits?”
The outcome of a locally managed alternatives analysis is a locally preferred alternative (LPA) that meets
the purpose of the project, provides a good balance in meeting project goals, and presents a competitive
project for FTA Capital Investment Grant (New Starts) funding with regard to cost-effectiveness, transit
supportiveness of existing and future land use, and local financial commitment among other factors in the
New Starts project appraisal rating framework.
If an LPA is a “build” project, it will be advanced to more detailed technical analysis and compared to the
No Build alternative as part of the environmental clearance process during the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
implementing regulations.
If none of the “build” alternatives are selected as the LPA, two options can be pursued. If the “build”
alternatives were not selected because they were found to be infeasible and/or not meet the purpose and
need, then the “No Build” or “Do Nothing” alternative would be adopted as the LPA. Otherwise, the
selection of an LPA can be deferred until further studies are complete and/or the financial climate
changes.
1
Federal Transit Administration; Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning; December 6, 2011.
2
AECOM
1.3
May 9, 2016
How Alternatives Were Selected
The Red Line/HealthLine extension project was identified in the RTA Strategic Plan as one of the region’s
highest-priority transit corridors for implementing future fixed-guideway transit improvements. The RTA
Strategic Plan was conducted with full public participation, and the final documents were endorsed by
NOACA and the RTA Board of Trustees.
Prior to selection of the alignments and transit modes specifically discussed in this Final Report, a wide
range of alternatives was considered and screened multiple times using both quantitative and qualitative
criteria. The screening process was based on a set of goals developed for the purpose of selecting an
alignment and technology that best met goals and objectives. Criteria were developed that measured
how well each of the alternatives met each goal.
The criteria included accounting for study area land-use changes; planned future development and
potential transit patronage (ridership) forecasts; engineering factors; projections of capital, operating, and
maintenance costs; potential economic benefits; financial feasibility, expected changes in the
environment related to land use, traffic and transportation impacts of the alternatives; and cost-benefit
considerations using simplified cost-effectiveness measures. Using these criteria and additional refined
technical analysis, this effort produced the final set of alternatives, which are defined and further
examined in the Final Report. This process is described in Section 2.0, Study Process. A list of previous
reports completed for this study and reference materials are included in Chapter 12.
3
AECOM
May 9, 2016
2 Study Process
The Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study builds on previous planning efforts in the region and has
involved extensive collaboration between government jurisdictions and stakeholders in multiple
communities. For over 40 years, RTA and representatives of other municipal and regional agencies
responsible for plans and policies in the study area have been considering significant transit
improvements to serve anticipated travel demand in the study area.
Local authorities led by RTA as the local lead agency have followed a prescribed process of study and
evaluation prior to adopting a locally preferred alternative (LPA). This effort has been ongoing for about
30 months. A multi-layered screening process of all potential alternatives has been used to sort through
facts and figures and to match transit concepts with goals established in the public review process and
FTA criteria. This report documents the process and findings.
2.1
Defining the Study Area
The study area consists of three communities in Cuyahoga County and six in the adjoining portion of
Lake County as depicted in Figure 1-1, which shows the geographical context of the study area in
relation to the region and Ohio.
2.2

The Cuyahoga County portion of the study area consists of the Collinwood district of the City of
Cleveland, the City of East Cleveland, and the City of Euclid. These communities constitute the
core of the study area and are included for all aspects of the analysis, including environmental.

The Lake County portion of the study area includes the cities of Wickliffe and Willowick, which are
immediately adjacent to Cuyahoga County, as well as the next four cities moving east:
Willoughby, Eastlake, Mentor, and Mentor-on-the-Lake. These cities are included to assess their
relevance for any further analysis of potential transit improvements, given their location in the
outer portion of the Red Line/HealthLine travel market and the amount of commuting and other
travel that occurs across county lines.2
Consistency with Local, State, and Federal Planning Processes
Red Line heavy rail service from Louis Stokes Station at Windermere connecting to downtown Cleveland
has been a key feature of transit service in the region since 1954. Suggested extensions of the Red Line
have varied over the past 50 years. Studies of extending the Red Line east to Euclid were originally
completed in the 1960’s and railroad overpasses built in the corridor were constructed to permit the
addition of two rapid transit tracks. In addition, studies of potential commuter rail services east to Lake
County were completed in the mid-1990’s with mixed results. RTA studied an extension of the Red Line
southwest to Brook Park, Berea or Olmsted Falls in the late 1990’s. The RTA concluded the Dual Hub
Corridor alternatives analysis by concluding that a bus rapid transit line on Euclid Avenue was a more
cost effective option than realigning the Red Line from Downtown to University Circle. RTA converted
the Route 6 Euclid Avenue local bus route to the HealthLine bus rapid transit line in 2008. The ridership
on the line and interest in extending the HealthLine east from its current terminus at Louis Stokes Station
at Windermere has grown.
2
Two small incorporated villages are located entirely within the limits of the City of Eastlake: Lakeline and Timberlake, with 2010
populations of 226 and 675, respectively. For purposes of this study, Lakeline and Timberlake are treated as if they were part of Eastlake,
with their population and other data added to those of Eastlake.
4
AECOM
May 9, 2016
The RTA Strategic Plan completed in 2012 highlighted the need to improve services in principle transit
corridors radiating from the Downtown core. The Strategic Plan is a systems level planning document
that identifies transportation problems throughout the Greater Cleveland area and proposes an extensive
set of solutions, including the establishment of priority transit corridors. The priority corridors and their
improvements would be completed in collaboration with the individual cities and communities where the
corridors are located.
The Strategic Plan clearly indicates the urgency of restructuring RTA services to increase the proportion
of passenger trips using public transportation, to relieve traffic congestion on the local roadway network
and to regenerate economic development in transit corridors. The existing rail and bus rapid transit
system would continue to provide a high quality transit spine in Greater Cleveland with direct links among
Downtown, University Circle, Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE) and other key locations. The
Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study major transportation improvement analysis will build on the findings
and recommendations of the strategic plan and evaluate other reasonable alternatives in the high priority
transit corridors identified in the service area under study.
The first priority was identifying service improvements in the St. Clair Avenue corridor. This corridor
could be served by extending the Red Line east to Euclid or into adjacent Lake County along the Norfolk
Southern railroad owned right-of-way and has been identified as a potential improvement to the transit
network. In addition, extending the HealthLine east to serve the Upper St. Clair area also was deemed
an appropriate service strategy. The routes could use Euclid Avenue, St Clair Avenue and/or Lake Shore
Boulevard. In continuing efforts to realize local goals for improved transportation in the area, the study
has evaluated various potential alternatives using these generalized alignments and technology options.
Following completion of this study, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Final EIS will be
prepared consistent with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements if warranted. The Final
EIS will be prepared in conjunction with preliminary engineering in accordance with newly revised FTA
guidance3.
Although this is a local study, it forms the basis for comparing the build alternative developed from the
study to other projects across the country if federal funding is sought. Consequently, the Red
Line/HealthLine Extension Study needs to address FTA evaluation measures and requirements for
assessing a project’s competitiveness for Capital Investment Grant (CIG) New Starts funding. This report
summarizes the following contents of the study:









3
What were the study area limits?
What transportation problems would be addressed by the recommended project?
How has the public been involved?
Were other alternatives considered?
How was the recommended alternative selected?
What is the recommended alternative?
Will the entire project be implemented at once, or is there a portion with operational benefits that
could be implemented as a first phase?
Where would the fiscal resources come from to implement and operate the project?
What further steps are necessary to move from this study toward project implementation?
Federal Transit Administration; Final Interim Policy Guidance for Capital Investment Grant Program; August 2015.
5
AECOM
May 9, 2016
As part of the study, transportation demand modeling was conducted in order to estimate future ridership
and cost-effectiveness. The FTA Simplified Trips on Project (STOP) travel demand model was used to
prepare the estimates. Estimates of probable cost were prepared for the alternatives.
To assess a project’s competiveness, FTA uses six project justification criteria and three measures of
local financial commitment as depicted in Figure 2-1 below. The percentages noted are the relative
weighting assigned to each of the criteria.
Figure ‎2-1
FTA New Starts Project Evaluation Rating Criteria and Weights
The study provides the information required to evaluate these criteria.
2.3
Alternatives Analysis Process
The RTA initiated the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study under a legacy Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 5339 Alternatives
Analysis (AA) discretionary grant. Although Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP21) repealed the alternatives analysis requirements of SAFETEA-LU, guidance implementing the
provisions of MAP-21 instructed transit agency project sponsors that the existing SAFETEA-LU
requirements continue to apply for obligations using funding from Section 5339 Alternatives Analysis
grants.
Consequently, RTA is complying with legacy guidance regarding Alternatives Analysis (AA). The AA
process is part of a larger FTA transportation planning and project development process described in
FTA’s Major Capital Investment Final Rule, published December 7, 2000; Additional Guidance on Local
Initiation of Alternatives Analysis Planning Studies; and Final Guidance on New Starts Policies and
Procedures, published August 2008. These rules and guidance establish the methodology by which RTA
evaluated the proposed “New Starts” fixed-guideway alternatives that could be potentially eligible for
federal funding. Since this study commenced, Congress passed a new law entitled Fixing America’s
6
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The newly enacted FAST Act made no material changes to the way
New Starts projects are evaluated.
A basic framework for evaluating alternatives is outlined in prior FTA guidance and is considered from
several different perspectives:

Effectiveness – the extent to which each alternative meets established goals and objectives,
including transportation and sustainability goals.

Impacts – the extent to which the project supports economic development, environmental or
local policy goals;

Cost effectiveness – the trade-off between the effectiveness of an alternative and its capital
and operating costs.

Financial feasibility – the ability to obtain the financial resources needed to build and
operate an alternative.

Equity – the distribution of costs and benefits.
The evaluation framework will use the FTA perspectives as a basic organizing structure. Within this
structure, goals and objectives will be used to establish the specific evaluation criteria to be addressed
that satisfy the project purpose and need. RTA is a signatory to the sustainability guidelines of the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA). The APTA sustainability requirements are included
in the evaluation framework.
The study process began with the initial public meeting to discuss project scoping in September 2013.
As the study progressed, the list of alternatives was narrowed through a tiered evaluation process
described in the Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report4.
2.4
FTA Project Rating Process
The FTA project rating and evaluation process culminates each year in an annual report submitted to
Congress that includes a proposal on the allocation of funding to be made available to finance grants
and/or loans for capital projects for New Starts projects. Proposed New Starts projects must undergo
evaluation by the FTA throughout the entire project development process. Projects are evaluated
according to a variety of criteria. FTA uses two primary criteria for evaluating New Starts projects: project
justification criteria and local financial commitment.
Under the project justification criteria, six different measures are evaluated:
4

Mobility improvements - FTA evaluates mobility improvements for New Starts projects as
the total number of linked trips using the proposed project, with a weight of two given to trips
that would be made on the project by transit dependent persons. Linked trips using the
proposed project include all trips made on the project whether or not the rider boards or
alights on the project or elsewhere in the transit system.

Congestion relief – FTA evaluates congestion relief based on the number of new weekday
linked transit trips resulting from implementation of the proposed project. FTA recognizes that
this is an indirect measure of roadway congestion relief resulting from implementation of a
transit project, but it serves as an indicator of potential cars taken off the road.
AECOM, Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; November 9, 2013.
7
AECOM
May 9, 2016

Environmental benefits - FTA evaluates and rates the environmental benefits criterion for
New Starts projects based upon the dollar value of the anticipated direct and indirect benefits
to human health, safety, energy, and the air quality environment scaled by the annualized
capital and operating cost of the project. These benefits are computed based on the change in
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from implementation of the proposed project.

Cost effectiveness – Federal law requires that the cost-effectiveness criterion for New Starts
projects be based on a cost per trip measure. Therefore, the cost effectiveness measure for
New Starts projects is the total annualized capital expenditure plus the annual operating and
maintenance (OPEX) cost per trip on the project. The number of trips on the project is not an
incremental measure but simply total estimated trips on the project. Trips are synonymous
with riders.

Economic development effects - The measure of economic development effects is the
extent to which a proposed project is likely to induce additional, transit-supportive
development in the future based on a qualitative examination of the existing local plans and
policies to support economic development proximate to the project.

Transit supportive land-use - The land use measure includes an examination of existing
corridor and station area development; existing corridor and station area development
character; existing station area pedestrian facilities, including access for persons with
disabilities; existing corridor and station area parking supply; and the proportion of existing
“legally binding affordability restricted” housing within ½ mile of station areas to the proportion
of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing in the counties through which the project
travels.
In addition to project justification criteria, the law requires that proposed New Starts projects be supported
by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable
financing sources to construct, maintain and operate the transit system or extension, and maintain and
operate the entire public transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing services. The
measures FTA uses for the evaluation of local financial commitment for proposed New Starts projects
are:
 The proposed share of total project capital costs from sources other than the Section 5309
Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program;
 The current financial condition, both capital and operating, of the project sponsor and/or
relevant project partners when more than one entity is involved in construction or operations;
 The commitment of funds for both the capital cost of the proposed project and the ongoing
transit system operation and maintenance, including consideration of whether there is
significant private participation;
 The reasonableness of the financial plan, including planning assumptions, cost estimates, and
the capacity to withstand funding shortfalls or cost overruns.
Current law requires that FTA evaluate and rate a project as a whole on a five-point scale from low to
high based on the combined summary ratings for project justification and local financial commitment as
depicted in Figure 2-1. These rating are designated as “high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “medium-low”
or “low”. And FTA must evaluate the project based on the six project justification criteria and give
“comparable, but not necessarily equal” weight to each when determining a summary project justification
rating. FTA gives equal weight to each of the project justification criteria to arrive at a summary project
justification rating, meaning each of the six is given a weight of 16.66 percent. Current law does not
specify how the local financial commitment criteria should be weighted when arriving at a summary local
financial commitment rating.
8
AECOM
May 9, 2016
FTA currently assigns 50 percent weight to the summary project justification rating and 50 percent weight
to the summary local financial commitment rating to arrive at an overall rating. FTA requires at least a
Medium rating on both project justification and local financial commitment to obtain a Medium or better
rating overall.
Based on these evaluations, the FTA makes decisions about moving projects forward from Project
Development through Engineering to annual Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) recommendations to
Congress. In the Annual Report on New Starts, FTA applies these evaluations to recommend funding for
projects anticipated to be ready for an FFGA before the end of the budget fiscal year, and to recommend
funding for other meritorious projects.
2.5
Public Involvement as Part of the Alternatives Analysis Process
Consistent with FTA’s New Starts guidelines, the AA process has been a coordinated effort between
RTA, members of the public, public agencies, and other stakeholders with numerous opportunities for
public and agency comment at each stage in the study process.
Public involvement was an integral part of the AA process. A comprehensive public engagement and
stakeholder involvement plan and program was developed and implemented. This program is described
in detail in the Public Engagement Plan5 and the Stakeholder Committee Plan6.
Review committees were created as a major element in the process. These committees included a
Technical Steering Committee (TSC) made up of individuals representing local agencies, representatives
from the cities of Cleveland, East Cleveland and Euclid and representatives from NOACA and ODOT and
a Stakeholder Involvement Committee (SIC) made up of individuals representing neighborhood,
community, and business groups; homeowner associations; and environmental groups.
These committees served as advisory groups that reviewed technical information and provided valuable
comments and suggestions throughout the study. The panels continue to provide a valuable critique of
the study methods and findings.
2.6
Screening and Selection Process
There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding what constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives. What
constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the nature of the proposed project and the
facts of each case. At the same time, the concept of alternatives must be bounded by some notion of
feasibility. The range of alternatives to be considered need not extend beyond those reasonably related
to the purposes of the project bounded by feasibility. Reasonable alternatives include those that are
practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint using common sense, rather than simply
desirable from some biased viewpoint. Each alternative should be defined in a way that makes it
competitive within the overall set of alternatives under consideration. The alternatives must, within the
limits of their technology, respond to the transportation needs in the corridor. Each of the alternatives will
be refined to optimize its performance in the corridor. Each mode, alignment and technology has different
strengths and limitations. Consequently, it is important that each alternative be refined to ensure that its
specifications and operating policies make maximum use of the physical facilities that it would provide.
5
6
BrownFlynn, “Public Engagement Plan,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; May 22, 2013.
BrownFlynn, “Stakeholder Committee Plan,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; May 22, 2013.
9
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Using a multiple screening framework, alternatives that either have fatal flaws or little opportunity to
enhance public transportation in the study corridors will be eliminated. At the earliest stages of the
process, a wide range of single-mode alternatives will be evaluated at a broad level against a select few
measures that have the greatest potential to discriminate among the alternatives.
This basis for evaluation allows the benefits and impacts of each alternative to be measured with an
objective set of criteria that relate to the specific needs for this project. As the evaluation progresses with
respect to these criteria, the most suitable options will emerge for more detailed analysis, eventually
leading to the adoption/confirmation of the locally preferred alternative by local decision makers. While
the methodology offers an objective procedure for comparing potential public transportation options in
this specific corridor, it also takes into consideration criteria for evaluating public transportation projects
based on an economic appraisal facilitating fully informed decision making. This stream of activities
begins by:

defining the purpose and need for transportation improvements within the study area,

identifying reasonable and feasible alternatives to be evaluated,

providing conceptual planning of the alternatives in sufficient detail to provide relative order of
magnitude capital cost estimates of the alternatives,

evaluating the public transportation system improvements that might result from each, and

analyzing the alternatives with screening criteria based on project goals developed during initial
project scoping.
The primary purpose of each step in the screening process is to identify those alternatives that best meet
study area needs. Additionally, the screening process should provide insight into how the alternatives can
be refined or modified to improve its effectiveness in satisfying local goals and objectives. And finally, the
screening process should identify logical sub-areas for analysis and to prioritize and concentrate study
resources in those corridors and sub-areas that make the most sense.
Typically the evaluation is a multi-step process; whereby increasingly detailed and comprehensive
measures of effectiveness (MOE) are applied to a decreasing number of alternatives. Each step in the
evaluation process is thus designed to focus the analysis on progressively fewer alternatives with higher
levels of scrutiny. As the process progresses, more quantitative and less qualitative measures are
implemented. This analysis will result in the recommendation of a preferred build alternative. In the final
step of the evaluation process, the preferred build alternative will be evaluated and compared to the No
Build alternative.
A detailed description of the evaluation process can be found in the Alternatives Analysis Methodology
Report (November 2013)7. The alternatives analysis process may be divided into four phases and three
tiers of analysis as depicted in the flow diagram depicted in Figure 2-2:
7
AECOM, Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report, November 2013.
10
AECOM
Figure ‎2-2
May 9, 2016
Alternatives Analysis Flow Chart
These phases of alternative development and tiered analysis necessarily follow one another in sequence,
with the results of each phase and analysis tier serving as necessary inputs to the following phase. The
preferred build alternative is then subjected to a project justification and appraisal process designed to
permit decision-makers to determine whether the project should be funded and constructed. Only one
preferred build alternative is usually advanced to Tier 3 level of screening, which will compare and
contrast the preferred build alternative to the No Build and Do Minimum alternatives. In this phase of the
analysis, a Business Case for the LPA will be more fully developed and benefit/cost analysis completed.
A description of the indicative evaluation process used to screen alternatives and select the preferred
alternative is described below:
Tier 1 Preliminary Screening of the Initial Alternatives
The evaluation criteria for Tier 1 screening considered adverse environmental impacts in order to identify
alternatives with adverse impacts in order to eliminate them as early as possible in the process. The
quantitative and qualitative assessment considered whether the alternatives either had fatal flaws or were
not likely to enhance transportation objectives in the study area. The first element of the analysis
considered whether the alternative satisfied the purpose and need established for the study. During the
Tier 1 screening, a fatal-flaw analysis was conducted on an initial set of potential corridor alignments and
transit technologies. The fatal-flaw analysis considered constructability, cost and right-of-way
requirements and constraints. Several transit alignments were eliminated that did not satisfy the project
goals (for example, very expensive infrastructure that would be too expensive to build or did not foster
redevelopment potential). Following the fatal-flaw analysis, a long list of alternatives was compiled by
mixing and matching the various potential alignments and technologies. These alternatives were
subjected to two levels of sifting, which included evaluating alignments and technologies for feasibility
and appropriateness. The TSC and SIC reviewed the long list of alternatives and commented and
11
AECOM
May 9, 2016
critiqued the screening and sifting processes. Based on results of the Tier 1 screening, the alternatives
were repackaged into three primary alignments that used several technology options.
Tier 2 Screening of the Promising Alternatives Advanced from Tier 1 Screening
The Tier 2 screening involved a more rigorous and mostly quantitative analysis relying on a detailed
definition of each alternative. Tier 2 screening evaluated alternatives based on operational
considerations, the general financial feasibility of the alternatives, and their cost-effectiveness.
Tier 2 screening included preliminary analyses of the three primary alignment alternatives and technology
options that advanced from the Tier 1 screening. This work included development of transit ridership
estimates, conceptual engineering for the corridor alignments, the development of station location
options, and the consideration of technology design issues and constraints. This screening also included
a preliminary financial analysis using preliminary estimates of probable capital expenditure and operating
and maintenance costs. The cost effectiveness and mobility impacts were also assessed for each of the
alternatives under consideration. At the end of the Tier 2 screening process, an additional alternative
emerged as a result of public review and comment. This additional alternative resulted in four
alternatives being advanced to the Tier 3 screening process.
Tier 3 Final Screening: Project Feasibility and Appraisal of Preferred Alternative
This Preferred Alternative Report documents the evaluation of the final four alternatives being considered
in the Tier 3 screening. The report examines the mobility benefits associated with travel forecasts
including, ridership, reductions in automobile travel and benefits to transit dependent populations.
Capital and operating costs are revisited and calculated for the newly added Hybrid alternative. The Tier
3 screening introduces comparative economic analysis by monetizing the direct and indirect
environmental benefits associated with each of the alternatives under investigation. More detailed and
calculated financial analysis is presented to evaluate the eligibility of obtaining competitive FTA Capital
Improvement Grants for the New Start alternatives under investigation. The purpose of this final report is
to identify and select a locally preferred alternative (LPA) if possible given the outcomes of the technical
analysis.
12
AECOM
May 9, 2016
3 Purpose and Need
The intent of the purpose and need statement is to document the rationale for considering transit
improvements in the study area as demonstrated by current and anticipated development and
transportation conditions. By identifying existing and anticipated future transportation deficiencies, RTA’s
understanding of the study area conditions also helps it formulate potential transit improvements.
Many studies and activities from 1960 to 2015 have led to t the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study.
Each prior study has expressed the need to provide an efficient, safe, economical, and balanced
transportation system (with auto, transit, and non-motorized modes of travel) that would minimize the
impact to the environment and would complement the community’s development patterns.
The travel mode choices for people who live or work in the study area are currently limited to
automobiles, local bus service, or travel by auto to the RTA Red Line or HealthLine Louis Stokes Station
at Windermere, which is the closest location where residents of Lake County, Euclid, Collinwood and
East Cleveland can access the RTA rapid transit network.
The proposed alternatives of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study would extend the rapid transit
lines east to serve additional neighborhood-oriented stations in East Cleveland, Collinwood, Nottingham
and Euclid, which would give more people the choice of walking or driving to rapid transit stations nearer
to where they live. This could decrease overall travel times, eliminate the need for nonproductive parking
spaces, decrease air pollutant emissions, and maintain or reduce current congestion levels on local
arterial roads. Mode shift is very measurable and is reflected in the alternatives analysis through
increased ridership.
Employment, medical and education centers located in University Circle can be reached directly via the
RTA HealthLine and Red Line without the need for “the last mile” transit distribution system. In other
words, people can very easily reach their final destinations in University Circle by walking, thereby
eliminating the need for more parking in the area or a bus transfer. These user benefits are very
measurable and also are reflected in this alternatives analysis through increased ridership. The existing
areawide shuttle bus service simply expands this walking market shed.
RTA is working with the cities of Cleveland, East Cleveland, and Euclid and University Circle, Inc. to
develop station area plans that enhance the pedestrian realm and provide opportunities for mixed-use
transit-oriented development near transit stations. The recent opening of the Little Italy – University
Circle Station is indicative of the planning to foster increased development generating more riders for the
Red Line. The cities are working to complete hiking and biking trails in the vicinity of the proposed rapid
transit extensions, which would make stations more accessible to non-motorized transportation.
3.1
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study is to determine the scope, scale and type of
transit investment to best meet mobility needs, complement and enhance the transportation network
infrastructure, and support land use and community reinvestment plans and development goals.

Mobility Need – Enhancing transportation options, service, and connections for study area
residents to current and emerging transportation markets.

Transportation Network – Refining the transportation network to meet new markets, enhance and
maintain current markets, and develop cost effective alternatives to driving alone in cars.
13
AECOM
Increased demand for transit is occurring due to the overall
increased cost of driving automobiles and travel time due to
congestion. Demand will increase because of improved
accessibility to major activity centers and destinations in the
corridor from the Red Line/HealthLine extension.


Land Use and Community – Developing alternatives that
support community development and economic goals and
ensure effective transit to populations with high transit
propensity.
Sustainability, Public Health and Environmental Stewardship –
Providing sustainable transit facilities and amenities that
promote walking and bicycle use; encouraging transit as a
healthy and environmentally-friendly, sustainable commuting
choice; and supporting sustainable design and green
principles for implementation and operation of transit facilities.
In summary, the purpose of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study
is to address the future mobility problems in the study area by
providing improved transit service from the northeast quadrant of
Cuyahoga County to University Circle and Midtown and points beyond
and in between as well as provide more connections to the regional
transit system from neighborhood stations that can be walked to.
3.2
May 9, 2016
The purpose of the project is
to accommodate existing
and projected travel
demand, including:
 Improve mobility and
connectivity
 Provide faster, more
reliable public
transportation services
 Increase transportation
system capacity
 Reduce traffic congestion
or limit growth of
congestion
 Enhance opportunities for
more travel choices
 Improve transit service for
non-commuter trips
 Create opportunities for
transit-oriented
development
Problems and Needs
The need for a major transit investment in the study area is based on
the following issues, which form the basis for the goals established for
the study:

Reverse Employment and Population Migration Trends. The trend in population and
employment migration to the east is undisputed. Transit must innovatively address this trend to
ensure convenient, attractive, and time-competitive access between communities, employment
and activity centers.
o Serve existing and emerging employment and activity centers
o Serve underserved or unserved employment and activity centers
o Serve zero-vehicle households and transit dependent communities
o Serve high transit propensity areas
Further, transit service must be structured to meet travel needs of current markets and existing
customers
o Meet travel needs and markets by trip type
o Maintain markets to current key activity centers

Improve Service Delivery Optimization. Refine network structure and operating plans and
derive service strategies to meet long term needs efficiently.
o Develop effective and efficient high capacity transit
o Define corridors by service type and mode – local, express, high capacity
o Define improvements that can be implemented incrementally
o Ensure long-term viability
o Ensure travel time reliability with infrastructure improvements
o Improve transit productivity and metrics
o Internal trips and external trips by provider
14
AECOM
May 9, 2016

Enhance Transit Connections and Integration. RTA and Laketran provide service to what has
become a cohesive community with travel needs that span the county line. Improved integration
of service between the Cuyahoga and Lake County portions of the study area for work and nonwork trips is essential.
o Develop seamless interfaces and coordinated intercounty services
o Provide direct convenient connections to activity centers for local and commuter trips
o Promote multi-modal integration – transit, shuttles, bicycles, alternative transportation
modes

Support Sustainable Land Use and Economic Development. Develop transit to enhance and
support land use and development plans and use and redevelopment plans
o Promote sustainable economic development
o Support redevelopment and reuse of land in transit corridors
o Serve affordable housing
o Utilize existing infrastructure
o Coordinate transit investment with land use policies
o Protect the environment and minimize environmental impacts
The trend in population and employment migration to the east is undisputed. Transit must innovatively
address this trend to ensure convenient, attractive, and time-competitive access between communities,
employment and activity centers. The transit network must be expanded to serve both existing and
emerging employment and activity centers, serve underserved or unserved employment and activity
centers, serve zero-vehicle households and transit dependent communities and serve high transit
propensity areas in the study area.
Further, transit service must be structured to meet travel needs of current markets and existing
customers by trip type and current key activity centers. The network structure and operating plans and
derived service strategies must be refined to meet long term needs efficiently.







Develop effective and efficient high capacity transit
Define corridors by service type and mode – local, express, high capacity
Define improvements that can be implemented incrementally
Ensure long-term viability
Ensure travel time reliability with infrastructure improvements
Improve transit productivity and metrics
Internal trips and external trips by provider
Integration of service between RTA and Laketran must be improved to what has become a cohesive
community with travel needs that span the county line. Improved integration of service between the
Cuyahoga and Lake County portions of the study area for work and non-work trips is essential. The
service must develop seamless interfaces and coordinated intercounty services, provide direct
convenient connections to activity centers for local and commuter trips and promote multi-modal
integration – transit, shuttles, bicycles, alternative transportation modes
Transit must be expanded in the study area to enhance and support land use and development and
redevelopment plans to promote more sustainable economic growth and reuse of land in transit corridors.
3.3
Population Trends
According to the 2010 United States Census, the population of the eight county Greater Cleveland
combined statistical area was 2.88 million, which makes it the largest combined statistical area
completely within Ohio. However, for the past thirty years the Greater Cleveland area population has
been decreasing due to migration patterns and the severe decline in manufacturing employment.
15
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Greater Cleveland has not escaped the low density suburban development patterns common in other
cities around the country. Cleveland was the 5th largest city in the United States in 1930 when it had a
robust population of over 900,000 people. With approximately 300,000 people living in Cleveland’s
suburbs, Cuyahoga County had a total population of 1.2 million back then. By 1950, the population of the
City of Cleveland grew to 914,800 and still exceeded the combined total of its suburbs. The total
population of Cuyahoga County exceeded the combined population of the adjoining counties. But by
1960 the population in the City of Cleveland declined to
Figure 3-1 Population Change 2010 -2035
876,000 as people relocated from the central city to its
suburbs swelling suburban population to nearly 772,000,
which totaled 1.6 million people for Cuyahoga County. By
1990, out-migration completely reversed the distribution of
population in Greater Cleveland. The adjoining counties had
a combined population of 1.2 million, Cuyahoga County
suburbs had a combined population of 906,524 and the
central city population had been reduced to 505,616. Today,
the City of Cleveland population has declined even further to
396,800, which is less than the city’s population of 100
years ago. Suburban population in Cuyahoga County has
decreased to 883,300 people while population migrating to
adjacent counties has dramatically increased, especially to
Lake County. In 1950 the population of Lake County was
75,980 people. Today the population of adjacent Lake
County is 230,040.
Over the next 30-year horizon, Cuyahoga County is projected to lose another 120,000 people, while the
remaining counties gain 107,000. This population shift will lower Cuyahoga County’s share of the fivecounty region from 65 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2030. In 2010, the study area population was
approximately 223,000, an 11 percent decrease from the 2000 population of nearly 250,000. The decline
in the Cuyahoga County portion was 17 percent, compared to 5 percent in the Lake County portion. The
core study area and Cuyahoga County have reflected a long-term loss in population which is expected to
continue into the future. NOACA projects by 2035 the study area population will decrease by 6 percent
overall with the Cuyahoga County portion of the study area decreasing by 14 percent. However, the Lake
County portion will remain relatively stable with a 0.4 percent increase (Figure 3-1). Taking a broader
view of adjacent areas, population will decrease 9 percent in eastern Cuyahoga County8, 1 percent in
Lake County south of the study area, and 3 percent in eastern Lake County. Geauga County is projected
to gain 12 percent in population. These trends underscore the continuing out migration of residents from
Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and more recently Lake County.
Census Year
Table ‎3-1
Cuyahoga
Population of Counties and Cities in Study Area
East
Lake
Cleveland
Cleveland
22,927
560,663
9,179
Euclid
1910
637,425
1920
943,495
28,667
796,841
27,292
3,363
1930
1,201,455
41,674
900,429
39,667
12,751
1940
1,217,250
50,020
878,336
39,495
17,866
8
1,953
For transportation planning analysis purposes, the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) used in the NOACA regional model were aggregated into
larger geographic areas called districts; East Cuyahoga County is one of the 13 traffic analysis districts within the study area. The East
Cuyahoga County district comprises areas east of the Cuyahoga River, other than the downtown Cleveland, University Circle, and Cleveland
Clinic districts and the study area.
16
AECOM
May 9, 2016
1950
1,389,532
75,980
914,808
East
Cleveland
40,047
1960
1,647,895
148,700
876,050
37,991
62,998
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
Census Year
Cuyahoga
Lake
Cleveland
Euclid
41,396
Source: US Census
3.4
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations
Socially disadvantaged populations include minorities, low income households, households with no cars
available and certain age categories, such people aged 75 or older. The following paragraphs discuss
these characteristics within the study area.
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, states that each Federal agency shall make environmental
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low income populations. That order directs federal agencies to "promote
nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and
provide minority and low-income communities’ access to public information on, and an opportunity for
public participation in, matters relating to human health or the environment." A preliminary assessment
was conducted to identify the conditions that would form the environmental justice context of any
potential transit improvement in the study area.
Though Executive Order 12898 does not define “minority” or “low-income”, the terms were defined in the
context of environmental justice analysis in DOT Order 5610.2(a). Minority individuals are classified by
the U.S. Census Bureau into the following categories: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or
Pacific Islander; Black (not of Hispanic Origin); Hispanic. Low-income households are those with a
median household income below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.
Low-income population and minority population data were collected for each Census Tract.
Population and income data from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey and 2010 Census were
used as a basis for the analysis.
Minority Population
The communities in Cuyahoga and Lake Counties differ in their racial and ethnic composition. The three
communities in Cuyahoga County are predominately minority, ranging from 56 percent in Euclid to 95
percent in East Cleveland. The minority population is almost entirely African American. The six Lake
County communities are approximately 95 percent White. The percent minority by Census Tract is
mapped in Figure 3-2. Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) research on transit use
propensity suggests that African Americans are more than twice as likely as the population in general to
use transit, due largely to income, neighborhood location relative to transit, and proportionately more
zero-car households.9
9
TCRP Report 28, Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change; Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC 1998.
17
AECOM
Table ‎3-2
Total
Population
Community
Cleveland
(Collinwood)
East Cleveland
Euclid
Eastlake
Mentor
Mentor-on-the-Lake
Wickliffe
Willoughby
Willowick
May 9, 2016
Racial Breakdown of Population
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
American
White
Black
Asian
Indian
Cuyahoga County
32,843
19%
17,843
48,920
5%
44%
19,478
47,159
7,443
12,750
22,268
14,171
96%
96%
96%
93%
94%
95%
78%
93%
53%
Lake County
1%
1%
2%
4%
3%
3%
Percent
Other
Race
Percent
Hispanic
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
1.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.7%
0.2%
0.3%
1.0%
1.6%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
1.0%
1.3%
1.6%
1.5%
1.3%
0.6%
0.4%
0.6%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
Source: US Census 2010
Low Income Population
The Cuyahoga County communities have a much larger share of their population below the poverty level
than the Lake County communities. Poverty levels in the three Cuyahoga communities range from 18-41
percent, compared to 6-9 percent in the six Lake County communities.
Table ‎3-3
Population Below Poverty Level
Percent Below Poverty
Community
Level
Cuyahoga County
Cleveland (Collinwood)
30%
East Cleveland
41%
Euclid
18%
Lake County
Eastlake
7%
Mentor
6%
Mentor-on-the-lake
8%
Wickliffe
9%
Willoughby
7%
Willowick
7%
18
AECOM
Figure ‎3-2
Percentage of Minority Population by Census Tract
19
May 9, 2016
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Automobile Access
There is a clear differentiation with respect to the number of zero-car households, which is an indicator of
economic disadvantage as well as a powerful predictor of transit use. According to TCRP Report 28,
zero-car households are 5.76 times more likely than the general population to use transit.10 There is a
much higher percentage of households that do not have a car in Cuyahoga County than in Lake County.
The three communities in Cuyahoga County vary from 13-24 percent of households without a car. In
contrast, approximately 96-98 percent of households in Lake County have at least one vehicle.
Table ‎3-4
Zero Car Households (HH)
Owner
Renter
Total
Total
Community
Occupied HH
Occupied HH Households No
Households
No Vehicle
No Vehicle
Vehicle *
Cuyahoga County
15,147
3.5%
19.0%
13.4%
East Cleveland
8,398
4.1%
29.4%
23.8%
Euclid
22,344
2.7%
12.7%
7.9%
Lake County
Eastlake
8,383
2.6%
2.5%
2.6%
Mentor
18,907
1.8%
2.1%
1.9%
Mentor-on-the-lake
3,553
1.1%
4.8%
2.0%
Wickliffe
5,707
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
Willoughby
10,297
1.9%
4.7%
2.9%
Willowick
6,536
1.7%
1.3%
1.6%
* The percent of total households (HH) with no vehicle reflects the percent of owner-occupied
households reported in Table 26 of the Baseline Conditions Report.
Age of Population
The age distribution of the population is potentially linked both to economic disadvantage and to transit
use, particularly if a community is disproportionately young or old. A high percentage of residents below
age 20 may suggest overcrowded housing or complex household mobility needs. A high percentage of
elderly residents may be linked to economic disadvantage or to restricted mobility, especially for those
elders who no longer drive. However, as Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. shows, there is
not a pronounced difference in age distribution among the study area communities. In all nine
communities, the 20-65 bracket represents 56-62 percent of the population. The Cuyahoga County
communities have marginally higher percentages of young residents; the elderly population varies slightly
among cities, but not along county lines.
Table ‎3-5
Community
Age Breakdown of Population (2010)
Age Group
Total
Less than
10 years
10 to 20
years
20 to 65
years
65 to 75
years
75 years
and older
61%
56%
7%
10%
6%
9%
Cuyahoga County
East Cleveland
10
32,843
17,843
13%
11%
14%
14%
TCRP Report 28, Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change.
20
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Age Group
Community
Total
Euclid
48,920
Eastlake
Mentor
Mentor-on-the-lake
Wickliffe
Willoughby
Willowick
19,478
47,159
7,443
12,750
22,268
14,171
Less than
10 years
10 to 20
years
12%
Lake County
10%
10%
12%
11%
10%
12%
20 to 65
years
65 to 75
years
75 years
and older
14%
59%
7%
9%
13%
13%
12%
11%
11%
11%
61%
60%
62%
56%
60%
58%
9%
9%
8%
9%
8%
8%
6%
8%
6%
13%
11%
11%
Educational Attainment
There are parallel but less pronounced differences in educational attainment. The majority of the
population age 25 and above in both the Lake and Cuyahoga portions of the study area have a high
school diploma or some college education. The percentage of people who have not attained a high
school diploma is somewhat higher in Cuyahoga County. The percentage with a bachelor or graduate
degree is somewhat higher in Lake County.
Table ‎3-6
Community
Population
over 25 years
Less than
9th grade
Educational Attainment
9th to
12th
grade
High
School
diploma
Some
College
Associate
Degree
Bachelor
Degree
Graduate
Degree
37%
25%
7%
7%
4%
17%
38%
9%
34%
Lake County
9%
42%
5%
34%
10%
36%
7%
40%
6%
33%
9%
38%
25%
27%
6%
7%
8%
13%
3%
7%
24%
23%
26%
24%
21%
25%
9%
9%
7%
7%
9%
9%
9%
19%
15%
12%
20%
13%
5%
9%
6%
6%
9%
4%
Cuyahoga County
Cleveland
(Collinwood)
East Cleveland
Euclid
Eastlake
Mentor
Mentor-on-the-lake
Wickliffe
Willoughby
Willowick
23,000
7%
12,400
33,460
3%
3%
13,855
33,704
5,129
9,141
16,319
10,385
3%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
14%
Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage
In addition to examining variables individually, an Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage was created, to
identify concentrations of households below the poverty level, zero-car households, population aged 25
and above without a high school diploma, and population aged 75 and above. The results, mapped in
Figure 3-3, show Collinwood and East Cleveland at the high end of the index scale, Euclid with significant
areas of disadvantage (but away from the lake shore), and only modest pockets of disadvantage, near
the lower end of the scale, in Lake County.
21
AECOM
3.5
May 9, 2016
Development Patterns, Land Use and Geographical Constraints
The study area is constrained by natural and human-made features that include Lake Erie to the north
and I-90/SR-2, a multi-lane freeway running east-west along with the parallel railroads. Most of the
development in the study area is contained within the natural and built boundaries formed by these
features.
Changes in employment and population migration trends have greatly affected land-use and travel
patterns throughout Greater Cleveland. These changes were all predicted in the 1940’s. The prediction
made for the Report on Cleveland Transit Modernization suggested that industrial and residential
decentralization would result in Cleveland losing population while suburban population would increase.
Since that report was issued, employment from the central business district (CBD) moved to suburban
office parks, manufacturing jobs moved from the central city to the suburbs then to other regions and
countries. The migration of population from the City of Cleveland and its eastern suburbs of East
Cleveland and Euclid to surrounding communities and adjoining counties, the development of large
regional shopping malls and the decline of retail in Downtown Cleveland, have all contributed to this shift
in travel patterns.
This shift in population and employment patterns required substantive transportation system investment.
Unfortunately, most of the transportation investments made in the past 50 years were in highway
infrastructure. This investment in highway infrastructure facilitated the reversal of population and
employment distribution, which has had a profound effect on public transportation usage. In 1950 the
transit share of the journey to work was approximately 16 percent. Today, the transit share of the journey
to work market is 3.5 percent. Since 1980, total RTA system ridership has been reduced by about 55
percent, from 110 million annual riders to about 49.3 million in 2014. RTA accounts for only 2 percent of
total person trips in the region and approximately 5.1 percent of work trips.
Most of the literature on transit ridership focuses on the strength of the CBD as the locus of regional
economic activity. RTA service is still concentrated on Downtown Cleveland oriented trips. Although
Downtown Cleveland has enjoyed a renaissance, inter-county work trips have been rising dramatically.
During this period, work trips from the surrounding six counties increased 56 percent. Region wide,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were forecasted to grow by almost 15 percent from 1990 to 2010 reflecting
growth in the number of households, trips per person and average length of trip due to suburbanization.
Suburb-to-suburb work trips far outnumber Downtown work trips. Consequently, RTA has recognized a
need to adapt its service to these changing travel needs of the community.
In response to these shifts in population and employment, RTA has constructed a series of suburban
transit centers and park-and-ride lots served by rapid transit, trunk line commuter express buses and
local bus routes. These services are designed to re-orient the transit network toward suburb-to-suburb
travel markets. These strategies have resulted in slow and steady growth in transit ridership when
coupled with increased costs of using cars.
22
AECOM
Figure ‎3-3
May 9, 2016
Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Source: US Census 2010 11
11
The datasets containing the four variables by Census Tract were converted from shapefiles to raster grids and reclassified, with the top quantile given a rating of one and the lower quantiles a rating of zero. The top quantiles were: ≥16% zero car households; ≥11% over age 75; ≥11% no HS diploma; ≥10% below poverty line. The variables
were weighted zero-car 4, poverty 3, no HS 2, age 75+ 1.
23
AECOM
May 9, 2016
The current character of the study area involves a diverse population; different land uses and parcel
configurations that will affect routing options, potential station locations, and redevelopment
opportunities. The land use discussion begins with a traditional color-coded land use map, showing
every parcel in the study area by type of use, with an accompanying table summarizing the uses by
acreage. Two dominant patterns emerge from the data:

Land uses types are generally segregated. Euclidean zoning—the term denoting the segregation
of land uses into geographic districts—is named after the City of Euclid and is prevalent in all of
the study area municipalities.

Industrial land is visibly organized around the axis of transportation corridors that traverses the
middle of the study area—the “sandwich” of I-90 / SR-2, St. Clair Avenue, the railroads, and
Euclid Avenue.
After a brief narrative overview of each community’s salient land use features, the analysis turns to three
specific aspects of land use that expand the sense of “what’s on the ground” and how it relates to
transportation:

major destinations and activity centers;

the location and industry type of major employers (statistical data on employment, jobs, and the
labor force are found in the socioeconomics section, which follows); and

The incidence of vacant land and buildings.
Current land use in the study area is depicted in Figure 3-4. The swath of industrial land along the
highway and rail axis is flanked on its north side (toward the Lake) and its south side by land that is
predominantly residential. The areas north and south of the industrial corridor also contain significant
pockets of commercial land (largely in the form of automobile-oriented retail centers) and “exempt” land—
tax-exempt public and institutional property, including everything from government buildings to schools to
parkland to cemeteries.
The statistical analysis of the parcel data in Table ‎3-7 shows the following:

The land area of the six Lake County communities (31,064 acres) is three times that of the three
Cuyahoga County communities (10,331 acres).

The City of Mentor contains half of the land in the Lake County portion of the study area and is, by
itself, larger than Collinwood, East Cleveland, and Euclid combined.

Just about half the land in the study area is residential: 47 percent in the Cuyahoga County
portion and 51 percent in the Lake County portion.

The next highest category is “Exempt”—20 percent of the land in the Cuyahoga communities and
18 percent in the Lake communities. In East Cleveland, the most economically challenged of the
nine study area communities, fully 30 percent of the land is tax-exempt.

Commercial land constitutes 14 percent of the land area in each portion of the study area.

Industrial land, the dominant use along the highway/rail axis and a major if declining source of
employment, represents 13 percent of the land in the Cuyahoga communities and 11 percent of
the land in the Lake communities. In absolute terms, however, there is two and one-half times as
much industrial land in the Lake County portion of the study area as in the Cuyahoga portion.
Mentor alone, with nearly 1,900 industrial acres, has more industrial land than the three
Cuyahoga communities.
24
AECOM
Figure ‎3-4
Study Area Land Use
Source: Cuyahoga County and Lake County
25
May 9, 2016
AECOM
Table ‎3-7
Community
May 9, 2016
Study Area Land Use by Type (Number of Acres and Percent of Total)
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Exempt
Other *
Total
Cuyahoga County
Cleveland
(Collinwood)
518
16%
436
13%
1,392
43%
725
22%
198
6%
3,269
East Cleveland
95
6%
209
13%
698
44%
471
30%
117
7%
1,591
Euclid
692
13%
752
14%
2,811
51%
889
16%
329
6%
5,472
1,305
13%
1,397
14%
4,901
47%
2,085
20%
644
6%
10,331
Lake County
15%
2,695
62%
12%
8,263
51%
497
3,140
11%
19%
234
973
5%
6%
4,347
16,105
Cuyahoga
Subtotal
Eastlake
Mentor
Mentor-on-theLake
Wickliffe
Willoughby
Willowick
Lake
Subtotal
Study Area
Total
270
1,873
6%
12%
651
1,855
5
1%
165
18%
614
68%
74
8%
40
4%
899
288
817
7
11%
14%
1%
377
1,256
147
15%
22%
11%
1,251
2,180
1,055
49%
37%
78%
547
1,257
117
22%
22%
9%
78
308
26
3%
5%
2%
2,542
5,818
1,353
3,260
10%
4,452
14%
16,058
52%
5,632
18%
1,661
6%
31,064
4,565
11%
5,849
14%
20,959
51%
7,717
19%
2,305
6%
41,395
* Other includes the official “Other” category as well as Utility and Agricultural. There are 517 acres of agricultural land in
Mentor (462), Willoughby, and Eastlake.
3.5.1
Character of the Communities in the Study Area
The Collinwood district of Cleveland covers approximately 3,269 acres (5.1 square miles). While
Collinwood’s rail and industrial base has declined, it still supports the largest percentage of industrial land
in the study area at 16 percent. The CSX alignment and the immediately parallel I-90 / SR-2 divide
Collinwood into north and south sections.
North Collinwood, the area between I-90 / SR-2 and the Lake, is organized around Lakeshore Boulevard.
The latter is generally residential in character, with higher-density apartment units on the north (lake) side
of the street and lower-density housing on the inland side. North Collinwood is the location of several
parks, including Wildwood Park and Marina, East Shore Park, Beachland Park, and Euclid Beach (site of
the historic Euclid Beach amusement park). At the western end of Collinwood, Cleveland’s large
wastewater treatment plant is located at the head of East 140th Street. At the eastern end of Collinwood,
just inside the Cleveland city limit at East 185th Street and Lakeshore Boulevard is the Roman Catholic
Villa Angela-St. Joseph High School complex.
South Collinwood is the more industrial part of the community, with residential neighborhoods
interspersed between the railroads as well as along the southern edge of Collinwood. St. Clair Avenue,
which runs between and parallel to the two railroads, is generally residential and neighborhoodcommercial in character west of 152nd Street, with a mix of storefronts, flats, and single family homes.
There is a gradual transition to industrial land use east of 152nd Street. A 2003 report commissioned by
26
AECOM
May 9, 2016
the Nottingham Villages Community Development Corporation (NVCDC) to assess opportunities and
constraints for economic development in the St. Clair corridor stated that “the corridor suffers from
disinvestment and decaying visual quality”, a description that is still appropriate.
The intersection of St. Clair, East 152nd Street, and Ivanhoe Road, known as Five Points, is Collinwood’s
traditional central business district. Anchored by Collinwood High School, Five Points today has a cluster
of churches and neighborhood-scale retail, with a post office, police station, fire station, and branch
library all at the intersection or a short walk away. The 2003 NVCDC report placed particular emphasis
on Five Points as a revitalization target.
Euclid Avenue runs along the edge of Collinwood, parallel to and south of the NS railroad. Land use
conditions are variable, with a mix of residential, neighborhood-commercial, and larger-scale industrial
use on the north side of Euclid and mostly residential use on the south side, where the increasing impact
of topography on the escarpment impacts buildability.
East Cleveland
The City of East Cleveland is small and compact, with a land area of 1,591 acres (2.5 square miles). It
has the lowest percentage of its acreage in industrial use (six percent) and the highest percentage in
exempt use (30 percent) of any community in the study area. Its residential land use percentage (44
percent) is among the lowest as well.
East Cleveland is traversed by the Norfolk Southern railroad and by Euclid Avenue. Land use conditions
along Euclid are variable to difficult, with a mix of operating businesses, fast food outlets, older
storefronts, and residential structures, many in deteriorated and/or vacant condition. In general, land use
north of Euclid is industrial and commercial in nature, with residential uses to the south. The escarpment
rises from the south side of Euclid Avenue, creating views out to the lake.
Several important institutional destinations are located on Euclid Avenue within walking distance of the
Red Line / HealthLine terminus at Windermere. These include City Hall, a Cleveland Clinic health center,
the public library, and the recently built Shaw High School. East Cleveland’s most prominent industrial
employer, and a major land use feature as well, is General Electric’s lamp division at Nela Park, located
on Noble Road south of Euclid Avenue and connected by direct bus service to Windermere.
Euclid
The City of Euclid is the largest of the study area’s three Cuyahoga County communities, with an area of
5,472 acres (8.6 square miles). Like Collinwood, it is traversed by I-90 / SR-2, with interchanges serving
the principal north-south streets—in Euclid’s case, East 222nd Street, Babbitt Road, and East 260th Street.
Lakeshore Boulevard crosses into Euclid from Collinwood at 185th Street, where the Euclid Hospital /
University Hospital complex is located on the Euclid side of the city line.
St. Clair Avenue enters Euclid on its western boundary and continues between and parallel to the CSX
and NS railroads. As the railroads become increasingly close to one another, St. Clair is squeezed
between them, functioning essentially as an industrial service road. One of the study area’s most
important industrial employers, Lincoln Electric, has buildings on both sides of St. Clair. East of Lincoln
Electric are two sprawling and vacant shopping malls; the larger—Euclid Square Mall—is where St. Clair
Avenue ends.
Downtown Euclid is defined by the convergence of Lakeshore Boulevard, East 222nd Street, and Babbitt
Road. It encompasses an automobile-oriented retail strip along Lakeshore as well as a rich cluster of
civic and institutional facilities: City Hall, the high school, and the Shore Culture Center (an adaptive
reuse of the old high school). The momentum created by the Downtown Euclid Transportation for Livable
27
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Communities Initiative master plan has spurred over $16 million dollars of public and private investment.
The City is undertaking a similar study and planning effort on the Euclid Avenue Corridor, which is largely
industrial and suburban-commercial in character.
Lake County Communities
As the study area moves eastward into Lake County, the industrial “sandwich” defined by the parallel
transportation corridors continues unbroken. It becomes narrower through Wickliffe, Eastlake, and
Willoughby, where the CSX and NS railroads converge to run directly alongside one another, framed by
SR-2 and Euclid Avenue. The industrial corridor widens somewhat through Mentor, as the railroads and
SR-2 diverge slightly. The character of Euclid Avenue becomes less industrial and more commercial until
it ends in Willoughby. The salient land use features of the individual Lake County communities may be
summarized as follows.

Wickliffe and Willowick. These small cities directly border the city of Euclid. Willowick has a land
area of 1,353 acres (2.1 square miles); Wickliffe’s area is 2,542 acres (4.0 square miles). To
some degree, these communities continue the land use patterns of the adjoining sections of
Euclid. Willowick, which is on the lake, is a predominantly residential community organized
around Lakeshore Boulevard; its percentage of land devoted to residential use is by far the
highest in the study area at 78 percent. Willowick has no industry, but has a substantial retail
center at East 305th Street and Lakeshore. Wickliffe, which is inland, has a more typical
distribution of uses. Its industrial corridor between SR-2 and the railroads includes the
headquarters of the chemical company Lubrizol, one of the study area’s largest employers.

Eastlake. Eastlake extends from the lakefront inland to the railroad corridor, with a land area of
4,347 acres (6.8 square miles). It has one of the highest residential land use percentages in the
study area at 62 percent, organized, like the other lakefront residential communities, along
Lakeshore Boulevard. Because Eastlake’s southern border is the railroad, it has relatively little
industry (6 percent). Among the city’s distinguishing non-residential land use features is a coalfired power plant at the convergence of Lakeshore Boulevard and SR-91 (SOM Center Road); the
complex is served by a rail spur and a wharf. In the southern part of Eastlake, at the intersection
of SOM Center Road and SR-640 (Vine Street) are a substantial retail center anchored by
Walmart and the ballpark of the minor League Lake County Captains.

Willoughby. This oddly shaped municipality has a land area of 5,818 acres (9.1 square miles). It
has the study area’s lowest percentage of land in residential use—just 37 percent. In addition to
the east-west industrial corridor, Willoughby has a municipal airport (Willoughby Lost Nation
Airport) and an adjoining industrial area; these facilities limit the availability of residential land in
the part of town near the lake. In addition to the airport, another prominent exempt property is
Lake West Medical Center on Euclid Avenue, a major employer. Willoughby also has the highest
percentage of land in commercial use—22 percent. This reflects the largely retail character of this
easternmost stretch of Euclid Avenue, as well as Kirtland Country Club and golf course on the
city’s southern edge.

Mentor. The largest and easternmost study area community has a land mass of 16,105 acres
(25.2 square miles). Mentor’s distribution of land by type of use closely tracks that of the study
area as a whole, with 51 percent residential (the study area average), 12 percent industrial, 12
percent commercial and 19 percent exempt. Because of its size, Mentor has by far the largest
amount of acreage in each of the use categories. Its industrial land includes several industrial
parks, in contrast to more traditional plants in the Cuyahoga County end of the industrial corridor.
28
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Mentor also has a broad and deep swath of commercial development, much of it large-format or
“big box”, along Mentor Avenue, which takes the place of Euclid Avenue as US-20 along the
southern edge of the highway-rail corridor. Major commercial centers on Route 20 include Mentor
Commons, Mentor Town Center, and Great Lakes Mall. Mentor has a large open space area on
the Headlands in the northeastern corner of the city, and the study area’s only significant
agricultural acreage is found along its southern boundary.

3.5.2
Mentor-on-the-Lake. This mostly residential municipality is a notch carved out of Mentor along
Lakeshore Boulevard. It is the smallest of the nine communities in the study area, at 899 acres
(1.4 square miles). As would be expected, most of the land area—68 percent—is in residential
use. The principal non-residential feature is a commercial node at Lakeshore Boulevard, Munson
Road, and Andrews Road.
Vacant and Abandoned Properties
Because of the decline in population and jobs in portions of the study area, it is important to understand
the extent of vacancy, abandonment, and severe underutilization of property. Three data sources were
used to examine the vacancy issue. First, both Cuyahoga and Lake Counties classify vacant parcels by
industrial, commercial and residential land uses. Cuyahoga County also lists certain parcels totaling 228
acres as owned by the Cuyahoga County Land Bank. To be listed as vacant by the county assessors, a
parcel must be completely without buildings or other above-ground improvements and not be in
productive economic use. All told, as shown in Table 3-8, the two counties currently list properties totaling
1,123 acres as vacant.
Community
Cleveland
East
Cleveland
(Collinwood)
Euclid
Cuyahoga Subtotal
Eastlake
Mentor
Mentor-on-the-Lake
Wickliffe
Willoughby
Willowick
Lake Subtotal
Study Area Total
Table ‎3-8
Vacant Land by Type (Acres)
Cuyahoga County
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Land Bank
Cuyahoga County
120
6
38
78
56
5
23
44
52
145
76
170
228
156
137
292
Lake County
na
0
0
0
na
0
0
0
na
0
0
0
na
44
99
100
na
0
0
0
na
2
26
39
na
44
125
139
228
202
262
431
TOTAL
242
128
443
813
0
0
0
243
0
67
311
1,123
However, this limited definition of vacancy (which does not count parcels with abandoned, vacant, or
mostly vacant buildings) plainly understates the extent of vacancy generally understood to exist in the
corridor. A second data source, the Costar point data on specific buildings by address, was used to
identify industrial, office, and retail properties that are less than 10 percent leased. Figure 3-5 displays
these results by category and rentable building space; it paints a picture of significant building vacancy,
mostly but not entirely in the central industrial corridor. In both proportionate and absolute terms, building
vacancy is more widespread in the Cuyahoga County portion of the study area.
29
AECOM
Figure ‎3-5
Non-Residential Building Vacancy Properties by Location and Type
Source: COSTAR
30
May 9, 2016
AECOM
3.5.3
May 9, 2016
Activity Centers, Attractions and Cultural Resources
Figure 3-6 shows a representation of major destinations and activity centers in the western portion of the
study area. These include retail centers, schools, parks, hospitals, and other commercial, institutional,
and recreational destinations. In general, this map does not show major employers, since these are
identified separately in the next part of this land use section. This map does extend beyond the study
area to capture the regionally significant cluster of institutional destinations in the University Circle district
of Cleveland; these are important trip generators for clients and visitors as well as employees. University
Circle is directly accessible from East Cleveland, at the western end of the study area, via both the Red
Line and the HealthLine.
Cultural resources - Cultural resources were surveyed in the three Cuyahoga County communities and
the immediately bordering area in Lake County. The following existing inventories were consulted to
identify resources of local, state, or national historic significance:




Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s (OHPO) Online Mapping System and related inventory and
administrative files (includes historic properties listed in and determined eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places, and cemeteries)
Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Historic Bridge List and Buckeye Assets (bridges
and structures listed in and determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places)
Cleveland Landmarks Commission (locally designated landmarks)
Euclid Landmarks Commission (locally designated landmarks).
Thirty-five properties were identified and are listed in Table 38 of the Baseline Conditions Report (2013);
they include:




nine properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (one of which has been
demolished);
nine properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places;
seven cemeteries whose eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places has not been
determined;
Ten properties designated Cleveland Landmarks.
Section 4(f) Resources - Section 4(f) refers to the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966,
which set the requirement for the consideration of publicly owned parks and recreation areas, publicly
owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and publicly and privately owned historic sites. Section 4(f) applies
when four conditions for the project are met:




requires DOT funding and/or approval;
is transportation-related;
requires the use of land from a Section 4(f) protected property;
No regulatory applicability exceptions apply.
The study area’s three Cuyahoga County communities include 92 mapped resources, categorized in
Table 39 of the Baseline Conditions Report (2013). The Natural Heritage Database noted that Cleveland
Lakefront Park is within the study area. The Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway follows Lakeshore Boulevard
through the study area to the Lake County line. Coordination with Ohio Department of Transportation
Office of Environmental Services would be required to determine if the bikeway is a Section 4(f) resource
and if the bikeway continues into Lake County. In addition, coordination will be required to determine if
the public school areas are Section 4(f) resources by verifying that the areas are open to the public and
31
AECOM
Figure ‎3-6
Major Destinations and Activity Centers
32
May 9, 2016
AECOM
May 9, 2016
serve either organized or substantial walk-on recreation activities. The Natural Heritage Database did
not list additional unique ecological sites, geologic features, and animal assemblages; scenic rivers, state
wildlife areas, nature preserves, parks or forests; national wildlife refuges, parks or forests or other
protected natural areas within the study area. In addition, it is likely that small community parks within the
study area have not been labeled on existing maps and would require possible site visits as
transportation alternatives develop. Section 4(f) resources include historic sites, except for seven
cemeteries.
3.6
Employment Trends and Major Employers
The study area is characterized by a significant share of industrial land uses which are visibly organized
around the axis of transportation corridors that traverses the middle of the study area, I-90, St. Clair
Avenue, the CSX and NS railroads, and Euclid Avenue. Residential land uses predominate along the
lake shore in all communities and south of the NS Railroad along the Euclid corridor. The areas north
and south of the industrial corridor also contain significant pockets of commercial land tax-exempt public
and institutional property, such as government buildings, schools, parkland and cemeteries. During the
period of 1900 to 1960, it was relatively easy to see how Cleveland became such a prominent
manufacturing center. It was blessed with substantial geographical advantages that attracted commerce
and industry. By 1960, however, these competitive advantages gave way to the new reality of increased
worldwide competition for Cleveland’s mainstay products of steel and machine tools. Manufacturing
began to disperse to other regions of the country and eventually to other parts of the world.
Industrial land is a major if declining source of employment and represents 13 percent of the land in the
Cuyahoga communities and 10 percent of the land in the Lake communities. In absolute terms, however,
there is two and one-half times as much industrial land in the Lake County portion of the study area as in
the Cuyahoga portion. Mentor alone, with nearly 1,900 industrial acres, has more industrial land than the
three Cuyahoga communities combined. While several large employers are located in the study area,
employment migration to the east is the trend and Mentor and eastern Lake County are key growth
areas.
By 1980, Cleveland was still a relatively diverse metropolitan economy that was anchored by a core
cluster of manufacturing industries. Manufacturing still accounted for 26.3 percent of the area’s total
employment. The largest manufacturing industries were still related to steel and aluminum making or
auto and metalworking manufacturing: including transportation parts manufacturing, fabricated metal
products, and machinery. These manufacturing specializations reflect the metropolitan area’s historic role
as one of the nation’s largest manufacturing centers for steel and autos in the early 20th century. A large
professional service complex of law, consulting, and engineering firms had developed to serve these
companies, although professional services’ share of Cleveland’s employment was only around the
national average.
Since 1980 and today Cleveland lost about 150,000 manufacturing jobs, or almost fifty percent of its
manufacturing employment. This loss was far more severe than the 24.1 percent loss for the nation as a
whole. The metropolitan area lost manufacturing jobs in every decade from 1980 to 2010, but these
losses were more severe during the 1980s (18.4 percent loss) and especially from 2000 to 2005 (23.7
percent loss) than during the 1990s (7.6 percent loss). The largest absolute job losses during the entire
1980-2010 period were in transportation equipment, primary metals, fabricated metals, and machinery.
These losses reflected the decline of integrated steelmaking in the United States, the movement of
remaining steel manufacturing away from the Cleveland area, and, after 2000, the difficulties of the Big
Three automakers, who were the primary customers of Cleveland’s auto suppliers. Between 2002 and
2011, employment in the study area decreased 10 percent. The decline in Cuyahoga County portion was
33
AECOM
May 9, 2016
22 percent, compared to 4 percent in the Lake County portion. However, within the Lake County portion,
Mentor-on-the-Lake displayed a 29 percent increase, indicating a future trend in employment growth to
the east.
Overall, Cleveland’s manufacturing job losses were about equally attributable to nationwide and local
competitive factors in the manufacturing industries in which the area specialized. If every manufacturing
industry had grown (or declined) at its national rate, Cleveland would have lost fewer manufacturing jobs
during this period of structural adjustment. Instead, Cleveland lost manufacturing jobs at nearly twice the
national rate between 1980 and 2010.
The Greater Cleveland area is still a strong player in the nation’s economy and dominates Ohio in its
importance as a center of commerce, industry and banking. The Cleveland area ranks 27th among all
metropolitan regions with $106.6 billion of gross metropolitan product and would be the 86th largest
economy in the world if it were a country. Today, manufacturing employment in Cleveland is growing due
in large measure to improved productivity making Cleveland more competitive in the global marketplace
and growth in the oil and gas sector driving demand for steel pipe although this has recently slowed due
to the oversupply of oil on the world market forcing high cost producers in the United States to reduce
exploration and production.
The Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor Metropolitan Area ranked second in Ohio in 2014 for exports at $11.14
billion, an increase of 0.7 percent since 2012. Chemicals accounted for 21 percent of exports followed
closely by machinery at 16 percent. With nearly $3.0 billion in exports, Canada was the leading
destination while Mexico was next at $1.8 billion.12 According to 2014 data from U.S. Customs, Cleveland
is ranked as the 10th busiest customs district among all customs districts with $131.5 billion in total trade
in 2014. Cleveland accounts for 3.3 percent of the $3.98 trillion of exports and imports coming in and
leaving the country.13
For study area residents who were in the labor force, the largest employer industry was Health Care and
Social Assistance (20 percent), reflecting the regional scale of the concentration of such jobs in and
around University Circle, served by both the Red Line and the HealthLine. As noted, health care has
become an important specialization of the metropolitan economy, accounting for 7.7 percent of the area’s
employment, a share that is 11 percent higher than the national average. The Cleveland Clinic and
University Hospital medical centers located in University Circle and Midtown serve patients from
throughout the world. The next highest industry was Manufacturing (14 percent), reflecting the still
significant industrial corridor traversing the study area along roadways and railroads. Table 3-9 below
shows the study area labor force characteristics and commuting patterns.
The number and residential location of employed persons, employment locations, type of employment,
and available transportation options affects commuting patterns and development of future transportation
options. In 2011, approximately 87,200 jobs were located in the study area and approximately 99,800
people who lived in the study area were employed or active in the labor force. Of those 99,800 residents
who were employed, about 31,700 worked in the study area and 68,000 worked outside the study area.
Of the 87,200 jobs in the study area, 55,400 were held by employees living outside of the study area and
commuting in.
12
13
Ohio Development Services Agency, Ohio Exports Report 2014, March 2015.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/reference/products/catalog/usatradeonline.html#district accessed January 28, 2016.
34
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Table ‎3-9
Study Area Labor Force Characteristics
2011
2010
Number
Share
Number
Share
Total Employed in the Study Area
87,185
100.0%
86,482
100.0%
Living in the Study Area and Employed Anywhere
99,813
114.5%
99,601
115.2%
Net Job Inflow (+) or Outflow (-)
-12,628
-13,119
Living in the Study Area and Employed Anywhere
Living and Employed in the Study Area
Living in the Study Area but Employed Outside
99,813
31,782
68,031
100.0%
31.8%
68.2%
99,601
31,545
68,056
100.0%
31.7%
68.3%
Total Employed in the Study Area
Employed and Living in the Study Area
Employed in the Study Area but Living Outside
87,185
31,782
55,403
100.0%
36.5%
63.5%
86,482
31,545
54,937
100.0%
36.5%
63.5%
Source: US Census
The number and residential location of employed persons, employment locations, type of employment,
and available transportation options affects commuting patterns and development of future transportation
options. In 2011, approximately 87,200 jobs were located in the study area and approximately 99,800
people who lived in the study area were employed or active in the labor force. Of those 99,800 residents
who were employed, about 31,700 worked in the study area and 68,000 worked outside the study area.
Of the 87,200 jobs in the study area, 55,400 were held by employees living outside of the study area and
commuting in.
Therefore, a net outflow of 12,600 people commutes from the study area to work. This reflects the sum
of those commuting out and those commuting in. Of those 99,800 residents who were employed, about
31,700 in fact worked in the study area. The other 68,000 employed study area residents were thus
working outside the study area and commuting in that direction. Conversely, of the 87,200 jobs in the
study area, 55,400 were held by employees living outside of the study area and commuting in.
Between 2010 and 2035, study area employment is projected to increase significantly in Lake County,
but decrease in Cuyahoga County. Figure 3-7 shows study area and key business district employment
change. By 2035, overall study area employment is projected to grow by almost 12 percent. This is
attributable to employment growth of 16 percent to 32 percent in the Lake County cities of the study area.
The core study area is projected to realize a 20 percent decrease in employment. Lake County outside
the study area and Geauga County are projected to experience increases of 29 percent to 52 percent, a
further indication of eastward employment migration. The region’s largest business district, downtown
Cleveland, will realize a 9 percent decrease whereas a gain of 7 percent is projected for University Circle,
the second largest business district. Outward employment and population migration into areas with
limited or no transit service leads to essentially total dependence on private vehicles for all trips; related
effects are increased VMT, vehicle hours traveled, and traffic-related delay. Many trips are projected to
be made by cars and, correspondingly, highway congestion will increase and transit ridership will fall.
35
AECOM
Figure 3-7 Employment Change 2010-2035
Figure 3-7: 2010 – 2035 Employment Change
May 9, 2016
As a result of the continuing shift in employment to
the east, many industrial sites and other parcels in
the core study area are vacant or underutilized and
hence no longer produce tax revenue. This issue is
most pronounced in East Cleveland where in
addition to underutilized industrial site, 30 percent of
the land is tax-exempt. Further, the reduction in
employment and the projected population decline in
the study area equates to fewer transit trips.
Downtown Cleveland and University Circle are the
largest business districts in the state. Future
employment projections indicate that by 2035
downtown Cleveland will experience a decrease
while employment in University Circle will increase.
Lake and Geauga Counties will continue to gain
employment and experience a significant increase
during the same period. Much of the suburban
employment occurs in dispersed locations that are
difficult to serve by transit. This results in greater
dependence on vehicle and the concomitant
increase in vehicle miles, vehicle hours and delay.
Based on data obtained from the InfoUSA database, there are 406 employers in the study area with 50
employees or more. The largest employers in the study area are Lincoln Electric Company in Euclid,
Lake West Medical Center in Willoughby, Lubrizol in Wickliffe, Cleveland Clinic Health System, and
General Electric Lighting at Nela Park in East Cleveland. The top 100 employers are listed in Table 3-10.
Two maps are used to show where the major employers are located. Figure 3-8 locates the top 100
employers, and the numbers on the location dots correspond to the list in Table 3-10. Figure 3-9 shows
every employer in the study area with at least 50 employees, not by name but by size and type of
industry.
Table ‎3-10
Major Employers in the Study Area (Alphabetical)
Name
Employees Rank
Name
Employees Rank
Lincoln Electric Co
3,557
1
Airpower Dynamics
200
51
Lake West Medical Ctr
2,400
2
Heartland Of Mentor
200
52
Lubrizol Corp
1,500
3
J C Penney Co
200
53
Lubrizol Laboratories
1,250
4
Dillard's
200
54
Lubrizol Additives
1,200
5
Classic Chevy
200
55
Ge Lighting
1,000
6
Laketran
200
56
Cleveland Clinic Health
1,000
7
Bescast Inc
200
57
Huron Hospital
800
8
Target Pc
200
58
Deepwood Center
700
9
Polychem Corp
200
59
Abb Inc
550
10
Universal Metal Products
188
60
Wickliffe Law Director
500
11
Cleveland Range Llc
180
61
Mentor City Hall
500
12
Lake County Captains
180
62
Lincoln Electric Co
500
13
Henkel Adhesives
180
63
Spang Power Electronics
500
14
Sam's Club
180
64
36
AECOM
Name
Breckenridge Village
Windsor-Laurelwood Ctr
Willcare Inc
Avery Dennison Corp
Eaton Corp
Morrison Products Inc
Pcc Airfoils
Conn-Selmer
Euclid Veterans Club
H C Starck Inc
First Energy
Wiseco Piston Co Inc
Parker Hose Products Div
Esco Turbine Techs
Employees
450
407
400
400
383
350
325
325
300
300
300
300
300
300
Rank
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A M Mc Gregor Home
300
29
Steris Corp
Mentor High School
Euclid Health Ctr
Gardens McGregor & Amasa
Rose-Mary Ctr
Wickliffe Country Place
News-Herald
Mag-Nif Inc
Worthington Precision
299
293
290
270
250
250
250
250
250
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Mc Gregor Home
250
39
Walmart
Sterling Packaging System
B&W Nuclear Operations
Multicare Home Health Care
East Cleveland City Hall
Meyer Snow Plows
Euclid Chemical Co
Manor Care Health Svc
Deepwood Industries-Lake
Wingstop
Sears
250
250
240
235
220
200
200
200
200
200
200
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Name
Royal Plastics Inc
Us Post Office
Pcc Ceramics Group
Lake Shore Jehovah Witness
Us Endoscopy
Cres Cor
Home Depot
Giant Eagle
Mentor-Way Nursing
Meyer Products Llc
Asg
Jergens Inc
Slovene Home For The Aged
Mt St Joseph Nursing Home
Gateway Retirement
Community
Marc's Mentor
Olive Garden Italian Rstrnt
Mill-Rose Co
Mentor Lumber & Supply Co
Bud Industries Inc
Lowe's Home Improvement
Eye Lighting Intl-North Amer
Willowick Recreation Dept
Giant Eagle
New Avenues To
Independence
Andrews Osborne Academy
Mid-West Forge Corp
Mullinax Ford East
North High School
Royalview Elementary School
Metal Seal & Products Inc
Kohl's Department Store
Us Post Office
Willowick City Hall
Dave's Supermarkets
Fluid Line Products Inc
Source : InfoUSA database
37
May 9, 2016
Employees
180
175
175
175
175
175
160
160
156
150
150
150
150
150
Rank
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
150
79
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
143
140
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
135
89
134
130
130
130
130
130
130
129
120
120
120
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
AECOM
Figure ‎3-8
Businesses with 50 or More Employees in Study Area
38
May 9, 2016
AECOM
Figure ‎3-9
Businesses with 50 Employees or More by Industry and Size
39
May 9, 2016
AECOM
3.7
May 9, 2016
Transportation Conditions
The trend in out migration has resulted in a change of transit propensity, or the likelihood for transit use
based on demographics and location. Transit propensity is best indicated by the share of households
without a vehicle available and by market density which reflects the distribution of population, employed
residents, and jobs. Locations or corridors that are dense in residents, employees, or workplace
destinations are potential transit markets, and mixed-use places that are dense in both people and jobs
are prime transit markets. Population and employed residents are most dense along the lake shore
throughout the study area, whereas employment is concentrated in areas adjacent to the railroads and
I-90, particularly in Lake County. Again, the out migration trend for employment is evident in that much is
located in Lake County, but generally in areas with little or no transit access. High transit propensity
markets include East Cleveland, Collinwood, Euclid, and most of Willowick. And, within these areas the
highest propensity can be noted for East Cleveland from the Cleveland boundary to Windermere, in
Collinwood and Euclid along Lakeshore Boulevard between E. 152 and E. 222, and Euclid Avenue
between E. 200 and E. 222. Most of Eastlake, Willoughby, and Mentor-on-the-Lake fall generally toward
the lower end of transit propensity with Wickliffe in between. While Mentor is generally an area of low
transit propensity, it is an important destination for work trips.
The transportation options for traveling to Downtown Cleveland and University Circle from the
northeastern region of RTA’s service area are largely limited to automobile and several Laketran and
RTA bus or bus-to-rail transfer options. There are no HOV lanes on any of the freeways in Greater
Cleveland however RTA and Laketran buses are allowed by law to utilize the I-90 shoulders during
periods of slow or stopped traffic in the study area.
In reading this section, it should be understood that the study area’s major transportation features shape
its land use patterns as well. They do so in an economic way, as well as in a direct, physical way, with
land use organized to a remarkably consistent degree around the band of roadway and rail corridors that
traverse the study area from east to west.
3.7.1
Roadways
The study area is currently served by a fairly extensive network of highways and streets. All major
classifications of roadways are present in the study area including freeways, principal arterials, minor
arterials and collector streets. The existing highway/roadway network in the project study area is shown
in Figure 3-10.
The study area is served by a high capacity, limited access highway extending east from Downtown
Cleveland to near the county line dividing Cuyahoga and Lake Counties where the highway splits into
interstate route 90 (I-90) and state route 2 (SR-2) respectively. I-90 continues east through the southern
tier of Lake County. SR-2 (Lakeland Freeway) continues east through Lake County and becomes an
arterial roadway (US-20) east of Painesville. The I-90 / SR-2 freeway does not provide any direct access
to University Circle, which is the greatest concentration of cultural and educational institutions in the
country and second largest business district in Ohio, second only to Downtown Cleveland. It is best
known for its world-class cultural, educational and medical institutions, including Case Western Reserve
University, Cleveland Institute of Music, Cleveland Institute of Art, Cleveland Museum of Art, Museum of
Contemporary Art, Cleveland Orchestra, and University Hospitals/Case Medical Center, which is near to
the main campus of the Cleveland Clinic. Instead, travelers must use Martin Luther King Jr. Drive (MLK
Drive) to travel from I-90 / SR-2 to University Circle.
40
AECOM
May 9, 2016
I-90/SR-2 carries the highest traffic volumes in the study area with an annual average daily traffic (AADT)
volume exceeding 127,750 vehicles between Coit Road and East 152nd Street. AADT is a measure of the
total volume of vehicle traffic of a highway or road for a year divided by 365 days. AADT is a useful and
simple measurement of how heavily travelled the road is. Other east-west roads in the study area include
SR-283 (Lakeshore Boulevard), St. Clair Avenue and Euclid Avenue (US-20). North-south streets
connecting I-90 / SR-2 to Lakeshore Boulevard, St. Clair Avenue and Euclid Avenue include Babbitt
Road, East 222nd Street, East 200th Street, East 185th Street, East 152nd Street-Coit Road, and East 140th
Street-Hayden Avenue. The use of these connecting arterial and collector streets means travelers must
use congested city streets with low speed limits, many intersections and traffic lights to travel to
University Circle from Collinwood and Euclid. Information about these roads is summarized in Table 3-11.
Table ‎3-11
Road
I-90 / SR-2 (Cuyahoga County)
I-90 (Lake County)
SR-2 (Lake County)
SR-283 Lakeshore Blvd
St Clair Avenue (Cleveland)
St Clair Avenue (Euclid)
US-20 (Euclid Avenue)
East 140th Street - Hayden
Avenue
East 152nd Street – Coit Road
East 185th – Nottingham Road
East 200th Street
East 222nd Street
Babbitt Road
Existing Highways and Roads
Orientation
East-west
East-west
East-west
East-west
East-west
East-west
East-west
Northsouth
Northsouth
Northsouth
Northsouth
Northsouth
Northsouth
Number of
Lanes
6-8
4-6
4-6
2-4 + turn lane
4
4
4
Classification
Interstate freeway
Interstate freeway
Interstate freeway
Collector/Minor
arterial
Minor arterial
Collector
Principal arterial
AADT
107,560 to 129,660
44,310 to 84,650
19,850 to 76,790
6,700 to 14,150
7,460 to 11,750
7,200 to 9,600
12,380 to 20,980
2-4
Collector
5,500 to 8,350
2-4
Principal arterial
8,100 to 15,100
2+1
Minor arterial
7,300 to 17,650
2-4
Collector
4,900 to 16,850
4
Minor arterial
8,300 to 12,650
4
Collector
8,500 to 17,850
Sources:http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/traffic/Pages/Traffic-Count-Reports-andMaps.aspx
http://www.noaca.org/CuyTcountsDec04.pdf
http://www.noaca.org/CuyTcount0609.pdf
East-West Streets
Three major east-west roadways traverse the study area in alignments generally parallel to I-90 / SR-2.
From north to south, they are: Lakeshore Boulevard, St. Clair Avenue, and Euclid Avenue. Lakeshore
Boulevard (SR-283) is a two-lane road classified as a collector between Gordon Park in Bratenahl and
East 140th Street in Cleveland when it widens out to four lanes and becomes an urban minor arterial
near the ramps to I-90/SR-2. AADT ranges between 6,700 to 14,150 vehicles with the lower vehicle
counts in Bratenahl and the higher counts in Cleveland and Euclid. RTA operates local bus routes
(Routes 30, 34, 39, and 94) and a flyer route (Route 39F) on various portions of Lakeshore Boulevard
from Downtown Cleveland via I-90 to MLK Drive and then east on Lakeshore Boulevard to Euclid
41
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Hospital at East 185th Street. Some trips continue east to the Shoregate Shopping Center in adjacent
Lake County and connect with Laketran buses.
St. Clair Avenue is classified as an urban minor arterial in Cleveland and is a collector street in Euclid.
St. Clair has an AADT of 11,750 in sections of the roadway in Cleveland and carries 7,200 to 9,600
vehicles per day in the section of highway within the City of Euclid.. RTA has local fixed route bus service
(Route1) operating along St. Clair Avenue from Euclid Square Mall to downtown Cleveland. Route 239
travels along St. Clair from the Euclid Park-N-Ride lot to Babbitt Rd.
Euclid Avenue (US-20) is an urban principal arterial, which carries heavy traffic volumes over its entire
length in the study area. AADT in East Cleveland near the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at
Windermere is approximately 21,850 vehicles. AADT is 14,900 at Babbitt Road in Euclid. RTA operates
the HealthLine bus rapid transit between Downtown Cleveland and the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit
Station at Windermere. This station operates 24 hours, seven days a week and is the principal transit
center in the study area that serves the Red Line, HealthLine and multiple local bus routes. The RTA
local bus (Route 28) extends service along Euclid Avenue from the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at
Windermere in East Cleveland to East 276th Street and Tungsten Road in Euclid. Some trips turn onto
East 222nd Street and end at Lakeshore Boulevard.
North-South Streets
East 140th Street is primarily a two-lane facility functionally classified as a collector street. East 140th
Street AADT is 8,350 vehicles per day. RTA operates local bus Route 30 service between Louis Stokes
Rapid Transit Station at Windermere along Hayden Avenue and East 140th Street to Lakeshore
Boulevard and continues east on Lakeshore Boulevard to serve Euclid Hospital at East 185th Street.
East 152nd Street is functionally classified as an urban principal arterial. East 152nd Street is primarily a
four -lane facility except between Waterloo Road and Lakeshore Boulevard where it becomes a 2-lane
facility. The AADT is 15,100 vehicles per day near St Clair Avenue and 21,050 near the I-90/SR-2
freeway entrance. RTA operates Route 37 along East 152nd Street. Busses travel from Euclid Hospital in
Cleveland down East 185th Street. They turn on to Villaview Road, and continue through the
Grovewood/Waterloo Art District to East 152nd Street. Buses continue south on East 152nd Street to
Euclid Avenue and then continuing south on Taylor Road to Chagrin Boulevard in Shaker Heights.
East 185th Street is functionally classified as an urban minor arterial. East 185th Street is primarily a twolane facility with a pavement width of 40 feet, which accommodates a center turn lane. The AADT is
17,650 vehicles per day near the freeway entrance to I-90/SR-2 and 7,300 near Lakeshore Boulevard.
East 185th Street is renamed Nottingham Road south of the St. Clair Avenue intersection. RTA operates
a portion of Route 37 and Route 39F on East 185th Street between Lakeshore Boulevard and Villaview.
East 200th Street is classified as a collector. East 200th Street carries between 4,900 and 16,850 vehicles
per day. South of I-90/SR-2 the vehicle counts are 4,900 to 7,750. The number of vehicles per day north
of I-90 is 5,450 near Lakeshore Blvd and 16,850 day at the freeway. RTA operates local Route 34along
East 200th Street starting at Euclid Hospital on Lakeshore Boulevard east to East 200th Street then
running south to St Clair and Euclid Avenue and crossing over to Green Road continuing to Randall Park
Mall in North Randall.
42
AECOM
Figure ‎3-10
Study Area Major Roadways
43
May 9, 2016
AECOM
May 9, 2016
East 222nd Street is functionally classified as a minor arterial. East 222nd St. carries between 11,050 and
12,900 vehicles per day south of I-90/SR-2 and between 10,250 to 15,500 vehicles per day north of I90/SR-2. Some RTA local buses (Route 28) travel from Euclid Avenue on East 222nd Street to Lakeshore
Boulevard in Euclid Babbitt Road is functionally classified as a collector road. Babbitt Road carries
between 8,400 near Lakeshore Boulevard and 16,000 vehicles per day near the I-90/SR-2 entrance and
13,100 to 19,150 vehicles per day south of I-90/SR-2. RTA Park-N-Ride Route 239 begins at Lakeshore
Boulevard and East 222nd Street and continues south on Babbitt Road to the Euclid Park-N-Ride lot. It
then travels back north on Babbitt Road to I-90/SR-2 to continue its trip to Downtown Cleveland.
Freeway Speeds
The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), the metropolitan planning organization for
the five-county Greater Cleveland region, conducted a speed and delay study in 2007 using survey data
from 2006 to evaluate the existing operating characteristics of freeway segments within the NOACA
region. The purpose of the travel time data collection program was to determine the locations and extent
of delays along the freeway system in the NOACA region as an input to the Congestion Management
System. The travel time data will also be used to update the freeway speed tables used in the NOACA
regional travel demand model.
Travel time for the I-90 / SR-2 corridor was measured for peak and off-peak time periods. Results of the
travel time study showed that speeds vary in the westbound direction from 31 mph to 58 mph during the
morning peak and from 9 mph to 65 mph during the afternoon peak. In the eastbound direction, speeds
vary from 49 mph to 63 mph during the morning peak and from 50 mph to 59 mph during the afternoon
peak. The I-90 / SR-2 corridor experienced long delays in the westbound direction during the morning
peak along the section between East 185th Street and Lakeside Avenue, with average travel speeds
ranging between 31 mph and 53 mph. During the afternoon peak, the longest delays occurred westbound
along the Innerbelt section that borders the Cleveland CBD, with speeds varying from as low as 9 mph to
as high as 27 mph.
A comparison of this travel time survey with the 2002 travel time data, along the segments between I-90 /
SR-2 junction in the City of Euclid and Downtown Cleveland, shows that the average travel speeds along
most segments of the I-90 corridor are the same or lower. A significant decrease in the average travel
speed occurred along the following segments in the study area:

The I-90 / SR-2 Junction to East 185th Street (WB, AM) (64 mph – 2002 to 58 mph –2006)

East 185th Street to Eddy Road (WB, AM) (50 mph – 2002 to 45 mph – 2006)
3.7.2
Railroads
Two Class I railroads serve the study area. The CSX, which follows the legacy New York Central
alignment along the lake shore swings north away from the RTA Red Line rapid transit alignment near
Superior Station and the Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway following the alignment of the legacy Nickel
Plate Railroad. The CSX alignment was eliminated from further consideration after the Tier 1 screening.
The reasons for its elimination are contained in the Tier 1 Screening Report (2013). The NS mainline is
directly adjacent to the RTA Red Line rapid transit tracks from about East Ninth Street in Cleveland (NS
milepost B-183.0) to the Louis Stokes Rapid Transit Station at Windermere. The NS line continues east
on the former Nickel Plate Road alignment to Buffalo, New York. The NS line is two tracks wide from
East Ninth Street in Cleveland to just west of the NS Euclid Yard where it becomes three tracks to serve
the industries located between the parallel railroads. The NS is reduced to two tracks just west of the
RTA Euclid Park-N-Ride near Euclid Square Mall and is reduced to one track at the Euclid Square Mall.
The NS remains a single track railroad through Mentor.
44
AECOM
Figure ‎3-11
Study Area Railroads
45
May 9, 2016
AECOM
Table ‎3-12
City
May 9, 2016
Railroad At-Grade Highway and Road Crossings
Street
Railroad
Milepost
Number of
Tracks
Warning Device
B-173.7
B-169.5
B-167.9
B-166.2
B-165.1
B-164.8
B-164.2
B-162.0
B-160.4
B-160.2
B-159.7
B-159.3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Flashers and gates
Norfolk Southern Railway
Euclid
Dille Avenue
Wickliffe
Lloyd Road (SR-633)
Willowick
East 305
Eastlake
East 361/Beidler Rd
Willoughby Church Street
Willoughby Erie Street
Willoughby Pelton Road
Mentor
Hart Street
Mentor
Maple Street
Mentor
Station Street
Mentor
Patterson Drive
Mentor
Hopkins Road
AADT
15,791
11,349
6,591
9,458
510
8,799
4,624
N/A
913
3,661
289
12,819
Source: http://www.ohiorail.ohio.gov/
3.7.3
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The study area contains a variety of major public and private facilities, including historic commercial
districts, parks, government centers and the Case Western Reserve University campus that are attractive
to pedestrians and bicyclists. There are a number of popular outdoor parks and recreational areas in the
study area accessible by public transportation including the President James A. Garfield Monument in
Lake View Cemetery, Forest Hills Park in East Cleveland; Euclid Park, Hillandale Park, Memorial Park
and Sims Park in Euclid; and Euclid Beach, Euclid Creek, Villa Angela and Wildwood Reservations of the
Cleveland Metroparks.
There are sidewalks in many of the older neighborhoods within the study area. Generally, no sidewalks
exist in the industrial areas located between the two railroads. The conditions of sidewalks, where they
exist, range from good to poor depending on the section of the study area being examined. There are
hiking trails in Euclid Creek Reservation of the Cleveland Metroparks.
The region has seen an increase in the number of bikeway facilities over the past several years. The City
of Cleveland has made a commitment to becoming a bicycle-friendly community. Some the city’s recent
accomplishments include the adoption of a Bikeway Master Plan and the adoption of a bicycle parking
ordinance. The City of Cleveland has been awarded an Honorable Mention by the League of American
Bicyclists for its efforts to make Cleveland a bicycle-friendly community. Cleveland’s bicycle facilities
within or adjacent to the study area are described in the following paragraph.
The Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway spans the entire length of Cleveland’s 17-mile Lake Erie shoreline from
the City’s eastern border with Euclid and its western border with Lakewood. This bikeway links
Cleveland’s cultural centers and medical hubs at University Circle with Downtown and the North Coast
Harbor via the Harrison Dillard Bikeway. The Harrison-Dillard Bikeway runs parallel to MLK Drive for 3.74
miles through Cleveland’s Cultural Gardens in Rockefeller Park. Rockefeller Park is a 270-acre linear
park which follows the meandering course of the Doan Brook for a distance of about 7 miles to Lake Erie.
The backdrop of Rockefeller Park makes this one of the most scenic urban trails in the country. The
46
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Cultural Gardens were established in 1925 and currently contain 26 distinct gardens celebrating
Cleveland’s multi-ethnic heritage. This bikeway is made entirely of paved, off-road trails and connects to
the Euclid Avenue Bikeway. The Euclid Avenue bikeway was constructed as part of the HealthLine along
Euclid Avenue connecting Downtown to MLK Drive in University Circle helping to create a model
“Complete Street” and a multi-modal corridor for bicycles, transit users, and car drivers alike.
NOACA has prepared a Revised Bicycle Plan (2013) that outlines a Regional Priority Bikeway Network
(RPBN), which is a vision of a system of interconnected bicycle routes throughout northeast Ohio that are
safe and convenient. The RPBN includes an extension of the bikeway along Euclid Avenue from MLK
Drive in Cleveland to Chardon Road in Euclid. As part of the RPBN, another bikeway is planned for
Lakeshore Boulevard and sections of St Clair Avenue all linked by shared bikeways along East 140th
Street and East 152nd Street. The City of Cleveland has proposed a bikeway connecting Euclid Creek
Reservation to the Cleveland Lakefront Trail at Wildwood Metropark on the lakefront through the City’s
Collinwood neighborhood. The proposed trail route follows Euclid Creek as much as possible. The trail
turns away from the creek at St. Clair Avenue to utilize the Neff Road railroad and freeway underpasses,
considered a safer alternative than the Nottingham Road underpasses due to lower traffic volume, fewer
freeway ramps, and fewer driveways. The remaining portion of the trail route is proposed as a
combination of bike lanes (along Neff and Villaview Roads and East 185th Street), and bike routes (route
signs but no bike lanes) on Marcella Road.
The City of Euclid has several proposals for new bike trails and bicycle lanes on streets within the study
area. The Euclid Railroad Greenway and Multi-purpose Trail Project is collaboration between Euclid and
South Euclid. The cities are discussing ways to acquire the abandoned former Euclid Railroad right-ofway and to provide transportation enhancements along Euclid Avenue for the development of a 5 mile,
multipurpose trail loop, providing linkages between Euclid, South Euclid and the Cleveland Metroparks
Euclid Creek Reservation, including bikeways on East 222nd Street. The Euclid Waterfront Plan calls for
the addition of a multi-use path along the Lake Erie waterfront creating many opportunities for active uses
such as biking and walking.
Adjacent University Circle has a number of tourist attractions including the Cleveland Museum of Art and
its lagoons, Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, the Botanical
Gardens, and the Cultural Gardens in Rockefeller Park along MLK Drive. The adjacent communities in
Lake County have a wide variety of land-use types and include fairly typical suburban and exurban
development patterns with a mixture of sidewalk and bicycle trails. Lake County also has an extensive
Metropark system.
3.7.4
Public Transit
Existing public transportation service within the study area is provided by the RTA, Laketran, and various
private service providers such as University Circle and Cleveland Clinic shuttle bus services. RTA
provides comprehensive public transportation services throughout Cuyahoga County. RTA services that
currently operate in the study area include several local and commuter bus routes as well as the heavy
rail Red Line and the bus rapid transit HealthLine, both of which terminate at Louis Stokes Station at
Windermere in East Cleveland, the westernmost community in the study area. Laketran operates local
and commuter bus routes in the Lake County portion of the study area, with multiple transfer points
between Laketran and RTA local routes along the county line.
RTA Red Line
As shown in Figure 3-4, the RTA Red Line is a heavy rail line that runs between Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport and Louis Stokes Station at Windermere. The Cleveland Transit System (CTS), the
predecessor transit agency to the RTA, constructed the Red Line between 1952 and 1968. The original
47
AECOM
May 9, 2016
eight-mile segment opened on March 15, 1955 and connected the Cleveland Union Terminal in
Downtown Cleveland (Tower City Station) to the Windermere Station in East Cleveland.
There were six intermediate stations between the two terminals. In August 1955, a 5.3-mile extension to
West 117th and Madison opened adding four more stations, bringing the total number of stations to ten in
1955. The CTS continued to extend the Red Line west to serve growing neighborhoods. The Red Line
was extended to West Park in 1958 and to the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CHIA) in 1968.
The East 34th Street Campus Station was added to the system in 1971. Today’s Red Line is 19.1-miles
long with 18 stations. Despite all these extensions and station improvements, ridership on the Red Line
peaked in 1960 when the line carried 18.3 million annual riders.
Ridership has declined steadily since, interrupted by only occasional marginal increases beginning in
1975 when the RTA was created and fares lowered to $0.35 per ride. RTA has seen some steady
increases in ridership since the steep decline of the 2008 Great Recession. RTA has endeavored to
improve ridership by rehabilitating railcars, stations and rail infrastructure to provide a more attractive and
reliable service. Table 3-13 shows ridership for the year 2014 and Figure 3-12 illustrates the ridership
trend since 2000.
Table ‎3-13
Ridership
Annual
2014
6,203,837
Red Line Ridership
Average
Avg. Weekday
Saturday
21,500
11,900
Average
Sunday
8,725
Source: RTA Ridership by Route, 2014
Figure ‎3-12
Red Line Annual Ridership 2000 - 2014
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
The Red Line stations included in the study area are Superior and Louis Stokes Station at Windermere,
both located in East Cleveland. The Superior Station was reconstructed in 1996 and is ADA accessible.
The station is on Superior Avenue at the intersection with Emily Street, about 1.5 blocks northwest of
Euclid Avenue. A small parking lot is located northeast of the station entrance along Emily Street and has
aces for approximately 89 cars. RTA local buses serve the station including Route 3: Superior and Route
48
AECOM
May 9, 2016
40: Lakeview-Lee. The Louis Stokes Station at Windermere Station is the eastern terminal of the Red
Line. The station is ADA accessible and is located at Euclid Avenue across the street from East
Cleveland City Hall. The station parking lot has 293 free parking spaces for short term use and 12 spaces
for long term parking. There is a café that operates within the station on weekdays. Several RTA bus
routes serve the station, including Route 3: Superior, Route 28: Euclid, Route 30: E 140-Lakeshore,
Route 37: E 185-Taylor, Route 41/41F: Warrensville, and the HealthLine. The routes utilize a bus
turnaround loop adjacent to the station entrance.
RTA HealthLine
As shown in Figure 3-15, the HealthLine is a bus rapid transit (BRT) line that operates between Tower
City-Public Square in downtown Cleveland and Louis Stokes Station at Windermere along Euclid
Avenue. The route serves major attractions and trip generators, including Public Square, Cleveland State
University (CSU), and the regionally significant cluster of institutions in the University Circle area,
including the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve University, and University Hospitals. Open since
2008, the HealthLine is a nationally cited model of urban BRT. It operates in the median of Euclid Avenue
from downtown to University Circle, and at the curb from University Circle to its eastern terminus, Louis
Stokes Station at Windermere. Windermere is also the eastern terminus of the Red Line and is served
by several other RTA bus routes. The routes use a bus turnaround loop adjacent to the station entrance.
These routes are described in detail in the bus transit section that follows. The HealthLine runs seven
days a week, 24 hours a day, and in 2014 carried an annual ridership of 5,084,513. Table 3-14 provides
current ridership data. Annual ridership from the end of the Euclid Corridor Route 6 local bus service in
2007 through the introduction of HealthLine service in 2008 to 2014 is depicted in Figure 3-13 below.
Table ‎3-14
Ridership
Annual
2014
5,084,513
HealthLine Ridership
Average
Average
Weekday
Saturday
15,541
7,705
Average
Sunday
4,582
Source: RTA Ridership by Route, 2014
Figure 3-13
HealthLine Annual Ridership 2007 - 2014
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
49
AECOM
Figure ‎3-14
RTA Red Line
50
May 9, 2016
AECOM
Figure ‎3-15
RTA HealthLine
51
May 9, 2016
AECOM
Figure ‎3-16
Major Study Area Bus Routes, Transit Centers, and Park-N-Rides
52
May 9, 2016
AECOM
May 9, 2016
RTA and Laketran Local and Commuter Bus Routes
RTA and Laketran operate both local and commuter fixed-route bus services in the study area, and
between the study area and Downtown Cleveland. The commuter routes run express on a highway or
arterial for all or part of the route path. Laketran’s commuter routes are known as Park-N-Ride Routes,
since they operate between a Park-N-Ride at one end and employment locations in downtown Cleveland
at the other. Figure 3-16 illustrates the bus routes currently serving the study area.
Laketran and RTA have a reciprocal transfer agreement in place to assist riders in gaining regional
access to high quality public transportation services. Laketran provides a transfer for customers to use on
Laketran routes that connect with RTA services at one of the three county-line transfer locations. RTA
operators provide customers who are transferring to Laketran with a receipt that serves as a transfer. The
three transfer points are:

Shoregate Shopping Center, Laketran Routes 3 and 6 connect with RTA #30/39/39F. RTA #30
takes you to Louis Stokes-Windermere via E. 140. RTA #39/39F travels to Public Square via
Lakeshore Blvd.

At East 276th in Euclid, Laketran Route 2 connects with RTA #28 to Windermere Station.

At the Shops of Willoughby Hills, just west of Giant Eagle, Laketran Route 6 connects to RTA
#94.
Lake County commuters traveling to University Circle or the Cleveland Clinic do not have a one-seat ride
option or a direct and convenient two-seat option. They must take a Laketran commuter bus to
Downtown Cleveland, transfer to the Red Line or HealthLine at Tower City or Public Square, and ride
back out to University Circle. The principal RTA and Laketran routes operating in the study area are
mapped in Figure 3-16, along with Transit Centers and Park-N-Ride lots served by one or more of these
routes. The annual ridership for the routes is highlighted in Table 3-15. The routes are then described in
Table 3-16.
Table ‎3-15
Annual Ridership, Local and Commuter Routes
Annual Ridership Average Weekday
Ridership
(2014)
(2013)
RTA Local Routes
2,350,558
6,560
1 St Clair
1,314,973
4,247
28 Euclid
840,190
2,130
30 E. 140 - Lakeshore
477,291
2,138
37 E. 185 - Green
343,935
1,987
39 Lakeshore Blvd
181,469
738
39F Lakeshore Flyer
744,891
2,573
40 Lee
1,539,040
4,201
41 Warrensville
312,134
1,288
94 E. 260 - Richmond
RTA Commuter Routes
239 Park-n-Ride
72,383
275
Laketran Local Routes
82,764
402
2
56,026
260
3
62,551
267
6
Laketran Commuter Routes
75,879
459
10
53
AECOM
Ridership
11
12
13
14
Annual Ridership
(2014)
13,846
47,654
6,238
18,731
May 9, 2016
Average Weekday
(2013)
68
263
41
90
Source: RTA and Laketran 2014 Ridership by Route
Table ‎3-16
Service Descriptions for Local and Commuter Routes Operating in the Study Area
RTA Local Routes
Route 1: Saint Clair operates between Public Square and the Euclid Park-N-Ride via Saint
Clair Avenue. Select trips on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday operate between Public Square
and the bus loop at E 153rd Street at Saint Clair near Five Points. There are several trip
generators along the path of Route 1, including Tower City-Public Square, Cleveland
Convention Center, Glenville Plaza, Glenville Towne Center, Goodrich-Gannett Neighborhood
Center, Five Points Plaza and Euclid Park-N-Ride.
Route 28: Euclid operates between Windermere Station and either East 276th Street at
Tungsten Road or E 222nd Street at Lakeshore Boulevard. The route operates along Euclid
Avenue. All early morning, evening and overnight trips operate to E 276th Street. Trip
generators served by the route include Windermere Station served by the Red Line and
HealthLine, Green Light Shopping Center, Euclid High School, Euclid City Hall, Indian Hills
Senior Community and Hilltop Village Retirement Community.
Route 30: E 140 – Lakeshore runs between Windermere Station and E 222nd Street and
Lakeshore Boulevard via Hayden Avenue, Saint Clair Avenue, E 140 Street and Lakeshore
Boulevard. Select trips operate between Windermere Station and Shoregate Shopping Center
in Willowick, Lake County. Select overnight trips on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday operate
between Windermere Station and Euclid Hospital at E 185th Street. Trip generators along the
route include Windermere Station, Euclid Hospital and the Lakeshore Shopping Center.
Route 37: E 185 – Taylor operates between Severance Town Center and Euclid Hospital via
Taylor Road, Euclid Avenue, Colt Avenue, E 152nd Street, Waterloo Road, E 156 Street,
Grovewood Avenue, Villaview Road, and E 185th Street. The route path operates via
Windermere Station. Select weekday peak and midday trips operate beyond Severance Town
Center to the 159th Street Loop in Shaker Heights. Select early morning and late night trips on
weekdays operate between Windermere Station and Euclid Hospital or between Windermere
Station and Severance Town Center only. The route serves Euclid Hospital, Five Points Plaza,
Windermere Station, Severance Town Center, the Shaker-Lee Green Line Station, Van AkenLee Blue Line Station, and Shaker Town Center.
Route 39: Lakeshore operates between Tower City and Shoregate Shopping Center in
Willowick via Lakeshore Boulevard, Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, I-90, E 9th Street, Superior
Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Ontario Street and Saint Clair Avenue. Select peak trips operate
between Tower City and Euclid Hospital. The route operates on weekdays only during the peak
and midday periods. The route serves Shoregate and Lakeshore Shopping Centers, Euclid
Hospital, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland City Hall, Cleveland Public Library and Tower
City.
Route 39F: Lakeshore is a more express version of Route 39 and operates between
Shoregate Shopping Center and Tower City. The route operates via Lakeshore Boulevard, E
185th Street, I-90, E 9th Street, Superior Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Ontario Street and Saint
Clair Avenue. The route serves Shoregate Shopping Center, Lakeshore Shopping Center,
54
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Euclid Hospital, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland City Hall, Cleveland Public Library
and Tower City. The route operates during peak hours in the peak direction of service only.
Route 40: Lakeview – Lee runs between Taft Avenue at Eddy Road in Cleveland and
Southgate Transit Center largely via Lakeview Road, Superior Road, and Lee Road. Major
stops on the route include the Superior Red Line Station, Lee Road Green Line Station, Lee
Road Blue Line Station, Cleveland Heights High School, Shaker Heights High School, Shaker
Towne Center, Mapletown Shopping Center, Maple Heights High School and the Southgate
Transit Center.
Route 41: Warrensville is a local route that operates between Windermere Station and
Emerald Valley via Euclid Avenue, Noble Road, Warrensville Center Road, Southgate Park
Boulevard, Northfield Road, Columbus Street/Columbus Road, Perkins Road, Aurora Road,
Solon Road and Cochran Road. Overnight trips on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday operate
between Windermere Station and Southgate Transit Center only. The route serves Windermere
Station, John Carroll University, Warrensville-Shaker Green Line Station, Warrensville-Van
Aken Blue Line Station, South Pointe Hospital, Southgate Transit Center, the Solon Industrial
Park and Glenwillow.
Route 94: E 260 – Richmond operates between E 222nd Street and Lakeshore Boulevard in
Euclid and Cuyahoga Community College Eastern Campus in Highland Hills. The route
generally operates via Lakeshore Boulevard, E 260th Street, and Richmond Road. The route
serves the Lakeshore Shopping Center, Euclid Medical Building, Euclid Medical University
Hospital – Richmond Medical Center, Cuyahoga County Airport, Richmond Heights High
School, Richmond Town Square, Legacy Village, La Place Shopping Center, Cleveland Clinic –
Beachwood, Green Road Green Line Station and Cuyahoga Community College Eastern
Campus.
Laketran Local Routes
Route 2 operates between the Great Lakes Mall and the Wickliffe Park-N-Ride in Euclid via
Mentor Avenue, Erie Street, Euclid Avenue, Som Center Road, Ridge Road, Rush Road and
Euclid Avenue. The last westbound trip on weekdays originates from Lakeland College and
does not serve the Great Lakes Mall. The route serves the Great Lakes Mall, Lakeland
Community College, Willoughby City Hall, South High School, Willoughby Commons, Willo
Plaza, Lakehealth West Medical Center, Pine Ridge Plaza, Wickliffe Public Library and the
Wickliffe Park-N-Ride.
Route 3 operates between the Great Lakes Mall and the Wickliffe Park-N-Ride in Euclid via
Mentor Avenue, Lakeshore Boulevard, Stevens Boulevard, Willowick Drive, E 305th Street,
Lakeshore Boulevard, E 288th Street, Grand Boulevard and Lloyd Road. Trips generators along
the route include the Great Lakes Mall, Lakeland Community College, Eastlake Public Library,
North High School, Shoregate Shopping Center, and the Wickliffe Park-N-Ride.
Route 6 runs between Lakeland Community College and the Shops of Willoughby Hills via
Reynolds Road (SR-306), Vine Street, Lakeshore Boulevard, E 288th Street, Euclid Avenue, E
300th Street, Ridge Road, Bishop Road and Chardon Road. The route serves Lakeland
Community College, the Great Lakes Mall, Willoughby Public Library, Transit Center at Classic
Park, Bryant and Stratton College, the Vineyards Shopping Center, Shoregate Shopping
Center, Wickliffe High School and the Shops of Willoughby Hills.
RTA Commuter Routes
Route 239: Euclid Park-N-Ride runs between the Euclid Park-N-Ride and Tower City via Saint
Clair Avenue, Babbitt Road, I-90, E 9th Street, Superior Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Ontario
Street and Saint Clair Avenue. The route serves Euclid Park-N-Ride, Lakeshore Shopping
55
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Center, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland City Hall, Cleveland Public Library and Tower
City. This is a peak hour / peak direction route.
Laketran Commuter Routes
Route 10 operates between the Painesville Township Park-N-Ride (adjacent to Laketran
offices and garage) in Painesville, Market Street Park-N-Ride in Mentor and downtown
Cleveland via the Lakeland Freeway and I-90. The final morning trip originates at the Market
Street Park-N-Ride and the final evening trip terminates at the Market Street Park-N-Ride.
The route makes a loop through downtown Cleveland, connecting commuters from
Painesville Township to downtown employment and education locations, such as CSU, the
Federal Reserve Bank, Tower City, the Federal Building, City Hall and the Galleria. The route
operates in the peak period and peak direction only.
Route 11 runs between the Madison Park-N-Ride in Madison and downtown Cleveland. The
route operates via I-90, making a stop along the route at Lakeland Community College in
Kirtland. The route operates the same loop through downtown Cleveland as Route 10, serving
the same employment and educational locations. The route operates in the peak period and
peak direction only.
Route 12 operates between the Painesville Township Park-N-Ride and downtown Cleveland
via the Lakeland Freeway, Vine Street, Willowick Drive, E 305th Street, Lakeshore Boulevard, E
288th Street/ Worden Road, Lakeland Boulevard and the Lakeland Freeway. Local stops are
made through Willowick. The last two morning trips and last three afternoon trips do not serve
the Painesville Township Park-N-Ride. The route’s downtown loop differs slightly from Route 10
and Route 11 but serves many of the same key locations in downtown Cleveland. The route
operates in the peak period and peak direction only.
Route 13 runs between the Market Street Park-N-Ride in Mentor and downtown Cleveland via
the Lakeland Freeway and I-90. The route leaves the freeway to run locally through Wickliffe,
serving residential areas and the Shops of Willoughby Hills. The route operates in the peak
period and peak direction only.
Route 14 runs between the Painesville Township Park-N-Ride and downtown Cleveland via the
Lakeland Freeway. Along the way, the route exits the freeway to pick up and drop off
passengers at Eastlake Park-N-Ride/Classic Park Transit Center. Select afternoon peak trips
also make a stop at the Market Street Park-N-Ride in Mentor. Similar to the other Laketran
Park-N-Ride routes, Route 14 serves CSU and other downtown employment locations. The
route operates in the peak period and peak direction only.
On the RTA system, within the study area, Route 1, with a long service span and frequent service, has
the highest ridership of any local bus route, followed by Routes 28 and Route 41. Compared to RTA local
routes, Laketran local routes have much lower average weekday ridership since they operate less
frequent service, with shorter service spans and in a more suburban environment. The highest ridership
Laketran route is Route 10, which serves commuter trips between the suburbs and jobs in downtown
Cleveland.
Transit Centers and Park-N-Rides
Table 3-17 shows the number of transit-provided parking spaces in the study area. There is also a
substantial amount of on-street and off-street surface parking along many of the commercial districts and
within the many shopping centers located throughout the study area. In addition, outside of the study
area, University Circle and Cleveland Clinic have substantial parking both in surface and structured
parking areas.
56
AECOM
Table ‎3-17
City
St. Clair Avenue
Superior Station
East Cleveland
Windermere
Euclid
Eastlake
Madison
Mentor
Mentor
Painesville
Wickliffe
Willoughby
Hills
Parking at Transit Locations
Facility
Cleveland
East Cleveland
May 9, 2016
Location
Cuyahoga County (RTA)
th
St. Clair Avenue & East 129 Street
Superior Avenue & Euclid Avenue
rd
Spaces
15
89
East 143 Street & Euclid Avenue
293
Euclid Transit Center Park-N-Ride St. Clair Avenue & Babbitt Road
Lake County (Laketran)
Eastlake Center at Classic Park
I-90 & SR-91
Watertower Drive Park-N-Ride
Watertower Drive & SR-528
Lakeland Community College
SR-306 & I-90
Market Street Park-N-Ride
Market Street & Munson Road
Painesville Township Park-N-Ride Lakeshore Blvd & Temple Street
Lloyd Road Park-N-Ride
Lloyd Road & Lakeland Boulevard
309
Routes
RTA 1, 38
RTA 3, 40
RTA Red Line, Health
Line, 3, 28, 30, 37, 41
RTA 1, 239
287
176
Note*
182
96
145
Laketran 6, 14
Laketran 11
Laketran 1, 2, 3, 6, 11
Laketran 10, 13, 14
Laketran 10, 12, 14
Laketran 2, 3
RTA 6, 94,
Willoughby Hills Park-N-Ride
US-6 & SR-84
Note*
Laketran 6, 13
RTA 30, 39, 39F,
th
Willowick
Shoregate Shopping Center
SR-283 & East 305 Street
Note*
Laketran 3, 6
nd
Willowick
St. Mary Magdalene Park-N-Ride East 322 Street & Vine Street
Note* Laketran 3, 6, 12
Note: The number of parking spaces devoted to transit riders at these locations was not available. These Park-N-Ride
locations are either informal or share space with shopping center parking.
Source: RTA and Laketran
System and Study Area Ridership Trends
Ridership on both the RTA and Laketran systems showed a similar general pattern over a recent ten year
period. As shown in Table 3-18, system-wide ridership increased over the earlier five-year period and
then declined during the later five-year period. For RTA, ridership increased considerably between 2002
and 2006, but then declined by an even greater amount between 2006 and 2011. Laketran, though by a
smaller percentage than RTA, gained riders between 2002 and 2006, and then suffered a similar steep
decline in ridership between 2006 and 2011. Both systems saw an especially large decrease in ridership
in 2008-2010, due to the severe economic recession.
Table 3-19 shifts from system-wide ridership trends to ridership on the routes serving the study area.
Between 2008 and 2012, ridership declined on almost all bus routes and rail lines that operate in the
study area, with many routes, including the Red Line, showing sharply declining ridership between 2008
and 2010 and modest recovery in the following years. The HealthLine, however, experienced growth in
ridership every year, increasing its ridership by over 50 percent during the 5 year period. Ridership
increased considerably on Commuter Route 39F, while ridership on the local version of that route (Route
39) declined each year, losing about 50 percent of its riders. Overall, ridership on major study area bus
routes increased over the 5 year period, showing a modest growth rate of 0.8 percent.
57
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Table 3-18
RTA and Laketran System-Wide Ridership Trends
RTA
Laketran
Year
Percent
Percent
Ridership
Ridership
Change
Change
2002
55,744,904
926,762
2003
59,641,790
6.5%
906,792
-2.2%
2004
57,868,273
-3.1%
981,244
7.6%
2005
65,542,234
11.7% 1,044,926
6.1%
2006
69,199,174
5.3%
980,735
-6.5%
2007
60,187,823
-15.0%
962,892
-1.9%
2008
56,667,452
-6.2%
985,467
2.3%
2009
45,612,053
-24.2%
816,252
-20.7%
2010
42,419,301
-7.5%
688,517
-18.6%
2011
46,210,832
8.2%
712,568
3.4%
48,234,103
4.4%
756,358
6.1%
2012
49,206,289
2.0%
726,166
-4.0%
2013
49,271,617
0.1%
724,335
-0.3%
2014
-0.9%
-1.9%
Annual Growth 2002-2014
Source: National Transit Database (NTD)
Table ‎3-19
Study Area Ridership Trends by RTA Route
Route/Line
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Red Line
HealthLine
28 Euclid
30 E.140 - Lakeshore
34 E. 200 - Green
37 E.185 - Taylor
39/39F Lakeshore
239 Park-N-Ride
94 E.260 - Richmond
1 St Clair
Study Area Routes
3,657,501
4,169,400
1,217,422
697,075
182,152
543,431
645,303
63,874
244,933
1,821,823
9,585,413
5,687,891
4,495,100
1,259,520
700,496
168,094
570,223
535,939
70,725
286,395
1,917,374
10,003,866
6,240,495
4,629,200
1,374,599
758,246
144,300
573,066
605,044
79,774
330,218
1,852,417
10,346,864
6,423,366
4,786,619
1,404,444
756,430
157,944
506,628
659,428
68,009
331,148
2,327,684
10,998,334
6,203,837
5,084,513
1,314,973
840,190
160,214
477,291
525,404
72,383
312,134
2,350,558
11,137,660
Change
20102014
69.6%
21.9%
8.0%
20.5%
-12.0%
-12.2%
-18.6%
13.3%
27.4%
29.0%
16.2%
Annual
Growth
Rate
11.1%
4.0%
1.6%
3.8%
-2.5%
-2.6%
-4.0%
2.5%
5.0%
5.2%
3.0%
Source: RTA Ridership Data
3.7.5
Carpooling/Ridesharing Programs
OhioRideshare is a cooperative service offered by NOACA, the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation
Study (AMATS) and the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate) in Youngstown.
OhioRideshare gives residents from 13 counties in Northeast Ohio the ability to identify potential carpool
partners quickly and securely. Registering with OhioRideshare is free and empowers users to conduct
searches for potential carpool partners online. NOACA also helps groups form vanpools. An ideal
vanpool group is of five or more commuters who travel long distances for work. According to NOACA,
58
AECOM
May 9, 2016
there are 6,538 OhioRideshare users. Of those users, 4,703 are considered active users of the program.
So far in 2013, 308 people have signed up to take advantage of OhioRideshare services. There were 373
new registrants in 2012.
3.7.6
Private Bus and Shuttle Services
Other public transportation services and shuttle routes are provided by and coordinated by Case Western
Reserve University (CWRU) Campus Services, University Hospitals, University Circle Incorporated,
Standard Parking, and the Cleveland Clinic. While these services operate outside the study area, they
make the “last mile” connection between the University Circle Red Line and HealthLine stations, on the
one hand, and the cluster of institutional destinations, on the other. These services are thus an integral
part of the transit environment for study area workers, clients, and visitors going to and from the
University Circle institutions.
CWRU Shuttle Service is a fixed route, fixed stop transportation option that is available to all CWRU
students, faculty, and staff, University Circle and hospital employees and patrons. There are different
shuttle buses which operate within the geographical areas that surround CWRU, University Hospitals,
and University Circle. This service is also available to service members of the community. Five routes run
concurrently to link all corners of the campus with most destinations in between: Circle Link, Commuter,
Evening North, Evening South, and UCRC.
The Cleveland Clinic operates an extensive shuttle bus service on its main campus to help patients and
visitors travel between appointments. The bus stops in front of the Main Entrance, Crile Building (A), and
other main campus locations every 15-25 minutes. The CWRU shuttle bus picks up from various
locations on the Cleveland Clinic main campus and provides transportation to and from nearby Cleveland
destinations, including: Cleveland Museum of Art , Cleveland Botanical Garden, Cleveland Museum of
Natural History , and Western Reserve Historical Society.
59
AECOM
May 9, 2016
4 Alternatives Definition and Screening
The process for evaluating and screening Red Line/HealthLine transit service alternatives has been
extended and complex and has involved many stakeholders and the public. As a first step, major goals
and accompanying objectives for service improvements were agreed on. The challenging task of
establishing evaluation criteria for screening followed. This process and the resulting findings are
completely documented in several reports:



Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report (November 2013)
Tier 1 Initial Alternatives Screening Report (December 2013)
Tier 2 Detailed Alternatives Screening Report (August 2014)
Tier 1 screening involved analyzing the universe of alternatives, which included alignments, route
deviations, and transit technology possibilities. This process reduced a large number of candidates to
three alignments and four technologies. The alignments centered on the NS right-of-way for the Red
Line extension and the East 152nd/Waterloo Arts District and East 185th Street/Nottingham Village for the
HealthLine extension. The candidate technologies were:




Heavy rail rapid transit (HRT)
Diesel multiple unit (DMU) commuter rail
Light rail transit/streetcar (LRT)
Bus rapid transit (BRT).
Tier 2 screening resulted in the keeping the three alignments described and two technologies, HRT and
BRT. In addition, one No Build alternative and a baseline alternative were included in the comparative
analysis. An additional Hybrid alternative was defined following the public comments at the conclusion of
the Tier 2 screening process. Additional detailed analysis and project evaluation for the Tier 3 screening
is documented in this report. Data and analysis from the Tier 3 screening process support final
evaluation of the alternatives and the possible selection of an LPA, which will be advanced to the Draft
EIS phase of project development if warranted.
4.1
Development of Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives developed for the Red Line/HealthLine extension focus on several key issues
and goals and guiding principles established by the RTA in its Strategic Plan. These goals were
developed to address the problems and needs identified in the study area and to guide the development
and selection of an alternative to be implemented. The purpose of the proposed extension is to relieve
congestion, improve the quality of life, enhance sustainability, increase mobility and accessibility and
channel development to the study area. The need for this project stems from expected population and
employment changes leading to increased travel demand and the requirement for a more sustainable
transportation system.
Measures that address federal New Starts evaluation criteria were incorporated into the objectives.
Transit service goals and objectives were developed by RTA with the assistance of both the TSC and
SIC and were also based on the review of regional goals and objectives identified in previous studies and
plans. The project team and stakeholders also reviewed FTA’s New Starts project justification
requirements under MAP-21 f, which was revisited after the enactment of the FAST Act; and DOT-HUD
EPA Livability Principles. Subsequent to this review, goals and objectives for the Red Line/HealthLine
Extension Study were developed.
60
AECOM
May 9, 2016
The goals and objectives are detailed in the Purpose and Need Statement (October 2013). These
project goals and objectives are reproduced for convenience and reference in Table 4-1 below:
Table ‎4-1
Goals and Objectives
Objectives
Goals


Mobility




Economic
development.


Corresponds to
Provide more transportation choices, especially for
transit dependent groups, such as low-income and
minority populations, and the aged to jobs, housing
and other trip purposes.
Provide high-quality bus and rapid transit service for
local trips between new employment in the eastern
suburbs and the core study area, as well as for access
to key core destinations, including University Circle
and downtown Cleveland.
Increase transit ridership and mode share for all
communities.
Establish a more balanced transportation system
which enhances modal choices and encourages
walking, bicycle and transit use.
 FTA’s Mobility Improvements
Justification Criteria
 DOT-HUD’s Livability Principles Provide more transportation
choices; Value communities and
neighborhoods.
Encourage transit-oriented mixed-use development
along the corridor that would support population and
employment growth along the corridor.
Reinvest in the local economy by maximizing the
economic impact of transportation investments as
related to land use redevelopment, infrastructure
improvements, and housing.
Support regional economic development initiatives.
Incorporate considerations into new development
design that support transit as a transportation option.
 FTA’s Economic Development and
Land Use Justification Criteria
 DOT-HUD’s Livability Principles Enhance economic competitiveness;
Support existing communities.


Environment and
Livability







Image

Minimize adverse air, land and water environmental
impacts of transportation investments.
Conserve transportation energy.
Serve households at a range of income levels.
Support lifestyle choices for environmentally
sustainable communities.
Implement strategies for reducing transportationrelated greenhouse gas emissions.
Promote green and sustainable technologies and
solutions that enhance economic development
opportunities.
Support private investments in transit friendly, and
pedestrian and bicycle-focused developments.
Support improvements in neighborhood connectivity
through attention to safety, comfort and aesthetics in
the design of transportation infrastructure.
Serve areas of and complement initiatives for
affordable housing.
61
 FTA’s Environmental Benefits,
Economic Development and Land
Use Justification Criteria
 DOT-HUD’s Livability Principles Value communities and
neighborhoods; Promote equitable,
affordable housing; Enhance
economic competitiveness; Support
existing communities.
 FTA’s Environmental Benefits,
Economic Development and Land
Use Justification Criteria
 DOT-HUD’s Livability Principles Value communities and
neighborhoods; Enhance economic
competitiveness; Support existing
communities.
AECOM
4.2
May 9, 2016
Technology Assessment
Potential transit technology options were the first component to be screened in this analysis to determine
which transit technology options have the greatest potential to address the needs of the of study area, as
determined by the Purpose and Need statement and study goals and objectives.
As discussed in the Technology Assessment Report (November 201314), not all of the transit technology
options are suitable for providing improved transit service in the Red Line/HealthLine Extension’s study
area. Some technologies would neither meet the goals and objectives of the study as presented in the
Purpose and Need (October 2013) nor address the specific transportation issues identified in the
Baseline Conditions Report (August 2013). The character of the study area, existing and future
development patterns, population and employment densities, and number and type of trips were all
considered in determining which transit technology option would be most appropriate for this study.
Numerous transit technologies are available that can meet RTA’s rolling stock requirements for any of the
alternatives being considered. The relevant technologies selected to be used in the alternatives analysis
are described in the following subsections.
4.2.1
Local Bus
Local bus service is already provided within the study area. The slow travel speed and frequent stops
makes this transit option less than ideal for providing the connectivity to large job centers like downtown
Cleveland and University Circle. Further, local bus improvements are unlikely to generate substantial
ridership gains and do not satisfy the study purpose and need. However, local bus will be an important
feature of any transit improvement in the corridor. Local bus services provide a critical access linkage
between neighborhoods and the potential rail and bus rapid transit extensions effectively increasing the
catchment area of the stations.
4.2.2
Enhanced Bus
Limited stop bus service from the study area could provide a faster, flexible trip to serve job destinations
in downtown Cleveland and University Circle. However, it is believed that this transit option would work
better as a complementary overlay service than as the primary capital improvement within the study area.
4.2.3
Bus Rapid Transit Lite (BRT Lite)
BRT Lite service operating in mixed traffic could connect the existing Red Line to the study area with high
frequency service at a low-to-medium cost. Station spacing would be flexible depending on the
destinations in the extended corridor. The characteristics of this service would include substantial
stations, passenger information systems and transit signal priority but would operate in mixed-traffic
similar to the existing HealthLine east of Martin Luther King, Jr.(MLK) Blvd.
4.2.4
Bus Rapid Transit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a bus operation generally characterized by use of exclusive or reserved
rights-of-way (busways) that permit higher speeds and avoidance of delays from general traffic flows.
The HealthLine in Cleveland is the best example of full BRT in North America. Full BRT service
operating in an exclusive lane could connect the Red Line to the study area with high frequency service
14
Virginkar & Associates, Technology Assessment Report; October 2013.
62
AECOM
May 9, 2016
and appropriate and flexible station spacing, at a medium cost similar to the HealthLine west of MLK
Blvd.
4.2.5
Heavy Rail Rapid Transit (HRT)
Heavy rail transit (HRT) is a specialized electrically-powered rail system carrying passengers within
urban areas, or between urban areas and suburbs. Heavy rail rapid transit systems use exclusive tracks
that are fully grade-separated, i.e., subway, aerial, in open cut, or fenced-in at grade but with no at-grade
street or pedestrian crossings. High-capacity trains serve complex, multi-level stations that typically are
spaced one mile apart.
Maximum service speeds range from 50 up to 70 mph. The existing Red Line between the Airport and
Louis Stokes Station at Windermere is electrified using a 600vDC overhead contact system (catenary)
with high platform loading. An extension of the Red line would require a high capital cost in order to
construct additional catenary, power substations, high-platform stations and grade separations as an
extension of RTA’s Red Line east of Windermere or as a branch line northeast of Superior Station
adjacent to the CSX Short Line. The extension would provide a one seat ride from Euclid to University
Circle, Downtown and the Airport.
4.2.6
Diesel-Multiple Unit (DMU) Commuter Rail
The development of diesel-multiple unit (DMU) railcars capable of operating on the Red Line and freight
railroad tracks makes this technology option a lower cost alternative to extending the existing electrified
Red Line. It is considered a shared right-of-way light rail technology option. DMU have been successfully
deployed in Portland, OR; Austin, TX; Dallas, TX; San Diego, CA and Trenton, NJ. The DMU option was
considered to be an appropriate technology for extending the Red Line similar to the A-Train extension of
the DART light rail line in Dallas. The A-train is a 21-mile rail extension using freight railroad tracks
connecting Denton County with the DART light rail line at the Trinity Mills Station in Carrollton, TX.
Passengers can transfer across the shared platform to the DART Green Line, which provides access to
Downtown Dallas. In New Jersey, the River Line operates DMU trains between Camden and Trenton.
The DMU operate in city streets in Camden and then follow the Delaware River on the former
Bordentown-Trenton Branch of the former Conrail freight railroad. New Jersey Transit purchased the
branch line from Conrail in 1999 and today shares tracks with Norfolk-Southern under an FRA approved
operating agreement.
4.2.7
Rapid+
Rapid+ is a technology option that takes advantage of the Red Line infrastructure between Windermere
and the Airport by allowing light rail transit (LRT) trains to operate in mixed traffic on city streets east of
Windermere and on the Red Line west of Windermere similar to how the Blue and Green Lines share
tracks with the Red Line between East 55th Street and Tower City today. However, this would require the
procurement of new light rail vehicles (LRV) capable of operating on the Red Line with high platform
loading and in street running with low level boarding. Such LRV exist in San Francisco, Buffalo and
Pittsburgh. This technology option would provide significant flexibility in tailoring operating plans to
provide one-seat rides from the study area to University Circle, Downtown and the Airport. This option
also could permit routing trains from the Shaker Heights light rail Blue/Green lines direct to the Airport.
4.2.8
Summary of Technology Assessment
HRT and BRT were identified as the highest-ranked modes and were carried forward as the preferred
modes for the build alternatives based on community input, estimated ridership, the ability to provide
competitive travel times, and the ability to integrate with the existing RTA rapid transit network. BRT Lite
63
AECOM
May 9, 2016
and enhanced bus service were identified as the modes for the Do Minimum baseline alternative
advanced to the Draft EIS if warranted. The Rapid+ and DMU technology options were eliminated from
further consideration due to their poor cost effectiveness. However, the Rapid+ technology option is
suggested as the standard rail vehicle for future railcar replacement allowing RTA to operate one single
railcar type capable of operating all lines in the system.
4.3
Alternatives Considered
Included in this section is information that describes the many alternatives explored and considered. This
section defines the baseline alternatives used for evaluation, which include No-Build “do nothing” and “do
minimum” alternatives. The section also describes which alternatives were carried forward to project
appraisal and justification.
4.3.1
No Build Alternative
The No Build alternative essentially maintains the present condition and includes planned and committed
conditions (E+C) for the future planning horizon year. This also serves as a baseline for the evaluation of
the proposed build alternative during the project appraisal phase of project development. The
improvements contained in the Do Minimum and Build alternatives are those that could be made in
addition to those outlined in the No Build alternative.
The No Build alternative includes the existing highway network that is a part of all alternatives plus
highway improvements from the fiscally constrained regional transportation plan that are likely to be
implemented by the horizon year, except for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study Build alternatives
being considered in this study. This includes the Opportunity Corridor that extends from I-490 as an
urban boulevard into the University Circle area. Therefore, NOACA in consultation with RTA and the Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT) provided a network map and list of specific committed highway
facility improvement projects between the years 2010 and 2030.
Public transportation services under the No Build alternative consist of existing rail and bus routes and
operating frequencies scheduled during the summer of 2013, plus other planned and committed projects
outlined for 2030. These projects may include expansion of routes, improved frequencies and the
introduction of bus priority treatments such bus lanes and limited Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service
improvement on several streets. The No Build alternative assumes normal maintenance and replacement
of existing facilities and equipment as their design life is exceeded. The No Build alternative provides a
baseline for comparing travel benefits and other environmental impacts associated with the other
alternatives.
Key features of the No Build Alternative are listed below.
1) Configuration: Continued operation of Red Line and HealthLine and local bus services in mixed
traffic;
2) Passenger station stops: New Little Italy– University Circle Station opened and the Euclid – East
120th Street Station closed.
3) Street improvements: Ongoing roadway reconstruction projects as identified in the NOACA
Transportation Improvement plan including construction of Innerbelt, West Shoreway
improvements and Opportunity Corridor between I-490 and East 105th Street and Quincy Avenue
and widening East 105th Street between Quincy and Chester Avenues; Streetscape
improvements along Lakeshore Boulevard and Euclid Avenues;;
4) Vehicle: 40-foot, low-floor, CNG fueled buses;
5) Service span: No expected change;
6) Peak headways: No expected change;
64
AECOM
May 9, 2016
7) Background bus network: No expected change;
8) Park-N-Ride facilities: No expected change;
4.3.2
Do Minimum Alternative
As with the No Build Alternative, the Do Minimum Alternative includes all transportation projects within
the study area that have been committed for funding as part of the region’s TIP and fiscally constrained
long range transportation plan. Transportation-related improvements that are committed to be in place by
the 2030 horizon planning year, whether physical or operational, are assumed to be part of the Do
Minimum Alternative.
The primary rail and bus network changes in this alternative are modifications of existing local bus routes
to improve service in underserved areas of the study area, particularly Euclid and connections with
Laketran, the transit service provider in Lake County. The Do Minimum Alternative includes a number of
improvements over the No Build Alternative that will improve bus service by focusing service to potential
high-density development along various alignments in the study area, notably lakeshore Boulevard, St.
Clair and Euclid Avenues and north-south connector streets. No major RTA capital investments are
included in this alternative.
Key features of the Do Minimum Alternative include all features of the No Build Alternative, plus the
following:
1) Alignment: Adjusted bus network with focus on alignments between Windermere and Downtown
Euclid;
2) Configuration: Continued operation in mixed traffic;
3) Passenger station stops: Construction of enhanced bus stops at Five Points in Collinwood and
Downtown Euclid and improved transit waiting environments to include real-time passenger
information, improve shelters and waiting areas, and adjust and consolidate some stop locations
to provide more efficient service and better mirror Build alternatives;
4) Street improvements: same as the No Build;
5) Vehicle: 40- foot, low-floor CNG buses for Lakeshore Boulevard and local connecting routes; and
60-foot, articulated low-floor CNG buses on St Clair and Euclid Avenues
6) Service span: Match Red Line service hours;
7) Peak headways: 71/2 minute peak headways to match current Red Line service and 15- minute
off-peak headways;
8) Background bus network: Adjust network to better serve Euclid
9) Park-N-Ride and transfer facilities: Optimization of bus/rail and bus/bus transfers at Windermere;
10) Storage and Maintenance Facility: Assumes use of existing bus facilities.
The Do Minimum alternative gets carried forward through the entire project evaluation process. It
includes minor highway investments such as traffic signalization improvements, enhanced bus services
on major thoroughfares. This alternative is currently being defined.
4.3.3
Build Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
Initial conceptual alternatives were defined to test the potential applicability of the appropriate transit
technology options, route configurations and station options to meet the goals and objectives of the Red
Line/HealthLine Extension Study. Many of the initial alignment alternatives resulted from public
comments received during public meetings and Open Houses and through comments received from the
study website and Facebook pages. The proposed alternatives for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension
Study were evaluated based on the project goals and objectives conceived during project scoping.
Evaluation criteria were developed directly from these project goals and objectives, which flowed from the
purpose of the project. These evaluation factors include transportation impacts, cost-effectiveness,
65
AECOM
May 9, 2016
potential for transit oriented development and growth near stations and likely community support. Nine
alignment alternatives with several routing variation options were evaluated as part of the initial screening
of alternatives in accordance with agreed upon evaluation criteria. The evaluation centered on the
principle goals of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study, which are listed in Table 4-1.
The screening criteria included stakeholder comment, ridership, competitive travel times (versus
automobile travel), potential environmental impacts, and ability to integrate with other public
transportation services. The rationale for the determining which Build alternatives were considered and
eliminated and which were advanced to more detailed technical analysis as part of the multiple
screenings is summarized in Table 4-2 on the following pages.
4.3.4
Summary Findings of Alternatives Screening
The alternatives analysis used two levels (or tiers) of screening to select the preferred alternative, which
is advanced to the Preferred Alternative Report. The first tier initial alternatives screening evaluated
certain promising alternatives to discern which of the alternatives should be advanced to the more
rigorous Tier 2 detailed alternatives screening analysis. The summary of the findings are reported.
Summary of Tier 1 Screening
During the Tier 1 screening phase, RTA worked together with the Cities of Cleveland, East Cleveland
and Euclid and the SIC to identify the most attractive technology, alignment and station locations for the
proposed Red Line/HealthLine extensions to maximize ridership, encourage community development
and support the objectives of the RTA Strategic Plan. Tier 1 screening involved analyzing the initial list of
alternatives, which included alignments, route deviations, station site selection and transit technology
possibilities. More than 17 different alignment options passed through the initial screening process with
particular emphasis being placed on identifying station locations that will provide convenient access for
passengers to reach key residential, business and community attractions. The complete evaluation of
the initial and promising alternatives was documented in the Tier 1 Initial Alternatives Screening Report
(December 2013). Six Build alternatives were advanced to the Tier 2 screening. This included three
alignments with four technology options and several termini options.
Summary of Tier 2 Screening
The second tier screening evaluated four rail alternatives and two BRT alternatives and compared them
to the goals and objectives established for project evaluation and appraisal. The detailed findings of the
comparative analysis are contained Tier 2 Detailed Alternatives Screening Report (August 2014). The
findings were reviewed and commented on by the TSC, SIC and the public. The review comments
received from the TSC, SIC and the public suggested that a Hybrid alternative be considered, which
incorporated a short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road and alternated services on both alignments
of the HealthLine extension. The Build alternatives advanced to the final tier of analysis are described in
Section 4.3.5 below. These alternatives are then compared to the No Build and Do Minimum
Alternatives.
66
AECOM
Table ‎4-2
Rail-Build
Alternative
May 9, 2016
Alternatives Considered and Results of Screening Process
Description of Alternative
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Screening Result and Explanation
Result
Alignment Option A1
Alternative A1 is an electrified heavy rail extension that diverges from the Red Line
at Superior Station and runs north to Collinwood adjacent to the CSX Short Line
freight railroad in the former Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT) right-of-way, which is
owned by CSX. At Collinwood the alignment continues east adjacent to the CSX
Chicago Line terminating near Euclid Square Mall located at Babbitt Road in
Euclid. This line would have the potential to be extended to Lake County with
stations in Wickliffe, Willoughby and potentially as far east as Mentor. Alternatives
to the heavy rail technology option could be the utilization of FRA compliant dieselelectric hybrid rail technologies that could operate on Red Line tracks from
University Circle and switch over to the CSX tracks near Superior Station or
operate adjacent to the CSXT on the abandoned former CUT right-of-way.
Alternative A
Alignment Option A2
Option A2 is light rail transit/streetcar variant of Alternative A. This option is an
electrified rail rapid transit extension using high/low platform railcars (Rapid+) that
diverges from the Red Line at Superior Station and runs north to Collinwood
adjacent to the CSX Short Line freight railroad in the former CUT right-of-way. At
Collinwood the alignment diverges from the railroad corridor leaving the CSX
railroad right-of-way in favor of street running north at East 152nd Street in
Collinwood and continuing east along Lake Shore Boulevard to Downtown Euclid.
The route could potentially be extended to Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake
County.
High adverse impact to CSX, very high estimated probable cost to construct complicated junction
at Superior Station, high probable cost for high-platform stations on elevated embankments,
fewest number of stations, lowest numbers of residents and jobs within catchment area, very low
TOD opportunities. Does not meet purpose and need of fostering economic development.
Eliminated from further consideration.
Alignment Option A3
Option A3 is also a light rail transit/streetcar variant of Alternative A. This option is
a Rapid+ technology option that diverges from the Red Line at Superior Station
and runs north to Collinwood adjacent to the CSX Short Line freight railroad in the
former CUT right-of-way. At Collinwood the alignment diverges from the railroad
corridor leaving the CSX railroad right-of-way in favor of street running north at
East 140th Street in Collinwood and continuing east along Lake Shore Boulevard
to Downtown Euclid. The route could potentially be extended to Shoregate
Shopping Center in Lake County.
Alternative B
Alternative B is an electrified heavy rail Red Line extension that begins at Louis
Stokes Station at Windermere and continues to run east adjacent to the Norfolk
Southern (NS) freight railroad corridor. Alternative B would terminate at the Euclid
Park-N-Ride near the intersection of St Clair Avenue and Babbitt Road in the
vicinity of Euclid Square Mall. This line could potentially be extended to Lake
County with stations in Wickliffe, Willoughby and perhaps as far east as Mentor.
An alternative to the heavy rail technology would be the utilization of diesel-electric
hybrid commuter rail technologies that could operate on Red Line and Norfolk
Southern tracks.
This was retained for being the only logical extension of the Red Line with the lowest capital cost
and least adverse environmental impacts when compared to Alternative A. Detailed technical
analysis revealed that the Red Line should not be extended to Mentor or adjacent communities in
Lake County as ridership dramatically decreased beyond Euclid Square Mall and Babbitt Road.
Extensions of rail to Lake County could be revisited in the future. Detailed technical analysis also
revealed that DMU technology for the extension was not cost effective due to the sharp decline in
ridership potential because of the transfer penalty between modes to complete a trip to the West
Side and Airport.
67
Retained and advanced to preferred
alternative report. DMU option eliminated
from further consideration.
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Rail-Build
Alternative
Result
Alternative C
Alternative C is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension
that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs north to Hayden
Avenue using the RTA-owned private right-of-way. The alignment continues north
on Hayden Avenue turning east along St. Clair Avenue traveling to Five Points,
which is the intersection of St. Clair, Ivanhoe Road and East 152nd Street. At Five
Points the alignment turns north on East 152nd Street and continues north across
the CSX railroad on the bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east through the
Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again turns north on
East 156th Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east to
Downtown Euclid, with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in
Lake County.
Although this alternative has good length and serves Five Points and the Waterloo Arts District, it
has relatively lower TOD opportunities than Alternative E, which also serves Five Points and the
Waterloo Arts District. Alternative E also scored higher in several other categories than
Alternative C.
Alternative D
Alternative D is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension
that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs north to Hayden
Avenue using the RTA-owned private right-of-way. The alignment continues north
on Hayden Avenue turning east along St. Clair Avenue traveling to Five Points,
which is the intersection of St. Clair, Ivanhoe Road and East 152nd Street. At Five
Points the alignment continues east on St Clair Avenue to Nottingham Road and
turns north under the railroad overpass until reaching East 185th Street. At East
185th Street, the alignment turns north along East 185th Street serving the East
185th commercial district up to Lakeshore Boulevard. At Lakeshore Boulevard the
alignment turns east to Downtown Euclid with a potential extension to the
Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County.
High TOD potential serves Five Points, Nottingham Village and strengthens E. 185 Street
corridor and Downtown Euclid. Stakeholder comment revealed a preference for using Euclid
Avenue rather than north on Hayden to St Clair to travel to Five Points. Very strong desire to
facilitate new development on Euclid Avenue expressed by stakeholders.
th
Alignment Option E1
Alternative E is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension
that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along Euclid
Avenue to Coit Road. At Coit Road the alignment turns northwest to East 152nd
where it turns north and travels along East 152nd Street to Five Points at Ivanhoe
and St. Clair. At Five Points the alignment continues north on East 152nd Street
crossing over the CSX railroad on a bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east
through the Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again turns
north on East 156th Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east
to Downtown Euclid, with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center
in Lake County.
Alternative E
Alignment Option E2
Alternative E2 is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension
Avenue to Noble Road. At Noble Road the alignment turns north to Woodworth
Avenue where it turns west to East 152nd Street where the route then turns north
on East 152nd Street and travels to Five Points at St. Clair. At Five Points the
alignment continues north on East 152nd Street crossing over the CSX railroad on
a bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east through the Waterloo Arts District to
East 156th Street. The alignment again turns north on East 156th Street until
reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east to Downtown Euclid, with a
potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County.
Highest population and employment catchment, serves the most activity centers, serve all three
communities, strengthens Five Points, the Waterloo Arts District and is advanced to compare and
nd
th
contrast E. 152 Street alignment with Alternative D with the E. 185 Street alignment.
Stakeholder comment revealed a strong preference for Ivanhoe to maximize the routing along
Euclid Avenue. Detailed technical analysis revealed that the Rapid+ option was not cost
effective
Alignment Option E3
Alternative E3 is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension
Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. At Ivanhoe Road the alignment turns north to East
152nd and St. Clair. At Five Points the alignment continues north on East 152nd
Street crossing over the CSX railroad on a bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning
east through the Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again
68
Options E1 and E2 eliminated. Option E3
retained. Rapid+ technology eliminated.
AECOM
Rail-Build
Alternative
May 9, 2016
Result
turns north on East 156th Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns
east to Downtown Euclid, with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping
Center in Lake County.
Although this alignment is the logical extension of the HealthLine BRT from Windermere east on
Euclid Avenue, it has the lowest score of the BRT alternatives for TOD opportunity. Enhanced
bus improvements to the route 28 local bus with a skip-stop express bus overlay and articulated
buses could be a low cost alternative to full BRT. Alternative B would be a faster and more
reliable service alternative than a BRT extension on this route and it attracts more riders.
Second highest population and employment catchment, serves all three communities, and
th
strengthens Five Points, Nottingham Village, East 185 Street and Downtown Euclid. Alternative
G has the highest TOD potential of all alternatives examined. Stakeholder comment revealed a
strong preference for Ivanhoe to maximize the routing along Euclid Avenue. Detailed technical
analysis revealed that the Rapid+ option was not cost effective
Options G1 and G2 eliminated from further
consideration. Rapid+ technology option
eliminated. Option G3 was retained and
advanced to Preferred Alternative Report.
Alternative H
Alternative H is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension
Avenue to East 222d Street where it turns northeast and terminates in Downtown
Euclid. The alternative can potentially be extended to the Shoregate Shopping
Center in Lake County by turning east along Lakeshore Boulevard.
Although this alternative has good length and serves Downtown Euclid and the Euclid High
School and Euclid Municipal Center, it does not serve the Collinwood community and scores very
low for TOD potential.
Alternative I
Alternative I is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension
Avenue to Chardon Road where it turns northwest and runs to East 200th Street
where it then turns northeast to Lakeshore Boulevard. At Lakeshore Boulevard the
alignment turns east and terminates in Downtown Euclid. The alternative can be
extended to the Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County by continuing east
along Lakeshore Boulevard.
Although this alternative has good length and serves Downtown Euclid, it does not serve the
th
Collinwood community and scores relatively very low for TOD potential. East 200 Street is
primarily a residential street and would create severe construction impacts for the people living
along the alignment.
Hybrid
Alternative
This alternative was an outgrowth of public comment after the Tier 2 Detailed
Alternatives Screening process was completed and presented. The alternative is a
phased introduction of BRT services in both the E and G alignments with
alternating service frequencies serving both route alignments. In addition, an
extension of the Red Line to Noble Road to serve General Electric NELA Park and
the relocation some of the pulsed bus services from the transit center at Louis
Stokes Station at Windermere to Noble Road are included in the Hybrid
alternative.
This report highlights the findings from the follow-on technical analysis of this hybrid alternative.
Advanced to preferred alternative report.
Alternative F
Alternative F is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar extension
Avenue to East 276th Street with a potential future extension to Wickliffe in Lake
County.
Alignment Option G1
Alternative G1 is a HealthLine bus rapid transit or “Rapid+” LRT/streetcar
extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere and runs east along
Euclid Avenue to Coit Road.
Alignment Option G2
Euclid Avenue to Noble Road.
Alternative G
Alignment Option G3
Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. At Ivanhoe Road the alignment turns north to
East 152nd and St. Clair. At Five Points the alignment turns east on St Clair
Avenue to Nottingham Road and then turns north under the railroad overpass until
reaching East 185th Street. At East 185th Street, the alignment turns northeast
and travels along East 185th Street serving the East 185th commercial district up
to Lakeshore Boulevard. At Lakeshore Boulevard the alignment turns east to
Downtown Euclid with a potential extension to the Shoregate Shopping Center in
Lake County.
69
AECOM
4.3.5
May 9, 2016
Build Alternatives Advanced and Considered
The following Build alternatives were subjected to more detailed technical analysis as part of the Tier 3
screening documented in this report.
Alternative B
Alternative B is an electrified heavy rail transit Red Line extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at
Windermere and continues to run east adjacent to the Norfolk Southern (NS) freight railroad corridor.
Alternative B would terminate at the Euclid Park-N-Ride near the intersection of St Clair Avenue and
Babbitt Road in the vicinity of Euclid Square Mall.
Alternative E
Alternative E is a HealthLine bus rapid transit/BRT Lite extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at
Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. At Ivanhoe Road the alignment turns
left to Five Points at East 152nd Street and St. Clair Avenue. At Five Points the alignment continues north
on East 152nd Street crossing over the CSX railroad on a bridge to Waterloo Road, then turning east
through the Waterloo Arts District to East 156th Street. The alignment again turns north on East 156th
Street until reaching Lakeshore Boulevard, where it turns east to Downtown Euclid and terminates at the
Shoregate Shopping Center in Lake County.
Alternative G
Alternative G is a HealthLine bus rapid transit/BRT Lite extension that begins at Louis Stokes Station at
Windermere and runs east along Euclid Avenue to Ivanhoe Road. At Ivanhoe Road, the route turns from
Euclid Avenue northwest and travels along Ivanhoe Road to Five Points. At Five Points the alignment
turns east on St Clair Avenue to Nottingham Road and then turns north under the railroad overpass until
reaching East 185th Street. At East 185th Street, the alignment turns northeast and travels along East
185th Street serving the East 185th commercial district up to Lakeshore Boulevard. At Lakeshore
Boulevard the alignment turns east to Downtown Euclid and terminates at the Shoregate Shopping
Center in Lake County.
Hybrid Alternative
The hybrid alternative involves the extension of both the HealthLine BRT and Red Line. The HealthLine
BRT is extended to Lakeshore Blvd. /260th St. (Shoregate Shopping Center). Trips alternate between the
alignment of Alternative E and Alternative G, with the split occurring at Five Points. The Red Line is
extended from Louis Stokes Station at Windermere to Noble Rd. with an intermediate station at Shaw
Ave. The service on the Red Line is increased with a 7.5 minutes headway in the peak period, east of
Tower City station (existing headway on this segment is 15 minutes). Essentially, this maintains a peak
period service of 7.5 minutes along the entire Red Line and its extension. The headway in the off-peak
period remains at 15 minutes along the entire line and the extension.
4.3.6
Tier 3 Screening: Business Case
Financial analysis, evaluation of project justification criteria, consideration of wider economic impacts and
some limited benefit cost analyses were conducted on the remaining alternatives as part of the process
to select the preferred alternative. It was the purpose and intent of this report to make a recommendation
of which alternative should be advanced to further study and the Project Development phase of the
Capital Investment Grant process if warranted.
The remainder of this report examines the remaining Build alternatives being considered, which are
depicted in Figures 4-1 through 4-4 on the following pages.
70
AECOM
Figure ‎4-1
Alternative B Red Line Extension
71
May 9, 2016
AECOM
Figure ‎4-2
Alternative E HealthLine Extension via East 152nd Street/Waterloo Arts District
72
May 9, 2016
AECOM
Figure ‎4-3
Alternative G HealthLine Extension via St. Clair Avenue/Nottingham Village
73
May 9, 2016
AECOM
Figure ‎4-4
Hybrid Alternative: Minimum Operable Segment of Red Line to Noble Road and HealthLine Extension Alternating between Alternatives E and G
74
May 9, 2016
AECOM
May 9, 2016
5 Financial Analysis
Providing significantly improved transit service in the study area will require RTA, FTA, and other
agencies and possibly private interests to share program capital costs such as land acquisition, costs of
construction and related expenditures. RTA will then assume the responsibility for operating and
maintenance (OPEX) costs. Both capital and OPEX costs have been evaluated on a preliminary basis
for the final alignment alternatives.
The first objective of the financial analysis is to estimate capital costs and project annual operating
expenses and revenues from a base year to the design year. The analysis of the sources and uses of
funds is conducted to determine whether there are funding shortfalls in either capital or operating budgets
for the project. This information is necessary to establish that enough financial resources are available for
each year of the planning horizon. The objective of the financial analysis was to assess the magnitude of
the additional funding and borrowing which will be required to support RTA’s financial capacity, both
capital and operating, over a 30-year period from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2043 (FY14 to FY43) to
build and operate the above described alternative as well as continue to operate and maintain its
baseline system including implementation of the planned rail car replacement program. The major
elements of the financial analysis are:






Capital costs of the transit facilities
Operating and maintenance costs
Revenue projections including increases from growth in farebox receipts and sales tax receipts
Revenue from state and federal sources
Risk associated with revenue and cost estimates
Findings and conclusions
The calculation of costs and revenues depends on assumptions related to construction scheduling and
phasing and the rate of growth in transit service expansion. This analysis is conducted in year of
expenditure (YOE) dollars (current or inflated dollars) so that debt financing can be accounted for.
5.1
Capital Cost Expenditures
Estimates of probable capital cost expenditures (CAPEX) are key ingredients in determining the costeffectiveness, financial capacity and overall engineering feasibility of major capital investments. Capital
costs are those expenditures that are incurred to design and construct the infrastructure and physical
facilities. This includes the planning, design, and construction of stations, guideway structure, utilities,
train control, maintenance facilities, power distribution system, communications system, vehicles, road
improvements, parking lots, and other such items. At this stage of the analysis, land acquisition costs
have not been estimated and are not included in the analysis.
Capital cost estimating methodologies are intended to yield cost estimates useful in comparing the cost
effectiveness of various transit alternatives being considered. Estimates are typically developed at unit
cost levels to provide a consistent basis for comparisons across each study alternative. This basis also
supports the re-application of unit capital costs to specific investment alternatives, as definitions of
alternatives are refined, changed or new alternative options are created.
At this early planning phase, estimates of probable cost were developed based on unit costs for
significant construction items in order to provide a consistent basis of comparison for each alternative.
75
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Preliminary estimates of probable costs were prepared for each technology option and alternative, which
consist of the following:




Mode of operation (i.e. HRT, BRT )
Differing segment lengths of elevated structure or at-grade typical sections
Station and design elements surrounding the stations.
Operating configuration including the number of transit vehicles where required.
Unit costs were estimated by obtaining data from several sources: cost history from local public works
projects, experience of metro and public transport projects from other cities and other published sources.
This broad-based approach yields estimated costs that reflect local construction pricing and address the
specific needs of rail transit construction projects. As built construction costs from the HealthLine and
recent Red Line improvements were also available and used to develop cost estimates for specific bus
rapid transit and rail transit system components. Detailed explanation of the methodologies and unit
costs used to derive the estimates of probable capital cost expenditures is detailed in the Capital Cost
Estimate Methodology Report.15
5.1.1
Estimates of Probable Capital Cost Expenditures
Estimates of probable capital expenditures for infrastructure are presented in US dollars escalated to
year of expenditure. These costs represent the total project costs including guideway structures,
operating and maintenance facilities, control and communication systems, stations, special conditions,
vehicles, utility relocation costs and add-on costs which include engineering and design, project
management, construction management, agency costs and allocated and unallocated contingencies.
Capital costs were estimated based on planning level project definitions. Non-construction costs used in
the capital cost estimate were developed using standard industry practice and locally gained experience
for projects of this complexity. These costs include project management, project administration, design,
construction management, quality assurance, quality control, contractor allowances, insurance, start-up
and testing, and project reserve. The estimated capital costs do NOT include finance charges. The
capital costs also do NOT include costs of land acquisition, building protection or demolition, tenant or
business relocation, and other related real property costs. Nor do the costs consider the time impacts of
such property related impacts.
The total capital costs to construct the Build alternatives being evaluated are summarized in Table 5-1
below and follow the FTA Standardized Cost Category (SCC) nomenclature and definition.
Table 5-1
15
Estimates of Probable Capital Expenditures ($000s)
SCC
Category
Description
10
Guideway and track elements
20
Stations, stops, terminals,
intermodal centers
30
Support facilities: yards,
depots, buildings
Alt B
Alt E
Alt G
Hybrid
151,460
159,667
158,189
227,082
34,185
29,517
29,517
39,783
0
0
0
0
AECOM, Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Report, January 16, 2014.
76
AECOM
SCC
Category
40
50
Description
Alt B
Site work and special
conditions
Systems
Construction Subtotal (10-50)
May 9, 2016
Alt E
Alt G
Hybrid
234,812
102,152
101,206
145,283
144,668
37,102
36,932
51,250
328,438
325,844
463,398
565,125
60
Right-of-way, land, existing
improvements
0
0
0
0
70
Rolling stock
0
23,100
23,100
23,100
80
Professional services
198,000
54,000
53,000
77,000
90
Unallocated contingency
153,000
25,000
25,000
36,000
100
Estimated finance costs
0
0
0
0
Total Project Costs (10-100)
$916,125
$430,538
$426,944
$599,498
Annualized Capital Costs
$25,890
$13,829
$13,734
$16,785
Source: AECOM; Capital Cost Estimating Methodology and Results Report; March 2014 and revised November 2015.
The construction costs vary considerably due to alignment length and other factors. The number of
transit vehicles, stations and other communications and control elements are identical as can be seen in
the cost categories. The Hybrid alternative includes the Red Line extension to Noble Road and the
associated costs with BRT operating on both alignments. The cost of Red Line extension was simply
calculated by examining the cost per mile of the extension to Babbitt Road and multiplying the cost per
mile times the miles of the minimum operable segment extension. This 1.2 mile extension was
determined to cost approximately $176.7 million. The remainder of the $599.5 million capital cost
estimate of $422.8 million is the cost of the HealthLine BRT extension on the two alignments.
5.1.2
Estimates of Annualized Costs
The evaluation of the cost effectiveness of an alternative requires that all evaluation measure (capital
costs, operations and maintenance costs and user benefits) be expressed in annual terms. Since capital
costs are estimated as a total expenditure of constant (base year) dollars, an annual payment will be
computed that is equivalent to what is in reality a one-time expenditure of capital funds. For each capital
cost item, the annualized equivalent will be computed through application of the following annualization
factor:
𝑖×(1+𝑖)𝑛
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = (1+𝑖)𝑛 −1
Where: i = discount rate; and n = economic life.
The annualized cost of the line item is the total cost of that line item multiplied by its annualization factor.
Annualization factors have been determined based on FTA-prescribed guidance for economic life and
discount rates. The method for calculating the annualized capital cost is embedded in the FTA New
Starts SCC Workbook. The summation of all annualized line item costs gives the overall annualized cost
for the alternative. The last row of Table 5-1 above lists the annualized capital costs for the various
alternatives under consideration.
77
AECOM
5.2
May 9, 2016
Operating and Maintenance Cost Expenditures (OPEX)
Operating and maintenance expenses (OPEX) include all expenditures required to provide daily service,
including pro-rata RTA system administrative costs, wages and benefits for transit vehicle operators and
maintenance workers, security, and the maintenance of the transit guideway, stations, facilities, buses
and rolling stock. Operation and maintenance costs were evaluated for RTA’s bus and rail services.
Total RTA system operating costs in 2014 were $248 million.16 The estimate of expenditures for
operations in 2015 is $247 million.17
The development of estimated annual operating and maintenance costs for the Red Line/HealthLine
Extension Study can be developed several different ways. One way is to base the estimates on the
average unit costs derived from an examination of rail and bus operating costs in other cities. Another
way is to use a cost build-up approach, which is a zero-base budgeting technique. For purposes of
determining and testing operating cost assumptions in the alternatives analysis, the average unit cost
approach was used. The OPEX cost estimating methodologies are outlined and described in more detail
in the Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodology Report.18
Incremental bus and rail operating costs are based on the operating plans developed for each of the
action alternatives evaluated. Each of the Build alternatives has individualized operating plans optimizing
service features in the study area. The substantial increase in operating miles for the Red Line or
HealthLine extension was partially off-set by changes in the underlying bus services operating for each of
the route alternatives under study. The reductions in parallel bus miles of service varied between 98,300
fewer annual miles of bus service for the Alternative B Red Line extension and the elimination of 269,800
annual miles duplicate bus services on Lake Shore Boulevard for Alternative G. Alternative E saw
smaller reduction in bus miles at 141,700 fewer annual bus miles. The Hybrid alternative combines the
net operating savings associated with operating the Red Line to Noble Road and the BRT operating
alternating service on both HealthLine extension alignments. The relevant operating statistics that drive
the operating cost models and the resulting estimates of incremental cost are presented in Table 5-2.
Table ‎5-2
Estimates of Probable Operating Expenditures (OPEX)
Description
Terminus
Alt B
Alt E
Alt G
Hybrid
Babbitt
Noble
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate
Technology
HRT
HRT
BRT
BRT
BRT
Route miles
6.5
1.2
8.8
10.5
15.3
Stations
7
2
23
23
31
Vehicles
0
0
20
20
20
Change in underlying bus network (miles)
-98,300
-65,000
-269,800
-180,500
-224,500
New annual vehicle miles
988,000
197,600
985,000
975,000
1,177,000
New annual vehicle hours
47,000
9,038
79,000
79,000
88,000
$6.1
$7.0
$9.4
Estimated OPEX ($ millions)
$11.9
$2.3
Source: Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodology Report; March 16, 2014
16
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Annual Report, 2014.
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Quarterly Management Report, August 2015.
18
AECOM; Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodology Report; March 16, 2014.
17
78
AECOM
5.3
May 9, 2016
Sources of Funds
This section describes the baseline revenues available to RTA over the 30-year period for planning,
design, construction, and OPEX and the assumptions used in the cash-flow model and analysis. RTA
receives revenues from a number of federal, state, and local sources. These include revenues that are
unrestricted as to their use, revenues that are restricted to OPEX, and revenues that are restricted to use
for capital projects. RTA typically commits its unrestricted revenues and its revenues restricted to OPEX
to cover its ongoing operating costs in advance of other expenditures. Any revenues beyond those
needed for O&M are considered net revenues available for debt service and capital and are used for
those purposes.
Unrestricted operating revenues are derived from farebox receipts. Currently, RTA covers nearly 20
percent of its annual operating expenses from farebox receipts. Passenger fares contributed about $49.1
million to RTA’s operating revenues in 2014, while operating expenses were $248 million. The amount
was up from $48.7 million in 2013 and nearly 33 percent higher than the farebox revenue received 10
years earlier. The projected revenue for passenger fares in 2015 is $49.9 million, which is an increase of
1.6 percent over 2014. The increase in farebox revenue is due in large part to judicious increases in fare
rates over the ten year period and increases in ridership since the end of the Great Recession. Over the
past 10-year period, the revenue per boarding also increased from $0.64 to $1.00.
Table ‎5-3
RTA Farebox Receipts and Passenger
Year
Farebox
Revenue
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
$ 49,085,267
$ 48,699,580
$ 49,237,857
$ 48,017,726
$ 47,153,709
$ 49,757,083
$ 48,173,966
$ 43,467,204
$ 40,587,880
$ 39,300,036
$ 37,289,919
Passengers
49,271,617
49,206,289
48,200,000
46,210,832
42,419,301
45,612,053
56,667,452
60,187,823
69,199,174
65,542,234
57,868,273
Revenue per
Passenger
$1.00
$0.99
$1.02
$1.04
$1.11
$1.09
$0.85
$0.72
$0.59
$0.60
$0.64
Source: RTA Annual Reports, 2004 - 2015
For the financial analysis, existing ridership was assumed to change with the change in underlying
population growth in Cuyahoga over the 30 year period. The 2010 to 2040 data and forecasts of
population growth was sourced from the Ohio Development Services Agency (ODSA) County Population
Forecasts. ODSA projects a 13 percent cumulative drop in Cuyahoga County population from 2010 (US
Census) to 2040 or from 1,280,122 in 2010 to 1,113,380 in 2040.
The ridership analysis provided estimates of additional annual trips due to the respective Red
Line/HealthLine extensions. New ridership spurred by the Build Alternatives was based on the FTA’s
STOPS travel demand model projection: Alternative B (HRT) was projected to ramp up within the first
three years after its start-up operation and achieve 4,022,400 annualized trips. Similarly, Alternatives E
and G (BRT) were projected to ramp up within the first three years after its start-up operation and achieve
3,000,000 to 3,127,200 annualized trips respectively. The Hybrid alternative would generate 3,777,600
annual trips.
79
AECOM
May 9, 2016
The average fare rate was estimated by dividing the total passenger fare revenue in FY 2014 over the
reported ridership. As reported in the 2014 Adopted Budget, the average fare rate was assumed to
increase by 1.5 percent in FY 2015 and FY 2016. The average fare is escalated by the consumer price
index (CPI) thereafter.
Projections of farebox revenues are made by projecting the increase in fare per boarding and the growth
in passenger boardings. Projections of passenger boardings are derived from the travel demand
forecasts prepared for the long-range transportation plans and used throughout the project development
process. There were over 49 million annual total system-wide boardings in 2014.
5.3.1
Sales and Use Tax
A one percent Sales and Use Tax on sales of tangible personal property and on other transactions
subject to the State Sales and Use Tax within the boundaries of Cuyahoga County is RTA’s major source
of revenue. The one percent tax is of unlimited duration and was approved by the voters of Cuyahoga
County in July 1975. The tax is levied and collected at the same time and on the same transactions as
the permanent five percent Sales and Use Tax levied by the State, plus the one-half percent temporary
state sales tax, one-quarter percent levied for the Global Center for Health Innovation, and the one
percent tax levied by Cuyahoga County.
The level of sales tax receipts depends on sales tax rates, the total population buying goods and services
in the county and the strength of the local economy, which can be somewhat volatile. The Sales and Use
Tax is the largest source of operating revenue for RTA. The signiﬁcantly large population loss in
Cuyahoga County between 1970 and the most recent census in 2010 (441,000 people) has had a severe
impact on RTA sales tax receipts. It is estimated that the loss of sales tax revenue to RTA resulting from
this population decline is currently $67.9 million annually. This decline in sales tax revenue will persist as
population continues to migrate out of Cuyahoga County. The revenue generated from this local-option
sales tax was $197.1 million in 2014.
Table ‎5-4
RTA Sales and Use Tax (2004 – 2014)
Year
Sales and Use Tax
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
$ 197,118,776
$ 189,630,645
$ 181,219,251
$ 173,242,329
$ 163,220,649
$ 154,586,220
$ 173,568,817
$ 171,661,508
$ 168,615,372
$ 168,997,361
$ 165,433,059
Source: RTA Annual Reports, 2004 – 2014
Sales and use tax revenue accounted for 74.5 percent of RTA revenue for FY14 as compared to 72.4
percent for FY13 and for 73.6 percent for FY12. Revenue received from sales and use tax for FY14
increased approximately $10.8 million (5.7%) compared to an $8.4 million (4.6%) increase in 2013 from
the year ended December 31, 2012. This increase was a result of the expansion of the State of Ohio
Medicaid program beginning in early 2014 which broadened the base for the Medicaid managed care
premium tax; and increased spending in the economy.
80
AECOM
May 9, 2016
The sales tax was assumed as the principle non-federal source to raise additional revenue to support
RTA’s capital program and operating needs over a 30-year period.
5.3.2
Federal and State Grant Assistance
Federal and state grant assistance funds are used for both capital and operating expenses. The federal
government provides capital assistance grants to assist in the purchasing of capital assets and the
renewal and reconstruction of infrastructure. This includes purchasing new buses and trains and
rebuilding rail stations, constructing new transit centers and renewal of existing facilities. Some of these
funds can be used to capitalize ordinary operating expenses for the purchase of major spare parts and
heavy maintenance or overhaul of transit vehicles. Federal grants include both annual formula funds and
competitive grant funds. The federal formula capital assistance program provides funds to each qualifying
transit system in the nation, based upon factors such as population and population density. Although
declines in population experienced in the Greater Cleveland area have impacted the relative amount of
federal funds allocated to RTA, by and large, this program has kept pace with inflation.
The competitive federal discretionary capital grant program includes the Capital Investment Grant New
Starts program, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) competitive grant
program as well as grant funds from the stimulus American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The New Starts program funded the HealthLine bus rapid transit project. TIGER grants were obtained by
RTA to fund rail station rehabilitation and renewal, including a $10.5 million TIGER II grant to rebuild the
Cedar – University Station and an $8.9 million TIGER III grant to build the new Little Italy – University
Circle Station. The amount of federal capital assistance received by RTA is tabulated in Table 5-5
The State of Ohio has never been an aggressive partner in funding public transportation when compared
to other states. State funds include small amounts of allocated operating funds, as well as additional
funding received for capital projects. For example, the State of Ohio was a major partner in the funding of
the HealthLine bus rapid transit project in 2008 and the reconstruction of the Blue and Green Lines in the
early years of RTA. The State of Ohio invests 99.23 percent of its resources on highways, but only 0.77
percent of the total transportation spending is on public transit, ranking it 40th out of the 50 states in the
nation. All the states in the nation that spend less on transit than Ohio are more rural states, with an
average population of only 20 percent of the population of Ohio.
In 2002, Ohio provided $43 million to the transit systems in Ohio. By 2007, that funding support dropped
63 percent to $16.3 million. In October 2010, Ohio announced a new three-year program ($50 million per
year) to preserve existing transit services and allow the targeted implementation of new services. In
February 2011, although the initial year of the above funding was awarded, RTA was notified that a
significant amount of funds were being rescinded.
In the 2010/2011 approved State of Ohio budget, funding was cut another 33 percent to $10.6 million.
This represents a 75 percent cut in State of Ohio funding since 2002. Neither the 2012/2013 budget, nor
the 2014/2015 budget, provided any funding increase to transit.
In 2013, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) commissioned a Statewide Public Transit Needs
Study19. The results of this study, published in December 2014, concluded that there is greater demand
for transit service in Ohio than there is supply of services. The report suggested service should be
expanded to address these unmet needs.
Although the ODOT study clearly made a strong case for the critical importance of significant additional
State of Ohio funding for transit, no additional funds were appropriated in the 2015-2017 state biennial
19
The ODOT Transit Needs Study report can be found at
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/Transit/TransitNeedsStudy/Pages/StudyHome.aspx
81
AECOM
May 9, 2016
budget. Even the very modest $1 million statewide increase proposed by the Governor was cut out by the
legislature during the budget process. The state grant assistance received by RTA in the past 10 years
is also tabulated in Table 5-5.
Table ‎5-5
Year
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
Federal and State Grants
Federal Grants
$ 58,199,720
$ 59,795,463
$ 33,570,510
$ 51,104,869
$ 81,487,975
$ 73,648,082
$ 86,109,609
$ 74,319,702
$ 71,849,886
$ 55,888,368
$ 47,691,764
State Grants
$ 2,064,063
$ 264,693
$ 1,135,673
$ 778,956
$ 1,807,284
$ 9,162,154
$ 9,370,685
$ 8,532,391
$ 6,011,798
$ 3,177,787
$ 3,675,597
Source: RTA Annual Reports, 2004 - 2014
5.4
Fiscal Capacity and Financial Analysis
The objective of the financial analysis was to examine whether RTA would have the fiscal capacity, both
capital and operating, over a 30-year period from FY13 to FY42 to build and operate the Red Line/Health
Line extension as well as continue to operate and maintain its baseline system. To do so, the analysis
first began with a detailed No Build Alternative of information describing RTA’s current operating and
capital plans, and second “layered-on” each Build Alternative’s related capital and operating needs.
Therefore the investment alternatives considered by the financial analysis were:



No Build plus Alternative B-HRT
No Build plus Alternative E-BRT
No Build plus Alternative G-BRT
The Hybrid alternative was not specifically analyzed. The cost of the Hybrid alternative is less than
Alternative B and more than Alternative E. Judgments can be made using logic and reasoning to
determine that the financial analysis for the Hybrid would fall somewhere in between the highest and
lowest cost alternatives.
The Base case included both 2014-2018 capital improvement program (CIP) and a planned rail car
replacement. RTA has recognized a need to replace the rail fleet at an estimated cost of $280 million,
but has not identified any capital funding before 2024 to do so. In addition, RTA has identified $254
million in unfunded projects that are needed to restore the system to a state-of-good-repair. The stark
math of the funding shortfall for bringing the system to a state-of-good-repair was highlighted by RTA
senior management during a briefing to the Board of Trustees as it requested approval of the 2016
capital Improvement budget for infrastructure investments and took a five-year look at its needs through
2020.20
20
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; 2016-2020 Proposed Capital Improvement Plan; August 2015.
82
AECOM
The financial analysis21 for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension
Study’s alternatives applied a financial analysis model that
integrates projections of expenses and revenues, both capital
and operating, to assess financial capacity. The model
addresses the capital cost, level of service and resulting
operating and maintenance cost, ridership and resulting fare
revenue, and grant implications of each “line-item” capital
project or program. It also examined debt service requirements.
RTA 2014 Budget provided data on the existing sources of
RTA's operating and capital revenues. Debt Service on the
existing debt was provided by RTA. All revenue sources
including RTA Sales Tax was assumed to rise with the CPI. For
the purpose of the cash flow projections both HRT and BRT
lines were assumed to start revenue service in 2025.
May 9, 2016
It was determined RTA does not
have the fiscal capacity to
undertake any of the Build
alternatives without a substantial
infusion of capital funding from
local and state sources. Without
any state support, the burden of
providing additional capital funds
necessary to bring RTA up to a
state-of-good repair falls to the
Greater Cleveland community. The
existing 1 percent Sales and Use
tax can no longer support system
renewal and expansion without
further cuts to existing services.
The RTA maintains the policy of contributing a minimum of 10
percent of its Sales & Use Tax revenues to the capital
improvement fund. Consequently, the financial analysis had
Sales Tax revenues split between capital and operating at the 10 percent to 90 percent ratio.
The financial analysis assumed that about 50 percent of the capital costs of each considered Build
Alternative will be covered by the FTA New Starts grant. The 50 percent local match estimate was based
on experience of other FTA New Starts projects applicants.
The financial analysis model summarizes and contrasts annual OPEX costs to annual operating
revenues between 2014 and 2044. The model also indicates the net revenues available for debt service
and capital. Also indicated is the level of coverage that sales tax revenues would provide for the annual
financing costs that RTA is required to pay for its outstanding bonded indebtedness.
The strongest influences on RTA’s future fiscal capacity are its operating costs and sales and use tax
revenues. The volatile sales and use tax yields about $197.1 million per year in revenues. RTA’s sales
tax revenue accounts for about 68 percent of inflation-sensitive routine operating and maintenance
outlays over the next 30 years (2014–2043).
It was quickly determined that RTA’s financial capacity to undertake major expansion projects is
constrained by pressures to support current operations and to fund infrastructure replacement and
renewal to bring the system up to a state-of-good-repair that sustain existing services. About 25 percent
of total outlays during this period will be for ongoing capital replacement and depreciation-related
investments to preserve existing transit services. By simply looking at the cash flows without any system
expansion debt and capital investment grants, the unfunded gap of state-of-good-repair grows from the
current estimate of $254 million over the next five years to $440.6 million over the next ten years. This
does not include an estimated $280 million to replace the aging rail fleet.
Looking at the planned extension of the Red Line to Euclid in Alternative B including FTA capital
investment grants for the New Start project, this unfunded gap widens even further over the 30 year
planning horizon.
21
AECOM, Financial Analysis Report, June 20, 2014.
83
AECOM
May 9, 2016
What the analysis shows is that the most important revenue stream is the local sales and use tax levied
in the RTA service area, which is volatile and cannot support both sustained operation and infrastructure
renewal let alone system expansion. The reported funding gap will continue to widen unless new
revenue streams can be found that would provide the necessary funding to close this deficit in
infrastructure renewal funding.
It was determined RTA does not have the fiscal capacity to undertake any of the Build alternatives
without a substantial infusion of capital funding from local and state sources. The existing RTA sales tax
revenue fluctuates with the local economy. The reality is RTA funding from the local sales tax is already
stretched to pay for continued operation and routine maintenance. All of its capital funding must be
applied to infrastructure renewal. There is no funding for system expansion.
Consequently, RTA must seek additional funding from local and state partners to expand the system. It
was estimated that at least a 0.3 to 0.5 percent increase in the Sales and Use Tax would provide RTA
with sufficient resources to bring the system up to a state-of-good repair, replace the rail fleet and
generate sufficient resources to provide the local match necessary to attract federal capital investment
grant (New Starts) funding.
5.5
Risk and Uncertainty
Although the financial analysis has defined a likely future based on current funding trends, there are
operating and capital risks associated with this project that could affect the financial plan.
The financial analysis determined that RTA does not currently have the fiscal capacity to undertake major
system expansion investments. Strong fiscal discipline, restraint in expanding service and overhead, and
other management measures to smooth cash flows over the past 10 years has allowed RTA to maintain
a generally acceptable level of service to the Greater Cleveland community while significantly improving
services in two major corridors: Euclid Avenue and Clifton Boulevard. But continued service cuts and fare
increases alone cannot keep pace with funding needs for system renewal. The funding gap for state-ofgood-repair will continue to widen unless RTA seeks an increase in the sales tax or the State of Ohio
addresses the funding issues identified in the ODOT Statewide Transit Needs Study.
The financial analysis considered federal participation in the construction of the preferred build
alternatives. However, the magnitude of the investment requires RTA to ensure that the local
participation levels necessary to achieve program goals and objectives are attainable. It is very unlikely
RTA will be able to generate sufficient local funding as part of the match for federal capital investment
grants without an infusion of sales tax revenue or substantial state capital assistance. Some additional
risks related to RTA fiscal capacity are described in the following sections.
5.5.1
Operating Risks
The operating-cost projections assume that RTA will continue to contain unit cost growth, particularly in
the area of labor, fuel and materials. If the assumed operating efficiencies are not realized, the systemwide operating costs could be higher than those shown in the fiscal capacity analysis, and RTA’s longterm ability to balance its costs and revenues could be negatively affected. Changes in fares, fare policy,
and fare structure affect ridership. Downtown and University Circle parking costs affect ridership.
Downtown and University Circle employment levels affect ridership. Ridership affects fare revenue and
cost recovery. Ridership also affects service levels, which in turn affect capital and operating costs.
Emphasis on maximizing ridership and improving fare recovery are important elements of ensuring fiscal
capacity.
84
AECOM
5.5.2
May 9, 2016
Capital Cost Risks
There remain considerable uncertainties in the capital cost estimates for the Red Line/HealthLine
Extension Study’s build alternatives because of limitations noted in the Capital Cost Methodology and
Estimates Report (AECOM 2014). This is not unusual at the conceptual level of planning. A more refined
cost estimate will be required during project development and engineering phases of the New Starts
process as the project is advanced to the 30 percent design stage if warranted. Some of the uncertainties
noted include the following:

At this planning phase, RTA has not appraised each parcel that would need to be acquired. No
property acquisition costs have been applied.

Broad unit costs have been applied for key elements rather than estimates based on specific
designs. Site-specific design will occur in the future engineering phases.

No specific allowances have been provided for utilities, environmental or cultural mitigation, or
other special site conditions. Many of these costs were accounted for in unallocated broad
contingency categories. As the design becomes more refined, these costs could be either more or
less than the allowed contingency.
The rate of inflation could increase when this project is advancing to the construction phase, and this
would raise all material and labor costs. Financial risks and interest rates could increase as capital
markets respond to changes in the financial market and global economy. Sales and use tax receipts
could fall below forecast levels if the economy slows.
5.6
Financial Analysis Conclusion
Current law requires that proposed New Starts projects being considered be supported by an acceptable
degree of local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable funding sources to
construct, maintain and operate the proposed Red Line/HealthLine extensions while maintaining and
operating the entire public transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing services.
The rating for the current capital and operating condition is based upon the average fleet age, bond
ratings, the current ratio as shown in the RTA’s most recent audited financial statement (ratio of current
assets to current liabilities), and recent service history including whether there have been significant cuts
in service. In arriving at a current condition rating, the majority of the emphasis will be placed on the fleet
age and current ratio.
As discussed, RTA does not have adequate resources to build and operate any of the Build alternatives
without adversely affecting the long-run sustainability of existing bus or rail systems. RTA does not have
the ability to generate the local share needed to qualify for FTA Capital Investment Grant New Starts
funding. In fact, RTA is currently considering another round of service cuts and fare increases to
maintain financial stability and sustain existing service offerings.
The funding gap for state-of-good-repair will continue to widen unless RTA seeks an increase in the sales
tax or the State of Ohio addresses the funding issues identified in the ODOT Statewide Transit Needs
Study.
Therefore, it is very likely the Build alternatives being considered would be rated “low” for local financial
commitment, which would affect the overall project justification rating for a Capital Investment Grant New
Starts application.
85
AECOM
May 9, 2016
6 Access and Ridership Estimates
Ridership is often used as a proxy for measuring economic and mobility benefits. This “Business Case”
assumes that people who use a new public transport service are receiving benefits and the higher the
ridership, the greater the economic benefit.
All forecasts of ridership provided in this report are the results of applying the FTA approved Simplified
Trips on Project Software (STOPS). Originally the final alternatives were to be evaluated based on the
use of the NOACA regional travel demand model, which was being refined and revalidated in parallel
with this study effort. However, the model was not available in a timely manner for use on this project.
Consequently, RTA reinstructed the consultant team to finish the analysis using STOPS.
6.1
Accessibility
In general terms, accessibility can be defined as the ease of reaching places. The accessibility objective
is concerned with increasing the ability with which people in different locations, and with differing
availability of transport, can reach different types of places, be they work, school, shopping or other
facilities. The term “accessibility” has been used in the past in several different, often overlapping ways,
including the following:




ease of access to the transport system itself in terms of the proportion of homes within a certain
distance of a bus stop or the proportion of buses which may be boarded by a wheel-chair user;
ease of access to facilities, with the emphasis being on the provision of the facilities necessary to
meet people’s needs within certain minimum travel times, distances or costs;
the value that people place on having an option available, which they might use only under
unusual circumstances (such as when the car breaks down) - ‘option value’ - or even the value
people place on simply having the option and choice of an alternative that they have no intention
of using - ‘existence value’; and
Ease of participation in activities (for personal travel) provided by the interaction of the transport
system, the geographical pattern of economic activities, and the pattern of land use as a whole.
For the purposes of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study, accessibility is measured by the number of
people living or working within ½-mile of proposed station entrances, which is part of the FTA New Starts
land-use criterion for project evaluation. The accessibility analysis also examined the ¼-mile catchment
area, which is a comfortable walking distance to any form of public transportation.
6.1.1
Alternative B
Alternative B provides a direct route to the Euclid Square Mall area where the extension terminates at the
Park-N-Ride lot near Babbitt Road. The alignment is located in freight railroad right-of-way. The
alignment is generally parallel to Euclid Avenue, which is generally about ¼-mile south of the railroad
alignment and never more than ½-mile away. The East 193rd Street Station serves Duggan Park with
easy walk access. Connectivity to RTA local buses occurs at Noble Road Station and East 222nd Street.
This alternative is consistent with City of Cleveland planning efforts to revitalize the Collinwood
neighborhood centered on St. Clair Avenue between Five Points and Nottingham Road. The station at
Dille Road supports the Nottingham Village redevelopment efforts. This alternative does support
revitalization efforts in East Cleveland and Euclid. The number of residents and jobs located within the
station catchment area are noted in Table 6-1 below.
86
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Table ‎6-1
Alternative B - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area
Criteria
¼- Mile
½-Mile
Population
7,385
24,752
Jobs
2,233
10,050
Total
9,618
34,802
Source: US Census, 2010
6.1.2
Alternative E
Alternative E provides a direct route to the Collinwood area of the City of Cleveland from the existing Red
Line/HealthLine terminus at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere. This HealthLine extension alternative
would serve Euclid Avenue up to Ivanhoe Road and directly serves Five Points, Waterloo Arts District,
Euclid Beach Metro Park, Wildwood Lakefront Metro Park, Humphrey Park, Villa Angela – St. Joseph
High School, Euclid General Hospital and would terminate at the Shoregate Shopping Center providing
connectivity to Laketran local bus service. This alternative is consistent with City of Cleveland planning
efforts to revitalize the Collinwood neighborhood centered on Five Points and the Waterloo Arts District.
This alternative is consistent with City of Euclid planning efforts to revitalize the lakefront and downtown
area. This alternative provides some revitalization opportunities in East Cleveland along Euclid Avenue
to Ivanhoe Road. The number of residents and jobs located within the station catchment area are noted
in Table 6-2 below.
Table ‎6-2
Alternative E - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area
Criteria
¼- Mile
½-Mile
Population
27,242
54,470
Jobs
4,659
8,744
Total
31,908
63,214
6.1.3
Alternative G
Alternative G provides a direct route to the Collinwood area of the City of Cleveland from the existing Red
Line/HealthLine branching at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere. This HealthLine extension alternative
would serve Euclid Avenue up to Ivanhoe Road and directly serves Five Points at East 152nd Street and
St Clair Avenue. The route would also serve, Nottingham Village, East 185th Street commercial district,
Villa Angela – St. Joseph High School, Euclid General Hospital and would terminate at Shoregate
Shopping Center providing connectivity to Laketran local bus service. This alternative is very consistent
with City of Cleveland planning efforts to revitalize the Collinwood neighborhood centered on St. Clair
Avenue between Five Points and Nottingham Road. This alternative is consistent with City of Euclid
planning efforts for Lakeshore Boulevard. This alternative provides good revitalization opportunities in
East Cleveland along Euclid Avenue. The number of residents and jobs located within the station
catchment area are noted in Table 6-3 below.
Table ‎6-3
Alternative G - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area
Criteria
¼- Mile
½-Mile
24,679
53,012
Population
4,928
10,117
Jobs
29,607
63,129
Total
87
AECOM
6.1.4
May 9, 2016
Hybrid Alternative
The Hybrid alternative is an outgrowth of public comment after the Tier 2 screening process was
completed and presented. The alternative is a phased introduction of BRT service characterized by
minimum infrastructure improvements and by alternating service frequencies on Alternatives E and G
serving both route alignments. This HealthLine extension alternative would serve Euclid Avenue up to
Ivanhoe Road and directly serves Five Points, Waterloo Arts District, Euclid Beach Metro Park, Wildwood
Lakefront Metro Park, Humphrey Park, and Upper St, Clair Avenue, Nottingham Village, East 185th
Street commercial district, Villa Angela – St. Joseph High School, and Euclid General Hospital as well as
Downtown Euclid. The combined HealthLine BRT routes would terminate at the Shoregate Shopping
Center providing connectivity to Laketran local bus service from both routes. The Hybrid alternative also
includes a short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road to serve General Electric NELA Park more
effectively with direct service to the airport. With a new Red Line terminus at Noble Road, RTA could
relocate some of the pulsed bus services from the transit center at Louis Stokes Station at Windermere
resulting in increased economies of bus service operations and inducing economic regeneration in an
area with significant redevelopment potential. The number of residents and jobs located within the station
catchment area are noted in Table 6-4 below.
Table ‎6-4
Hybrid Alternative - Residents and Jobs within Station Catchment Area
Criteria
¼- Mile
½-Mile
27,339
61,072
Population
32,172
61,907
Jobs
59,511
122,979
Total
6.2
Ridership Forecasting Methods and Results
RTA instructed the project team to use the FTA national model called Simplified Trips On Project
Software (STOPS). “Trips on project” means any portion of a person’s linked trip using any segment of
the project. This is essentially any boarding, which is commonly referred to as a rider. These terms are
synonymous and may be used interchangeably. RTA refers to riders as its customers.
The use of the NOACA local travel demand model for ridership and travel impact purposes is not an
option as it is still under development and the version currently being used is not conducive to generating
reliable transit forecasts. In the interest of the project schedule and considering the nature of the
alternatives that are being considered, the project team used the FTA STOPS model for screening and
evaluating the alternatives under consideration.
All ridership and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) values presented in this report are current-year forecasts.
FTA believes that the existing conditions provide the most easily understood, most reliable, and most
readily available information for decision-making. FTA requires all sponsors to calculate the measure
FTA requires all sponsors to calculate the measure for evaluation based on current year inputs. However,
at the discretion of the project sponsors, FTA allows them to calculate the evaluation criteria using
horizon year (either 10 years or 20 years in the future) as well. If sponsors choose to use the horizon
year option as well, FTA will give a weight of 50 percent for the current year data and a weight of 50
percent for the horizon year data. The analysis presented in this report does not use a future horizon year
evaluation.
88
AECOM
6.2.1
May 9, 2016
Forecasting Methods using the STOPS Model
STOPS is a stand-alone software package that applies a set of travel models to predict detailed transit
travel patterns for the No-build and Build alternatives, quantifies the trips-on-project measure for all
travelers and for transit dependents, and computes the change in automobile VMT based on the change
in overall transit ridership between the two alternatives. STOPS is fundamentally a conventional “fourstep” model set that considers zone-to-zone travel markets stratified by household auto-ownership,
employs a conventional mode-choice model to predict zone-to-zone transit travel based on zone-to-zone
travel characteristics of the transit and roadway networks, and then assigns the trips predicted to use the
various rail and bus-rapid-transit facilities (including the proposed project) in the transit network. STOPS
is different from the conventional 4-step model in several important ways:
1) To represent overall travel patterns, STOPS replaces the trip-generation and tripdistribution components with worker-flow tabulations from the Census Transportation
Planning Package (CTPP). STOPS factors the worker flows to represent home-based
work-trip patterns and to account for home-based non-work-trip patterns as well. STOPS
uses the transit trip attractions predicted in each zone for home-based travel to
characterize the non-home-based travel market. To enable predictions in different years,
STOPS scales the resulting trip patterns to population and employment estimates
provided by the user for any specific year.
2) To represent the transit system, STOPS replaces the coded transit network with data in
the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) developed by local transit providers to
support mobile and on-line transit trip-planning applications. To represent transit services
different from the current system described in the GTFS data (the project, adjustments
made to integrate the project into the system, services planned for future years, etc.), the
user edits the GTFS data to add new services, and modify or delete current services.
3) To represent conditions on the roadway system, STOPS relies on zone-to-zone roadway
times and distances derived from the regional travel model for both the current year and, if
applicable, the future year. STOPS does not include any representation of the roadway
network itself and does not assign predicted automobile trips to any network. STOPS
computes the change in automobile person-miles of travel caused by shifts of trips from
autos to transit by multiplying the predicted change in zone-to-zone transit trips by the
zone-to-zone roadway travel distance.
4) STOPS has been calibrated and validated against current ridership on 24 fixed-guideway
systems across the country.
The use of standardized data-sources – the CTPP worker flows and the GTFS transit descriptions –
means that STOPS has consistent information across all metro areas regarding travel patterns and
transit services. This consistency give STOPS a much better chance to discern actual travel behaviors
that would otherwise be obscured by inconsistencies in conventions, definitions, data, quality control, and
other elements of regional travel models and their maintenance.
This balance of this section describes various input files and parameters used in setting up STOPS for
this study. It also discusses STOPS estimation of existing transit markets in the region, particularly Red
Line and HealthLine travel markets.
89
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Definition of Current Year
All the results presented in this document are for the ‘current year’. The current year represents year
2012 in terms of population and employment data. The auto skims used in STOPS are from the 2010
regional model used by the Northeast Ohio Area-wide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), which is the local
metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The demographics and the highway network changes
between 2010 and 2012 in the corridor are not strong enough to have meaningful impacts on the findings
presented in this document. The modeling team obtained the ridership data such as the regional transit
boardings, regional home-to-work linked transit trips, and station level boarding data from the 2013 onboard survey and the 2012 National Transit Database (NTD). Hence, the year 2012 is referred to as the
“current year” in this document.
Transit Network
The modeling team obtained the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data for RTA and Laketran
in December 2013. For the purposes of developing current year demand, this GTFS data is used for both
the existing and no-build scenarios. The only change in the no-build scenario GTFS data was the
relocation of the East 120th Red Line Station to the new Little Italy – University Circle Station at Mayfield
Road. The modeling team manually added the project service in the build alternative by editing the
appropriate no build scenario GTFS files. Changes were made to the underlying transit network affected
by the Build alternative service definitions. All the other transit services in the build alternative remained
unchanged. The GTFS files received from Laketran had numerous errors that prevented it from being
used directly. These files were corrected so that they could be run within STOPS.
MPO Auto Skims
STOPS uses the zone-to-zone current year peak period automobile travel times from the regional travel
demand forecasting model. The modeling team obtained these skims from the 2010 year NOACA model.
The demographic and highway network changes between 2010 and 2012 are minimal to have any
meaningful impact on the forecasts presented in this document.
MPO Population and Employment Data
STOPS uses 2000 and 2012 MPO data to estimate growth factors that help convert the 2000 Census
journey-to-work travel estimates to the 2012 levels. The modeling team obtained the 2000 and 2012
MPO population and employment data from NOACA.
The original data sets from the MPO showed a huge growth in the employment for the region from 1.049
million in 2000 to 1.263 million in 2012. This is because the 2000 and 2012 datasets are based on
different sources. The 2000 data is based on CTPP 2000, which is known to under-report employment
and the 2012 data is based on an expanded QCEW (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) from
2010. The comparable CTPP 2000 - based 2012 employment total (projected from the 2000 data) is
1.071 million. To be consistent in the employment growth between 2000 and 2012, the modeling team
factored the 2012 employment data by 0.979 (=1.049/1.071) to obtain the 2000 employment data. This
results in 1.237 million total employment in 2000 (and 1.263 million in 2012).
District System
STOPS uses districts to define a logical grouping of TAZs in around the transportation corridors. District
definitions are used for two purposes: 1) Growth factoring of the 2000 CTPP trips to estimate forecast
year (2012 for this analysis) trips using MPO forecasts, and 2) summarizing and mapping STOPS model
output with a logical rationale. Figure 1 in Chapter 2 of the Ridership Methodology and Results Report
(2014) shows the district definitions used for this study.
90
AECOM
May 9, 2016
System-wide and Station Level Model Boardings
STOPS requires the user to input current year regional weekday transit boardings and weekday linked
journey-to-work and from-work transit trips. The modeling team used the total unlinked trips obtained
from the 2013 on-board survey. The corresponding numbers for RTA and Laketran are 160,533 and
2,415 respectively for a total of 162,948 system-wide weekday unlinked transit trips. The survey also had
a total of 48,890 weekday linked journey-to-work and from-work transit trips.
STOPS also requires the user to input the boardings for all fixed guideway stations in the current year
transit system. These numbers are used by STOPS for station-level calibration. Currently, RTA operates
one heavy rail line (the Red Line), three light rail lines (the Blue, Green and Waterfront lines) and one
BRT (HealthLine). The modeling team estimated the average weekday ridership on each of these lines
based on the average weekday unlinked trips reported in the 2012 NTD.
More detailed discussion of the calibration and validation of the STOPS model can be found in the Tier 2
Alternatives Ridership Forecasting Report (March 2014).
6.2.2
Ridership Forecast Results
Public transportation ridership is typically quantified in two ways. Summing transit boardings is the most
common measure. A transit boarding occurs whenever a passenger boards a public transportation
vehicle in the course of making a trip. Boardings are calculated for peak travel in the peak direction and
at stations as a means of determining system capacity at peak loading points. Station level ridership
allows designs to consider the passenger flows at these critical locations along the routes being
evaluated. Peak hour boardings are then factored up based on survey data to derive average daily
ridership.
A linked trip is the other common measure of ridership. A linked trip includes all segments of a trip that a
passenger travels from a trip origin to a trip destination. For example, a linked trip could include a walk
from home to a bus stop, a bus ride with a transfer to a rail route, and a walk to the final destination. A
single linked trip could require more than one transit boarding, especially if transfers are required. The
FTA New Starts guidance uses the linked trip as its underlying measure of system effectiveness. A
transit trip is considered as a “project linked trip” if the trip involves boarding or alighting at one of the
project stations.
The annualization factor used to be forecast annual ridership can be computed based on the observed
average daily transit ridership when compared to weekends and holidays. The STOPS model permits an
annualization factor of 300. This project used an annualization factor of 300. In other words, annual
ridership is 300 times the average daily forecast.
Table 6-5 shows the operating statistics and average weekday transit trips on the project for the
proposed Build alternatives under consideration. STOPS forecasts of linked trips on the project are very
similar for all the alternatives. The Red Line extension to Babbitt Road generates the most annual trips
with over 13,400 riders using the extension. The Red Line extension to Noble Road generates 3,900
daily trips. The STOPS model estimates that approximately 30 percent of the riders require a transfer.
91
AECOM
Table ‎6-5
Forecast Transit Trips on Project (Riders)
Alternative B
Technology
Terminus
Route Miles
Stations
May 9, 2016
HRT
HRT
Babbitt
Noble
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
BRT
BRT
BRT/HRT
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate/
Noble
6.5
1.3
10.5
10.4
14.0
7
2
23
23
31
Peak Period Frequency
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
Average Daily Riders
13,400
3,900
10,082
10,424
12,592
Annualized Riders
4,022,400
1,170,000
3,024,600
3,127,200
3,777,600
Source: AECOM, STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and revisited November 2015.
Of the HealthLine extensions, Alternative G (BRT) has the highest total daily transit trips on the project at
10,424 trips when the service is terminated Shoregate, which is 600 more daily trips than when the BRT
service was terminated at East 260th and Lakeshore Blvd. Alternative E (BRT) has the third highest
ridership at 10,000 daily trips when the BRT service is terminated at Shoregate, which is 500 more trips
than when the service is terminated at East 260th and Lakeshore Blvd.
The Hybrid alternative serves both the Waterloo and Nottingham Village communities with 15 minute
service. Service between Windermere and Five Points is every 7.5 minutes as is the service on
Lakeshore Boulevard between East 185th Street and Shoregate Shopping Center. The Hybrid alternative
generates 12,600 daily riders, of which 3,900 board Red Line trains at Shaw and Noble Road Stations.
The HealthLine BRT extension of the Hybrid operating on alternating frequencies over both alignment
options generates 8,700 daily riders. This is a reduction in BRT ridership when compared to Alternatives
E and G. This reduction in ridership for the combined routes results from reduced frequencies on the
branches of the service routes and competition from the short Red Line extension.
92
AECOM
May 9, 2016
7 Evaluation of Alternatives
The proposed alternatives for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study were evaluated based on the
project goals and objectives conceived during project scoping. Evaluation criteria were developed directly
from these project goals and objectives, which flowed from the purpose of the project. These evaluation
factors include transportation impacts, cost-effectiveness, potential for transit oriented development and
growth near stations and likely community support. The goals, objectives and evaluation criteria were
highlighted in the Purpose and Need Report and reiterated in Section 4.1 of this report. The evaluation
will center on the principle goals of the Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study:

Goal 1: Mobility – Providing more transportation choices, especially for transit dependent groups,
such as low-income and minority populations, and the aged to jobs, housing and other trip
purposes. Provide high-quality bus and rapid transit service for local trips between new
employment in the eastern suburbs and the core study area, as well as for access to key core
destinations, including University Circle and downtown Cleveland. Increase transit ridership and
mode share for all communities. Establish a more balanced transportation system which
enhances modal choices and encourages walking, bicycle and transit use..

Goal 2: Economy and Economic Development – Provide cost effective solutions and value for
money invested. Encourage transit-oriented mixed-use development along the corridor that
would support population and employment growth along the corridor. Reinvest in the local
economy by maximizing the economic impact of transportation investments as related to land use
redevelopment, infrastructure improvements, and housing. Support regional economic
development initiatives. Incorporate considerations into new development design that support
transit as a transportation option.

Goal 3: Environmental Sustainability – Delivering world-leading performance in environmental
sustainability through responsible use of resources, minimizing pollution, and preserving
Cleveland’s environment. Minimize adverse air, land and water environmental impacts of
transportation investments. Serve households at a range of income levels. Support lifestyle
choices for environmentally sustainable communities. Implement strategies for reducing
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Promote green and sustainable technologies
and solutions that enhance economic development opportunities.

Goal 4: Strengthen Study Area Image and Identity – Support private investments in transit
friendly, and pedestrian and bicycle-focused developments. Support improvements in
neighborhood connectivity through attention to safety, comfort and aesthetics in the design of
transportation infrastructure. Serve areas of and complement initiatives for affordable housing.
This section summarizes how each alternative promotes economic competitiveness and regional vitality
by examining the improvements to regional mobility, including public transportation ridership impacts and
local roadway impacts.
7.1
Goal 1 Mobility
Mobility benefits are measured by accessibility, public transport network boardings, congestion relief and
other transportation system user benefits.
7.1.1
Accessibility
Ridership was highlighted separately in Chapter 6. Accessibility is measured by the number of people
living or working within ½-mile of station entrances. The differences in ridership among the alternatives
93
AECOM
May 9, 2016
under consideration are due in large measure to the access of the system as measured by the proximity
of residents and jobs to the station locations for each alignment. Table 7-1 tabulates the number of
residents and jobs within station catchment areas, which are the ¼-mile and ½-mile radii distances
measured from the center of the station platform. The ¼-mile catchment area is the comfortable walk
distance and the ½-mile catchment area is the FTA measure for evaluating land-use in station areas.
Table 7-1
Criteria
Alignment Alternatives Catchment Area Analysis
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Babbitt
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate/
Noble
Length of alignment
6.5
8.8
8.7
15.3
Number of stations
7
23
23
31
Terminus
¼-mile Station Area Catchment
Total population
7,385
27,234
24,687
32,172
Total employment
2,233
11,852
11,009
13,888
Population + employment
9,618
39,086
35,696
46,060
Total catchment per station
1,374.0
1,699.4
1,552.0
1,485.8
Total catchment per mile
1,479.7
4,441.6
4,103.0
3,010.5
½-mile Station Area Catchment
Total population
24,752
54,480
53,038
61,907
Total employment
10,050
23,504
23,326
26,755
34,802
77,984
76,364
88,662
4,971.7
3,390.6
3,320.2
2,860.1
Total catchment per mile
5,354.2
8,861.8
8,777.5
5,794.9
Source: US Census 2010.
The total ¼-mile catchment of Alternative B is approximately 24 -30 percent of the total catchment of
Build alternatives E and G respectively. However, the total catchment per station for Alternative B is
nearly identical to Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative. Total catchment per mile for
Alternative B is approximately 33 – 50 percent less the total catchment per mile for Alternatives E, G and
the Hybrid alternative. Total ¼-mile catchment for Alternative E when compared to Alternative G is
slightly higher, with E having more people and G having more jobs within the ¼-mile catchment area.
The Hybrid catchment is significantly larger because it aggregates the population and employment with
94
AECOM
May 9, 2016
the station areas of all the HealthLine extension alternatives plus two stations for the short Red Line
extension. But on per station basis it isn’t that that different than the other alternatives.
The total ½-mile catchment of Alternative B is approximately 55 percent of the total catchment of Build
alternatives E and G. However, the total catchment per station for Alternative B is 1.8 times more than
the total catchment per station for Alternatives E and G. Total catchment per mile for Alternative B is
approximately 90 percent of the total catchment for Alternatives E and G. Total catchment for Alternative
E when compared to Alternative G is nearly identical with E having slightly more people and G having
slightly more jobs within the ½-mile catchment area. The Hybrid catchment is significantly larger
because it aggregates the population and employment with the station areas of all the HealthLine
extension alternatives plus two stations for the short Red Line extension.
7.1.2
Congestion Relief
Congestion relief is measured by the total new weekday linked transit trips (new riders) attracted to the
project by the various Build alternatives being considered. This is accomplished by comparing the total
weekday linked transit trips for the No Build alternative with total weekday linked transit trips for the
alternatives being considered. Table 7-2 shows the average weekday riders, new daily transit riders
attracted by the proposed Build alternatives and the FTA rating for congestion relief.
Table ‎7-2
Congestion Relief (New Riders)
Alternative B
Technology
Terminus
Route Miles
HRT
HRT
Babbitt
Noble
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
BRT
BRT
BRT/HRT
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate/
Noble
14.0
6.5
1.3
10.5
10.4
7
2
23
23
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
13,408
3,900
10,082
10,424
12,592
New Transit Riders
11,070
2,820
3,902
4,316
5,531
FTA Congestion relief
rating
Medium-high
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Stations
31
Source: AECOM, STOPS model runs April 2014 and March 2015.
All the alternatives would be rated medium for congestion relief except for the Red Line extension to
Babbitt Road, which would be rated medium-high.
7.1.3
Mobility Benefit
FTA evaluates mobility improvements for New Start projects as the total number of linked trips using the
proposed project, with a weight of two given to trips that would be made on the project by transit
dependent persons. Linked trips using the proposed project include all trips made on the project whether
or not the rider boards or alights on the project or elsewhere in the transit system. Trips made by transit
dependent persons are trips made by persons in households that do not own a car. The mobility
improvements measure is computed as follows:
95
AECOM
May 9, 2016
𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 ∗ 2 + 𝑁𝑜𝑛 − 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜
= 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔.
Table 7-3 shows the results of the computations for each of the Alternatives under consideration. The
results are for Alternative B (HRT) operating at a 7.5 minute peak period frequency between Tower City
and Babbitt Road or Noble Road and BRT options of Alternatives E and G terminating at Shoregate
Shopping Center. A Hybrid alternative with BRT service operating every 15-minutes alternating routes E
and G to Shoregate and a short Red Line extension to Noble Road is also considered and highlighted.
Table 7-3
New Start Mobility Improvements Criterion
Alternative B
Terminus
Babbitt
Noble
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate
/Noble
Daily trips on project
13,408
3,900
10,082
10,424
12,592
% trips from zero car households
31.8%
33%
38.4%
37.4%
33.7%
Transit dependent trips
4,270
1,287
3,871
3,902
4,244
Weighted dependent trips
8,540
2,574
7,742
7,804
8,488
Non-transit dependent trips
9,138
2,613
6,211
6,522
8,348
Weighted Total trips used for
Mobility Benefit calculation
17,678
5,187
13,953
14,326
16,836
5,303,400
1,556,100
4,185,900
4,297,800
5,050,800
Medium
Low
Medium-low
Medium-low
Annualized mobility improvements
FTA Mobility Improvement rating
Medium
Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and November 2015 New Start template calculations.
Most of the alternatives would be rated low or low-medium using FTA’s criterion definition for mobility
improvements with the threshold being 2.5 – 4.9 million trips. However, the annualized mobility
improvement for Alternative B, the Red Line extension to Euclid generates 5.3 million weighted trips
resulting in a medium rating. In addition, the Hybrid alternative with alternating BRT service on both
routes E and G plus the short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road would generate a mobility benefit
that exceeds 5 million weighted trips also resulting in a medium rating. Please note that the Red Line
extension to Noble Road and the singular BRT extensions of Alternatives E and G rate low or mediumlow. It is the Hybrid alternative combining all these services that generates the FTA medium rating.
7.1.4
Highway and Traffic Impacts
In this section, the effects of the Red Line/HealthLine extension on the street and highway transportation
system are investigated. The Build alternatives have the potential for both positive and negative impacts
on the street and highway system. On a regional level, the public transportation improvements would be
96
AECOM
May 9, 2016
expected to improve mobility by providing an alternate choice to travel by automobile. This would be
measured through changes in vehicle miles traveled by automobile. On a local level, operating BRT
through city streets will affect vehicular traffic, which may cause added delay and congestion. In addition,
the location of the stations could also have an effect on localized traffic flow and parking. Regional and
corridor impacts on congestion are measured through changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), levels of
service for freeways, street lanes, and intersections. All of these measures are for the current year of
2014 and are derived from the STOPS model. The effectiveness of the Build alternatives to alter travel
patterns on a regional basis can be evaluated in the changes in VMT.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The greater the numbers of auto vehicle trips eliminated by diverting people to public transportation, the
greater the reductions in regional VMT. Table 7-4 presents the tabulation of auto travel VMT for the
alternatives examined. The table highlights the change in auto travel VMT for the Build alternatives when
compared to the No Build alternative. All the alternatives lower regional VMT for auto travel in the region.
Alternative B lowers automobile VMT more than any of the BRT alternative and is over 44 percent higher
than the BRT options in Alternatives E and G and delivers more than twice the reduction in VMT as the
Hybrid alternative.
Table 7-4
Changes in Annual Automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled
Alternative B
Terminus
Babbitt
Noble
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate
/Noble
13,408
3,900
10,082
10,424
12,592
New transit trips
11,100
2,820
3,902
4,316
5,531
(75,240)
(15,853)
(26,453)
(29,480)
(31,094)
Changes in Daily VMT (-)
Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and November 2015 New Start template calculations.
The reduction in VMT is not rated directly as part of the FTA New Starts project evaluation criteria.
However, VMT plays a very important role in the calculations for environmental benefits, which are rated
and discussed under Goal 3 Environment.
Travel Time Savings
Economic theory predicts that time saved from travel will have value for two reasons. First, it may be
devoted instead to other activities. Second, if travel is associated with conditions such as crowding,
congestion, exposure to weather, or risk other, cutting the time it requires is considered beneficial. Thus
the value of saving time may vary, depending on both the purpose of travel and the conditions under
which it occurs.
Out of vehicle time includes the time it takes a person to walk to a rail station or bus rapid transit stop. An
increase in public transportation trips will always result in an increase in out of vehicle time reflecting the
access trip to the public transportation station and the time waiting for the public transportation vehicle.
97
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Consequently, only in-vehicle travel time is a valid comparison. However, travel time savings is not
computed by the STOPS model and cannot be determined.
7.2
Goal 2 Economy
For the purpose of valuing economy of the potential Build alternatives in the Red Line/HealthLine
Extension Study, the cost effectiveness criterion for evaluating New Starts projects in the FTA Capital
Investment Grant program was used. The FTA cost effectiveness measure for New Starts projects is the
annualized c cost per trip on the project. The incremental cost per transit trip on the project is calculated
by adding the annualized capital expenditure of the alternative plus the annual net operating and
maintenance cost to obtain the sum of annualized costs, which is then divided by annualized estimates of
riders using the project.
To determine cost effectiveness of the alternatives, estimates of probable capital expenditures (CAPEX)
and operating and maintenance costs (OPEX) and ridership forecasts are required.. Costs and
annualized costs were highlighted in Chapter 5. The number of riders using the project is determined by
calculating the number of linked transit trips on the project. This was discussed in Chapter 6.
For calculation of this measure, the capital costs of scope elements considered “enrichments” are either
reduced by an FTA defined percentage or eliminated entirely from the annualized capital cost calculation.
“Enrichments” are improvements to the transit project that are desired by the project sponsor but are nonintegral to the planned functioning of the project, and whose benefits are not captured in whole by the
criteria. “Enrichments” are allowable expenses for reimbursement under a future New Starts construction
grant. “Enrichments” are based on costs associated with certain Activity Line Items (ALIs) in the FTA
Standard Cost Category (SCC) worksheets. At the conceptual level of engineering and cost estimating,
“enrichments” were identified as generalized costs and included in the capital cost estimate as such.
The annualized costs are divided by the annualized number of trips on the project for each alternative
under consideration. The formula is outlined below:
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 + 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠
= 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 = 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡
Table 7-5 shows the results of these calculations for the alternatives being considered and presents the
cost per trip for each alternative and the FTA rating.
Table 7-5
Cost Effectiveness Index – Cost per Trip on Project
Alternative B
Alternative G
Hybrid
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate
Terminus
Babbitt
Annualized CAPEX ($ 000)
$ 25,890
$ 5,091
$ 13,829
$ 13,734
$ 16,785
Annualized Net OPEX ($ 000)
$ 11,900
$ 2,300
$ 6,100
$ 7,000
$ 9,400
Total Annualized Costs ($ 000)
$ 37,790
$ 7,391
$ 19,929
$ 20,734
$ 26,185
4,022
1,170
3,024
3,127
3,777
Annualized Trips on Project (000)
Noble
Alternative E
98
AECOM
Alternative B
Cost per Trip on Project
FTA cost effectiveness rating
May 9, 2016
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
$9.41
$5.87
$6.58
6.62
$6.90
Medium
Medium-high
Medium
Medium
Medium
Source: AECOM calculations.
The FTA threshold for a medium rating for cost effectiveness requires a cost per trip between $6.00 and
$9.9922. All the BRT options satisfy this criterion in terms of cost per trip. The Red Line Alternative B
extension to Babbitt Road has the highest cost per rider but it would also be rated medium falling below
the $9.99 threshold. The Red Line Noble Road extension would be rated medium/high falling below the
$6.00 threshold at $5.87 per rider. The Hybrid alternative would also be rated medium. All of the Build
alternatives are cost effective.
7.3
Goal 3 Environment
During the Tier 1 screening of the alternatives the environmental review consisted of fatal flaws or
showstoppers analysis and the findings are contained in the Environmental Red Flag Analysis report
dated December 2013. This high level review consisted of a mapping exercise using geographic
information systems (GIS) and a strategic review of potential environmental effects. There were no fatal
flaws in the alternatives that advanced to the Tier 2 screening. It was determined that environmental
impacts can either be avoided, minimized or can be mitigated with suitable strategies.
The FTA New Starts project justification criteria for evaluating environmental benefits examine the direct
and indirect benefits to health, safety, energy consumption and air quality. The environmental benefits
are evaluated based on the monetized value of the benefits resulting from changes in air quality and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy use, and safety divided by the annualized capital and
operating cost of the alternatives being considered. This is a measure of the relative benefit/cost ratio of
the alternatives. This analysis is detailed in Chapter 9 Project Feasibility Determination.
The balance of the analysis is qualitative in nature and is discussed in the following subsections.
7.3.1
Decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
All the alternatives will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled on highways compared to the No
Build base case. As was shown in Table 7-4, Alternative B, the Red Line extension to Babbitt Road,
lowers VMT more than any of the other alternatives being considered. Tthe BRT options of build
Alternatives E and G are not be as beneficial as the proposed rail extension in decreasing VMT because
the Red Line extension alternatives attract substantially more new riders by diverting many more auto
trips to rail. The BRT options do not attract as many new transit riders and seem to be diverting local bus
riders to the faster BRT option with more direct service to University Circle. The Hybrid alternative
reduces VMT more than the BRT options of Alternative E and G and is the second best alternative at
reducing VMT.
22
Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Guidance FY2015; Washington, DC; August 2013.
99
AECOM
7.3.2
May 9, 2016
Potential for Reductions in Carbon Footprint
The BRT options for Alternatives E and G will require the acquisition of 20 BRT vehicles for peak service,
including spares. The proposed bus fleet will be modern, regularly maintained and could use more
environmentally friendly fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG). Moreover, the articulated buses
could be electric hybrid technology reducing the carbon footprint of the BRT service. During operation,
the BRT will be a minor part of the overall proposed bus fleet of approximately 400 buses in Cleveland. It
is not envisaged that the proposed BRT will significantly increase environmental impacts during
operation.
Alternative B consists of electrically powered rail transit vehicles drawing energy from the power grid. As
the US develops carbon neutral power plants using wind, solar and nuclear power generating facilities
the Rail-Build alternatives will be more beneficial in lowering the carbon footprint than the BRT
Alternative, which for the foreseeable future will still rely on fossil fuel to power the diesel/electric or
CNG/electric hybrid propulsion system. The Hybrid alternative is a combination of the BRT and rail
options and would have similar beneficial impacts.
7.3.3
Air Quality
All the Build alternatives will reduce the number of cars on the highways. However the BRT options for
Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as the proposed Alternative B Red Line extension in
improving local air quality because the rail alternatives attract substantially more new transit riders by
diverting many more auto trips to rail. The BRT diverts local bus riders to BRT bus riders. The Hybrid
alternative would be the second best alternative because it combines the benefits of both Alternatives E
and G and a shore extension of the Red Line, which is an electrically propelled HRT.
The proposed service improvements will marginally improve local air quality and will not likely assist in
the substantial reduction of GHGs at the regional level.
However, when the BRT options are compared to the rail alternatives, the rail alternatives will provide
more air quality benefits because the rail alternatives attract substantially more new transit riders by
diverting many more auto trips to rail. Alternative B (HRT) reduces auto VMT more than any of the
alternatives being considered and also attracts the most new riders to the RTA system.
7.3.4
Decrease Use of Single Occupant Vehicles
All the alternatives will reduce the number of and use of single occupant vehicles (SOV) on the highways.
However, the BRT options of Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as the proposed Rail-Build
alternatives in decreasing the number of SOV because the Red Line extension alternatives attract
substantially more new transit riders by diverting many more auto trips to rail. Alternative B (HRT) diverts
the highest number of automobile trips than any of the alternatives being considered by attracting the
most new riders to the RTA system. The Hybrid alternative would be the second best alternative because
it combines the benefits of both Alternatives E and G and a shore extension of the Red Line, which is an
electrically propelled HRT.
7.3.5
Decrease Energy Consumption
All the alternatives will reduce the number of cars on the highways compared to the base case. However
the BRT options of Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as Alternative B in decreasing energy
consumption because the rail alternatives attract substantially more new riders by diverting many auto
trips to rail. Alternative B (HRT) diverts the highest number of automobile trips than any of the
alternatives being considered by attracting the most new riders to the RTA system and results in the
100
AECOM
May 9, 2016
highest reduction of VMT than any of the alternatives being considered. The BRT options of build
Alternatives E and G attract fewer new riders and simply divert current local bus riders to trips on the
BRT extension project. The Hybrid alternative would be the second best alternative because it combines
the benefits of both Alternatives E and G and a shore extension of the Red Line, which is an electrically
propelled HRT.
7.3.6
Natural Resources
The proposed build alternatives all have a positive impact when assessed against the baseline
conditions. Because of the general urbanized setting of the study area, there would be minimal impact to
the ecosystem. Construction activities and the location of tracks may disrupt the habitat of squirrels,
rabbits and other animals that are adaptive to changes in the natural environment. Construction of bridge
piers near the Euclid Creek for the Alternative B alignment may disturb the aquatic habitat of some
aquatic species. However, the disturbance would occur during construction and would be temporary.
There would be no habitat disturbance results from Alternatives E and G. The Hybrid alternative would
combine the impacts of Alternatives E and G and included those impacts associated with the short Red
Line extension to Noble Road.
7.4
Goal 4 Livability
The livability goal was designed to foster community development and cohesion through investment in
transportation infrastructure consistent with the needs and aspirations of the residents. Several
objectives were identified for this goal:

Provide linkages among neighborhoods.

Minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods and communities.

Improve health and safety for workforce, passengers and communities

Integrate transportation and land use by locating stations where there is greatest potential for
transit oriented developments (TOD).

Integrate with local development plans

Enhance urban design features and complete streets program
Therefore, the evaluation of the ability of the alternatives to promote efficient land use patterns focuses
on the ability of the alternatives to support development objectives, support local land use policies,
provide access to major activity centers and support regional land use and related development policies.
The evaluation also included environmental screening to examine whether any of the alternatives under
consideration had any adverse impacts that would affect community acceptance. Community acceptance
of the alternatives is highly dependent on whether adverse environmental impacts on neighborhoods can
be avoided, minimized or mitigated appropriately.
Adverse impacts on neighborhoods can occur where the alternatives disrupt the community by
introducing physical barriers within or between neighborhoods, creating visual impacts by building new
facilities (i.e. overhead wires), creating increased local traffic in station areas and by increasing noise and
vibration. Positive impacts can result from improved accessibility and by reducing traffic caused by
motorists from adjacent communities driving through neighborhoods to avoid traffic congestion on major
highway routes.
101
AECOM
May 9, 2016
The alternatives utilized existing transportation corridors to minimize disruption to the neighborhoods.
Alternative B is located within railroad rights-of-way which have existed within the community since 1855.
All of the alternatives examined provide improved linkages among and between Collinwood, East
Cleveland and Euclid and University Circle and Midtown.
The alternatives have minimal adverse impacts on neighborhoods and could engender community
acceptance.
7.4.1
Number‎of‎Streets‎Closed‎or‎Improved‎with‎“Complete‎Streets”‎Treatments
No streets are closed by the any of project alternatives being evaluated. All segments of city streets
used for BRT technology options in Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative include “complete
streets” treatments. Many segments of Alternatives E and G include “full BRT” dedicated median
transitway and landscaping similar to the existing HealthLine urban design in Midtown and Downtown
Cleveland. The segment lengths of this full BRT treatment vary by alternative but range between 3.3
miles and 6.7 miles.
7.4.2
Number of Cultural Resources Impacted
The following existing inventories were consulted to identify cultural resources of local, state, or national
historic significance:

Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s (OHPO) Online Mapping System and related inventory and
administrative files (includes historic properties listed in and determined eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places and cemeteries)

Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Historic Bridge List and Buckeye Assets (bridges
and structures listed in and determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places)

Cleveland Landmarks Commission (locally designated landmarks)

Euclid Landmarks Commission (locally designated landmarks).
Alternative B contains one property located at 1743-49 Eddy Road determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
Alternative E contains four properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two properties
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, one columbarium/cemetery whose
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known, and six Cleveland Landmarks whose
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known.
Alternative G contains five properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two properties
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, one columbarium/cemetery whose
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known, and three Cleveland Landmarks whose
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places is not known.
The Hybrid alternative would be the net combination of the impacts associated with Alternatives E and G
and the short extension segment of the Red Line to Noble Road.
102
AECOM
7.4.3
May 9, 2016
Number of Households Affected within 25 yards of the Alignment
The potential disturbance to community cohesion and well-being was assessed for each alternative. It
included an assessment of the impact of each alternative on individual properties located within 25 yards
of the alignments. The impacts of the alternatives are minimal. The most serious impact is noise and
vibration. Table 7-6 shows how many households are located adjacent to the alternative alignments and
are within 25 yards of the alignment.
Table 7-6
Alignment Alternatives Catchment Area Analysis
Criteria
Alt B
Alt E
Alt G
Hybrid
Length of alignment
6.5
10.5
10.4
15.3
Number of stations
7
23
23
31
12,410
23,163
21,937
26,465
89
1,068
1,107
1,508
0.72%
4.61%
5.05%
5.70%
Number of HH ½-mile catchment area
Number of HH within 25 yards of
% HH within 25 yards of alignment
Source: US Census 2010.
Alternative B is in a freight railroad right-of-way and has less than 1 percent of total residential
households located within 25 yards of the alignment. The noise from the heavy rail rapid transit trains is
masked by the freight railroad trains.
Alternative E has less than 5 percent, Alternative G has a little over 5 percent and the Hybrid alternative
has 5.7 percent of households living within 25 yards of the alignments. Noise generated by bus rapid
transit vehicles in Alternatives E and G is not a factor because of the existing high ambient noise levels of
the supporting city streets. The bus rapid transit option simply adds a few more buses to already noisy
urban streets.
The Hybrid alternative combines the BRT options and serves more residential neighborhoods when
combined than when operating as singular alternatives. With lower service frequencies on the branch
routes (every 15 minutes) than on the shared routes (7.5 minutes), the noise levels of the added bus
frequencies are completely masked by the background noise from local traffic.
It is expected that the slight or moderately adverse impacts identified for all the alternatives could be
mitigated with appropriate design treatments and other environmental mitigation strategies.
7.4.4
Impacts on Public Parklands and Open Spaces
Section 4(f) refers to the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 which set the requirement for
the consideration of publicly owned parks and recreation areas, publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, and public and privately owned historic sites. Section 4(f) applies when four conditions are met;
project requires DOT funding and/or approval; project is transportation related; project requires the use of
land from a Section 4(f) protected property; and no regulatory applicability rules or exceptions apply.
103
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Alternative B includes approximately eight mapped Section 4(f) resources: two playgrounds, one public
pool, four parks, and one NRHP-DOE property.
Alternative E includes approximately 22 mapped Section 4(f) resources: one public school, one
playground, two trails/bikeways, one state park, six parks, six NRHP Listed or NRHP-DOE properties,
and six Cleveland Landmarks.
Alternative G includes approximately 20 mapped Section 4(f) resources: four public schools, one
playground, two trails/bikeways, three parks, seven NRHP Listed or NRHP-DOE properties, and three
Cleveland Landmarks.
The Hybrid alternative combines the net impacts of Alternatives E and G and partial impacts of
Alternative B. These impacts are less the aggregate total of all the alternatives.
7.4.5
Transit Dependency and Number of Zero Car Households
A key factor in evaluating service equity is to examine the extent to which any of the build alternatives
offer new and improved services to minorities, senior citizens, low-income persons and transit-dependent
people.
As shown in Section 7.1.3 the FTA evaluates mobility improvements for New Starts projects as the total
number of linked trips using the proposed project, with a weight of two given to trips that would be made
on the project by transit dependent persons. The FTA national STOPS model calculates trips made by
transit dependent persons as trips made by persons in households that do not own a car.
Therefore, the number of zero car households located within a ½-mile of system boarding points is an
important measure of mobility improvements to low income households (HH). Table 7-7 presents the
total number of households, the number of zero car households located and the percent of zero car
households to total households within a ½-mile of stations for the alignment alternatives under study.
Table 7-7
Transit Dependency in Study Area
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Length of alignment
6.5
10.5
10.4
15.3
Number of stations
7
23
23
31
Criteria
Study Area Transit Dependency
Total HH in study area
45,889
45,889
45,889
45,889
Total zero car HH in study area
5,793
5,793
5,793
5,793
% HH with zero cars in study area
12.6%
12.6%
12.6%
12.6%
½-mile Station Area Transit Dependency
Number of HH ½-mile station area
Zero car HH ½-mile station area
% HH with zero cars in station area
12,410
23,163
21,937
26,465
525
4,762
3,745
5,256
4.23%
20.6%
17.0%
19.9%
10,424
12,592
Transit Dependent Ridership
Average daily riders
13,408
10,082
104
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Daily transit dependent riders
4,270
3,871
3,902
4,244
% daily riders transit dependent
31.4%
38.4%
37.4%
33.7%
Criteria
Source: US Census 2010, AECOM calculations and ridership forecasts.
What Table 7-7 clearly shows is the study area has a very high percentage of transit dependent
households. Over 30 percent of all transit riders using the Red Line extension of Alternative B are transit
dependent. The highest incidence of transit dependent use is Alternative E, which has 38.4 percent of its
riders coming from zero car households. Alternative G has 37.4 percent of its riders being generated from
zero car households. The Hybrid alternative has the second lowest ridership coming from transit
dependent households.
7.5
Summary of Evaluation Analysis
Key differences exist when comparing the Red Line and HealthLine extension alternatives. The Red Line
extension (Alternative B) attracts more riders, has more mobility benefits, diverts more auto trips and
generally has higher levels of environmental benefit than the HealthLine extension alternatives
(Alternatives E and G) and the Hybrid alternative. But the Red Line extension costs $916 million when
compared to the less costly and more cost effective HealthLine alternatives costing approximately $430
million on average or the Hybrid alternative costing approximately $599 million.
7.5.1
Goal 1: Mobility

Accessibility: Accessibility is measured by the number of people living or working within ½mile of station entrances, which is the FTA New Starts criterion for project evaluation. The
total ½-mile catchment of Alternative B is approximately 55 percent of the total catchment of
Build alternatives E and G. However, the total catchment per station for Alternative B is 1.8
times more than the total catchment per station for Alternatives E and G. Total catchment per
mile for Alternative B is approximately 90 percent of the total catchment for Alternatives E and
G. Total catchment for Alternative E when compared to Alternative G is nearly identical with E
having slightly more people and G having slightly more jobs within the ½-mile catchment area.
The Hybrid alternative simply has higher accessibility because of its length and higher station
area catchment. However, population density within the ½-mile station area catchment is
highest for the Red Line extension, Alternative B and lowest for the Hybrid alternative.

Ridership. Alternative B (HRT) and the Hybrid alternative have the highest total daily transit
trips on the project at 13,408 and 12,592 respectively. Alternative G (BRT) has the second
highest ridership at 10,424 trips and Alternative E (BRT) attracts about 400 fewer daily riders
than Alternative G. .

Mobility Benefit: HealthLine extension Alternatives E and G and Red Line extension
Alternative B to Noble Road would be rated low-medium using FTA’s criterion definition for
mobility improvements with the threshold being 2.5 – 4.9 million annual trips. Alternative B
Red Line extension to Babbitt Road generates 5.3 million annual trips resulting in a medium
rating. The Hybrid alternative would also generate a medium rating.

Highway and Traffic Impacts. All the alternatives lower regional VMT for auto travel in the
region. However, the Alternative B Red Line extension to Babbitt Road lowers VMT more than
44 percent greater than the BRT options in Alternatives E and G. Over 75,200 daily VMT are
removed from local roads in the study area when compared to 26,453 and 29,480 VMT
reductions for HealthLine extensions E and G respectively. The Hybrid alternative reduces
31,094 VMT daily.
105
AECOM
7.5.2
7.5.3
May 9, 2016
Goal 2 Economy

Capital Expenditure (CAPEX). The most expensive alternative is Alternative B at over $916
million. The Red Line extension to Noble Road costs $176.2 million. The least expensive
BRT alternative is Alternative G at $427 million. However, Alternative G does not meet the
FTA requirement of more than 50 percent of the project length being in a dedicated
transitway. Alternative E satisfies this requirement. Alternative E costs $431 million. The
Hybrid BRT alternative costs $599.5 million and satisfies the 50 percent requirement with the
short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road with 56.8 percent of its length in dedicated
transit ways.

Operating and Maintenance Expenditures (OPEX). Alternative E has the lowest cost to
operate because many of the existing local services operating along Lake Shore Boulevard
are re-routed or eliminated resulting in considerable cost savings. The net increase in OPEX
is a little over $6 million annually for Alternative E. The underlying bus service plan under
Alternative G does not change from the existing service patterns resulting in almost no
operating cost savings. The net increase in OPEX is $7.1 million. Alternative B adds $11.9
million to the annual cost of operating the Red Line when operating 7.5-minute headways
during peak periods. The Hybrid alternative adds $9.4 million to OPEX annually.

Cost-Effectiveness. Alternative B Red Line extension to Noble Road is the most cost
effective alternative being examined. It is 1.25 mile extension with two stations – one at Shaw
and the terminus at Noble Road. This extension generates 3,900 trips per day and would cost
$5.87 per trip. This would qualify for a medium/high rating. Alternative E (BRT) is the most
cost effective of all the alternatives considered at $6.58 annualized cost per trip for the
Shoregate terminus. Alternative G has $6.62 cost per trip but does not meet the FTA
requirement of more than 50 percent of the project length being in a dedicated transitway.
Alternative B (Babbitt Road) has a cost per trip of $9.41. The Hybrid alternative has a cost per
trip of $6.90. Alternatives B (Babbitt Road), E, G and the Hybrid alternative would all qualify
for a medium rating for cost effectiveness.
Goal 3 Environment

Energy Consumption and Vehicle Kilometers Traveled. All the alternatives will reduce the
number of vehicle miles traveled on highways compared to the No Build base case. However,
the BRT options of build Alternatives E and G will not be as beneficial as the proposed Red
Line extension in decreasing VMT because the rail extension attracts substantially more new
riders by diverting many more auto trips to rail than the BRT options. The BRT options seem
to convert local bus riders to BRT bus riders. Alternative B reduces VMT more than the BRT
options of Alternative E and G and is the best alternative at reducing VMT. The Hybrid
alternative generates less than half the VMT savings as the Red Line extension Alternative B.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. All the Build alternatives will reduce the
number of cars on the highways. However the BRT options for Alternatives E and G and the
Hybrid alternative will not be as beneficial as the proposed Alternative B Red Line extension in
improving local air quality because the rail alternative attracts substantially more new riders by
diverting many more auto trips to rail than does the BRT options.

Congestion Mitigation. All the alternatives will reduce the number of and use of single
occupant vehicles (SOV) on the highways. However, the BRT options of Alternatives E and G
will not be as beneficial as the proposed Red Line extension in decreasing the number of SOV
because rail extension alternative attracts substantially more new transit riders by diverting
106
AECOM
May 9, 2016
many more auto trips to rail than the BRT alternatives. Alternative B (HRT) diverts the highest
number of automobile trips than any of the alternatives being considered by attracting the
most new riders to the RTA system.
7.5.4
Goal 4 Livability

Number of Streets Closed. No streets are closed by the project alternatives being evaluated. All
segments of city streets used for the BRT technology option in Alternatives E and G and the
Hybrid alternative include “complete streets” treatments. Many segments of Alternatives E and G
include “full BRT” dedicated median transitway and landscaping similar to the existing HealthLine
urban design in Midtown and Downtown Cleveland. The segment lengths of this full BRT
treatment vary by alternative and terminus but range between 3.3 miles and 6.7 miles.

Number of Cultural Resources Impacted. Alternative B impacts one historic property
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Alternative E contains four
properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two properties determined eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places, one columbarium/cemetery whose eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places is not known, and six Cleveland Landmarks whose eligibility
for the National Register of Historic Places is not known. Alternative G contains five properties
listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two properties determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, one columbarium/cemetery whose eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places is not known, and three Cleveland Landmarks whose eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places is not known. The Hybrid is a combination of the three other
alternatives.

Number of Households Affected within 25 yards of Alignment. Alternative B is in a freight
railroad right-of-way and has less than 1 percent of total residential households located within 25
yards of the alignment. Alternatives E and G both have approximately 5 percent of residential
households located within 25 yards of BRT alignments. The Hybrid alternative has slightly more
than 5 percent of the households within 25 yards of the alignment because of the longer length of
the project definition.

Impacts on Parklands and Open Spaces. Alternative B includes approximately eight mapped
Section 4(f) resources: two playgrounds, one public pool, four parks, and one NRHP-DOE
property. Alternative E includes approximately 22 mapped Section 4(f) resources: one public
school, one playground, two trails/bikeways, one state park, six parks, six NRHP Listed or NRHPDOE properties, and six Cleveland Landmarks. Alternative G includes approximately 20 mapped
Section 4(f) resources: four public schools, one playground, two trails/bikeways, three parks,
seven NRHP Listed or NRHP-DOE properties, and three Cleveland Landmarks. The Hybrid
alternative is a combination of all three other Build alternatives.

Number of Zero Car Households. A key factor in evaluating service equity is to examine the
extent to which any of the build alternatives offer new and improved services to minorities, senior
citizens, low-income persons and transit-dependent people. Therefore, the number of zero car
households located within a ½-mile of system boarding points is an important measure of mobility
improvements to low income households. Alternative E has over 4,760 zero car households
within ½ mile of station entrances, Alternative G has over 3,745 and Alternative B has 525 zero
car households. The Hybrid alternative has the most zero car households within ½-mile of the
stations because of its longer length and more stations.
107
AECOM
May 9, 2016

Potential for Transit-Oriented Development. The HealthLine extension alternatives have the
greatest potential for TOD because of the length and number of stations. Alternative B could
have significant TOD at Noble Road Station and the Babbitt Road terminus. The Hybrid
alternative is more likely to have the greatest potential for redevelopment because of the many
routes and neighborhoods it traverses.

Integration with Public Transport. All Build alternatives are integrated with the existing and
committed future bus system.
7.5.5
Other Considerations
Rail transit tends to provide better service quality, which attracts more riders, particularly discretionary
users as shown in the ridership forecasts. Bus based transport systems are best when serving less
dense areas with more dispersed destinations and lower demand.
As has been shown in the comparative evaluation of the alternatives, Alternative B contributes more to
relieve congestion than the BRT options but costs significantly more to design, build, operate and
maintain than improving RTA bus services in the study area. The rail extension seems to be favored by
many of the stakeholders based on future vision, aspirations and city building.
Both bus and rail systems become more efficient and effective at achieving planning objectives if
implemented with supportive policies that improve service quality, create supportive land use patterns
and encourage ridership.
Table 7-8
Criteria
Summary Matrix
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Goal 1 Mobility
Length of alignment
6.5
10.5
10.4
15.3
Number of stations
7
23
23
31
Population ½ mile station area
24,752
54,480
53,038
61,907
Total employment ½-mile
10,050
23,504
23,326
26,755
34,802
77,984
76,364
88,662
4,971.7
3,390.6
3,320.2
2,860.1
Total catchment per line mile
5,354.2
8,861.8
8,777.5
5,794.9
Total zero car HH in study area
5,790
5,790
5,790
5,790
% HH with zero cars in study area
12.6%
12.6%
12.6%
12.6%
12,410
23,163
21,937
26,465
Zero car HH ½-mile station area
525
4,762
3,745
5,256
% HH with zero cars in station area
4.23%
20.6%
17.0%
19.9%
108
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Criteria
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
13,408
10,082
10,424
12,592
New Transit Riders
11,070
3,902
4,316
5,531
4,270
3,871
3,902
4,244
% daily riders transit dependent
31.4%
38.4%
37.4%
33.7%
Weighted transit dependent trips
8,540
7,742
7,804
8,488
9,138
6,211
6,522
8,348
17,678
13,953
14,326
16,836
5,303,400
4,185,900
4,297,800
5,050,800
Goal 2 Economy
$ 25,890
$ 13,829
$ 13,734
$ 16,785
$ 11,900
$ 6,100
$ 7,000
$ 9,400
$ 37,790
$ 19,929
$ 20,734
$ 26,185
Annualized Trips on Project (riders)
4,022,400
3,024,600
3,127,200
3,777,600
$9.37
$6.59
6.63
$6.90
FTA cost effectiveness rating
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Goal 3 Environment
Changes in Daily VMT (-)
(75,240)
(26,453)
(29,480)
(31,094)
Qualitative assessment




Goal 4 Livability
Number of streets closed
0
0
0
0
12,410
23,163
21,937
26,465
Number of HH within 25 yards of
89
1,068
1,107
1,508
% HH within 25 yards of alignment
0.72%
4.61%
5.05%
5.70%
Qualitative assessment




109
AECOM
May 9, 2016
8 Agency Coordination and Public Outreach
This section describes the public and agency coordination efforts for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension
Study. The RTA has a continuing commitment to a collaborative planning process by respecting
applicable local practices and ensuring compliance with federal planning process requirements.
Throughout all phases of this study process, the RTA illustrated this dedication by continuing to ensure
this process remained broad, diverse, inclusive, engaging and transparent. This process was designed
to strengthen the foundation for project decisions.
RTA implemented a tailored and innovative Community Involvement and Engagement Plan designed to:

Keep public agencies, stakeholders and the general public informed while soliciting their feedback
on the project at each phase.

Define responsibilities, details, and schedules for each service and deliverable.

Quantify the outreach effort relative to performance goals. Special efforts were made to engage
traditionally underrepresented populations throughout this outreach process.
Public and agency involvement is critical to the success of any project that could affect the community.
The planning for the Red Line/HealthLine extension has involved extensive coordination and consultation
with the affected community and agencies. The affected community includes not only the residents in the
study area but also individuals, businesses, groups, and others interested in study outcomes. The
planning process was structured and implemented to ensure that all relevant factors were considered,
including the affected community’s concerns and issues related to the project’s purpose and need,
engineering solutions, social impacts, environmental impacts, economic effects, financing, and other
items of concern to the community.
The goal of the public and agency involvement program and process was to have an informed local
community and government leadership to help make decisions regarding the selection and
implementation of an LPA. The public and agency involvement process is open to ensure that interested
parties have an opportunity to be involved in planning. Stakeholders had an opportunity to direct, review,
and comment during the entire course of the AA study.
The study team encouraged the general public, especially those who frequently use and rely on public
transportation, to attend, participate and provide comments at each public meeting and throughout the
process via traditional feedback mechanisms and social media. Public comments informed transit
alternatives, which influenced interim and ultimate recommendations.
A series of four public open house events were planned. Each of the community open houses were held
in each of the three municipalities (Cleveland, East Cleveland and Euclid) during the early evening of a
weekday. Public meetings accessibility and notice requirements were in compliance with typical local
practices and ADA requirements. Project presentations, maps, graphics and information boards were
provided, and throughout each round of meetings, there was substantial public participation in the
question and answer sessions after the presentations.
Since many potential participants were unable to attend the in-person events due to other commitments,
mobility limitations or other factors, all documents presented at the public meetings have been made
available on-line on a project website now hosted by RTA. The public meetings were broadly publicized
via conventional and social media in the weeks leading up to and during the week in which the in-person
events were held.
110
AECOM
8.1
May 9, 2016
Technical Steering and Stakeholder Involvement Committees
As a part of public involvement, the RTA study team worked with local businesses, community members
and organizations, and municipal and residential advocates to develop two committees representing the
diverse and inclusive interests of all neighborhoods within the study area. Steering and Stakeholder
Committees were developed to provide the study team with valuable insights and feedback throughout
the study process, as well as serve as a conduit for information between the study team and general
public. Both technical steering and stakeholder involvement committees (advisory groups) were deeply
involved in the screening of the alternatives under review in this report. The participation of these groups
has been essential to completion of the work of the technical consultants leading to this report.
Before each round of public meetings, the study team held a meeting each with the Steering and
Stakeholder Committees to update them on the study progress, and provide them an opportunity to
review and provide feedback on the proposed presentation for the upcoming public meetings. The study
team received valuable recommendations from each Committee on how to make the presentation more
engaging, easier to understand, and more visual, which was in turn well received by the general public.
Social media played a significant role in informing the public of upcoming meetings as well as keep them
informed of study updates and important information related to the project. Throughout the course of the
study we saw a consistent increase in social media followers. The team utilized several social media
platforms to inform the public, including:







8.1.1
Website: http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/
Online feedback form: http://www.redlinehealthlinestudy.com/contact-us
Online survey: http://clevel.he3039.vps.webenabled.net/tell-us
Hotline phone number: 216-282-6113
Twitter: https://twitter.com/RedlineHLStudy
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RedlineHealthlineStudy
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=redline+healthline+extension+study
Technical Steering Committee
The Steering Committee comprised individuals from the economic development, planning, and
community development departments from each city in the study area. The Technical Steering
Committee provided a means for the project team to identify, discuss, and address important issues
related to the project from the viewpoint of the affected cities so decisions could be made that reflected
the development goals of those cities. The general public was not invited to attend the Technical Steering
Committee meetings. This permitted the public agency stakeholders to comment freely and openly.
The Technical Steering Committee met eight times during the project. The dates are:







May 23, 2013 – 9:00 am
May 30, 2013 – 9:00 am
November 26, 2013 – 1:00 pm
January 17, 2014 – 2:00 pm
May 6, 2014 – 9:30 am
September 15, 2014 – 3:00 pm
February 3, 2016 – 12:00 noon
111
AECOM
8.1.2
May 9, 2016
Stakeholder Involvement Committee
The Stakeholder Involvement Committee was selected after a series of small meetings with the Steering
Committee as well as community leaders, who made recommendations to the study team on the
organizations and individuals with whom they should engage. Stakeholder Involvement Committee
provided another means for the project team to gather public comment and to identify, discuss, and
address important issues related to the project so decisions could be made that reflected the aspirations
of those who live, work, and travel in the study area. The general public was welcome to attend the
Stakeholder Involvement Committee meetings as observers. But the meetings were not broadly
advertised. The purposes of the Stakeholder Involvement Committee are to:

Provide a focused way for the community to share concerns and issues with project team
members.

Provide a way for the project team to share information with the stakeholder members, who then
educated others in their communities and neighborhood organizations.
The Stakeholder Involvement Committee met five times during the project. The dates are:





8.2
June 20, 2013 – noon
September 6, 2013 – 8:30 am
December 3, 2013 – 12:00 noon
May 8, 2014 – 11:30 am
February 3, 2016 12:00 noon
Community Outreach
In addition to agency and stakeholder coordination, public outreach was important to developing sound
recommendations and selecting transit alternatives that are supported by the community. RTA’s
commitment at the beginning of this study process was to proactively involve the public so decisions
could be made that reflect the aspirations and concerns of those who live, work, and travel in the study
area. Throughout this process, the project team has kept the public informed, incorporated their
feedback, and helped identify issues and develop solutions to improve transportation in the corridor. The
community outreach has reached out to the public and given the public an opportunity to provide input
into and collaborate on the processes of defining the project purpose and identifying the alternatives.
The initial public meeting encouraged the public to develop possible solutions and identify issues
regarding a proposed project. This project scoping process also helped determine the needs, objectives,
resources, constraints, potential alternatives, and any additional requirements for screening criteria used
to screen the preliminary alternatives.
RTA relied on public comments made during the study period. Comments regarding alignment
alternatives were most prevalent, followed by comments about environmental issues and statements of
preference. Many comments were received regarding ridership/travel demand. There were also many
comments concerning safety, property values, and cost. The following sections describe the public
meetings and summarize the comments for each of the public meetings.
8.2.1
Public Meetings – Round 1
The first round of public meetings occurred the week of September 9, 2013, as follows:

September 9 – City of East Cleveland – East Cleveland Public Library
112
AECOM


May 9, 2016
September 10 – City of Cleveland – Western Reserve Historical Society
September 12 – City of Euclid – Moore Counseling and Mediation Services, Inc. (MCMS)
The purpose of this first series of public meetings was to introduce the study, invite people to discuss
their transportation and mobility issues and suggest improvements. Below is a summary of each
meeting, including number of attendees, number of comment cards and a summary of attendee
concerns.
Table ‎8-1
City
Public Meeting Round 1 – Summary of Issues and Comments
Summary of issues Meeting 1
 Reach out to faith/church community and present study
 Bus and/or rail expansion is welcome in the city
 What exists already needs repair
 If the service is going to be expanded, the buses running now
need to provide better basic service and amenities to users.
 The buses that service the east side of Cleveland and into E.
Cleveland need to be better serviced. The seats need to be
washed, the floors kept clean and sanitary, the air-conditioning
system in working order. There was a sense that the buses
servicing these areas were not as "up to par" as those servicing
the west side of Cleveland.
 Ideas about expanding rapid are good, such as down Lake Shore
City of East Cleveland
to downtown Euclid

Would like to see DMU option for Red Line to Lake County
Number of attendees: 21
 Need street level service
Number of comment cards: 3
 Extending to Lake County promotes urban sprawl
 Waterloo needs better connection terminals to encourage
development; it’s one of the only places I have to drive.
 West 25th Street needs a larger bus because it’s always packed.
 Greater wheelchair access is needed
 RTA needs to think about the affordability of fare, particularly for
women and their children
 RTA needs to extend the Red Line and improve transit services
west along the West Shore to Westlake and North Olmsted.
 The #37 bus needs to be extended
 Don’t like the HealthLine in the middle of the street
City of Cleveland


Want to see:
o the HealthLine extended to Lake County (specifically
Mentor)
o the Red Line extended to Lake and Geauga Counties;
lots of elderly people live in Willowick and rely on public
transportation
Like the concept of expanding current transit routes
113
AECOM
City
City of Euclid











May 9, 2016
How is paratransit affected by this study?
How are children, students affected by this study?
Will there be new transit vehicles that create less pollution on the
road?
Would like to see Red Line extended from Windermere to Euclid
Square Mall, and less stops on the HealthLine
With all the development downtown and along the HealthLine
and in University Circle, I feel that the Red Line should run east
into Euclid and possibly Lake County. Buses make frequent
stops and aren’t as reliable as the Red Line. I work at Juvenile
Court and we were moved east from downtown to E. 105th and
several people I work with live in Euclid and Lake County. I know
we would utilize a park and ride lot for the Red Line in Euclid.
I live near Shoregate and would like to see transit extended
along Lake Shore Blvd.
There is an important immediate need for the disabled
population. We’re Lake County residents and would like to see
collaboration between the RTA Paratransit and Laketran Dial-ARide systems. Our son uses a wheelchair and individuals like
himself have limited access to Cuyahoga County. Better access
would open up opportunities for employment and social
interaction.
I’m concerned your study doesn’t address high density area
around 260th and Lake Shore. At minimum RTA needs to
consider timing routes so that riders can have the option to
transfer without a long layover or just run the #30 all the way to
Shoregate during rush hour.
Stick to areas of greatest population density along Lake Shore.
Love the concept of no transfer from downtown Euclid to
University Circle.
Red Line through Waterloo neighborhood arts district – E. 152nd
to Lake Shore.
Focus on residential areas along Lake Erie; this is supported by
demographic projections by national realtors association and my
own personal experience. Young people don’t want cars, they
want community and to live in neighborhoods with easy access
to work and the arts and the downtown area. This will lead to
redevelopment in East Cleveland. Street cars would put us on
the map as a progressive place to live and work.
Some key themes that emerged from each of the meetings were:



Most are in favor of extending the Red Line
People want more stops in and better connections to emerging districts like Waterloo and
University Circle
People are concerned about affordability, and accessibility for the disabled
General comments received via the study website:
114
AECOM



8.2.2
May 9, 2016
Whatever plan you come up with, the eastern most terminus must have regular, frequent, and
scheduled service and a large parking lot. It should connect with the Windermere station,
preferably timed with every rail departure.
There needs to be improved transit through University Circle and Midtown. Rail needs to be
brought into these areas and parts of downtown that are distant from the only rail station right in
downtown, Tower City.
RTA should extend the Red Line. This is hands down the most expensive option, but it is the best
for many reasons. Most importantly is that more people and types of people are willing to take a
train. Trains provide a level of certainty that buses do not, people feel more comfortable on
trains. Trains also represent such a significant investment that typically, they generate higher
levels of economic activity. The HealthLine generated a lot of economic activity but that was in
the area where it is most like a train. It seems like RTA should be able to take advantage of TIFF
financing or some other non-traditional funding stream to get some of the work done. I would
imagine that the success of the HealthLine could also get developers to participate in the
construction of stations in exchange for the rights to the nearby land. I would support additional
taxes or funding for rail, but not bus (nothing against buses, I just don't think they are the right
mode for this project.)
The second round of public meetings occurred during the week of December 9, 2013:



December 10 – City of Euclid – MCMS
December 11 – City of East Cleveland – East Cleveland Public Library
December 12 – City of Cleveland – Collinwood Recreation Center
Overall, the public meetings were well attended and individuals provided valuable input and ideas that
will help inform our next phase of the study. There were several new faces at this round of meetings,
which was encouraging to the study team. Attendees liked the presentation and appreciated the visual
boards as it helps them to better understand the proposed transportation alternatives.
Table ‎8-2
City
 A few attendees were concerned that the City is very poorly
served by public transit. Specifically, they felt that getting to a
farmer’s market or a museum or University Circle is difficult
without taking several buses or a very long walk.
 Reliability of ticket machines is a problem; some machines didn’t
take credit and/or debit cards.
 Bus service to areas in Cleveland Heights such as South Taylor
Road, Lee Road and Coventry are seen as unreliable by riders.
 Some attendees are concerned that some areas such as St.
Clair Avenue and E. 185th will lose car traffic because of
congestion due to increased Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Rapid+.
Some are concerned that BRT might be slow and crowded,
turning people away from using it.
 Some attendees:
o Favor commuter rail for suburban attendees to get to work
and entertainment, and BRT/streetcar for city attendees who
115
AECOM
City
City of Cleveland

City of Euclid




May 9, 2016
rely on bus service to get around.
o Favor Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) to Euclid and BRT to
encourage development and improve current service.
o Felt that the Waterloo Arts District has high potential for
development.
o Are concerned that fares might go up with new service.
o Prefer routes that travel east from Windermere via Euclid
Avenue to Ivanhoe Road before turning to Five Points.
Some attendees:
o Wondered if it’s possible to get an Express or Limited Line
(Rapid) to Tower City and the airport.
o Wondered if it’s possible to get a route that serves both the
Waterloo Arts District and E. 185th (rather than one or the
other).
o Were concerned about Route 39 to downtown Cleveland
being too crowded on the weekends.
Residents favored the following remaining build alternatives:
o A streetcar down St. Clair/E. 185th through Five Points
o Extending the Red Line as soon as possible to the county
line, providing a one seat ride to the airport from Euclid
Some attendees:
o Wondered if either proposed extension would bring new
people into the area and if it would bring new money into
Cleveland.
o Were concerned about keeping cars off the road (less traffic
and air pollution) with the proposed increase of public
transit, as well as being able to get around the entire county
to destinations such as hospitals, schools, shopping,
entertainment, etc.
If a street-running alternative is used in the extension, attendees
indicated they would like to see a route from Windermere through
either Five Points or Waterloo Road to Euclid via Lake Shore
Blvd., or Five Points down St. Clair Avenue to E. 185th to Euclid.
Residents want the study team to look into extending the eastern
terminus of the street-running alternatives further east from
downtown Euclid to accommodate the residential towers on Lake
Shore Blvd near E. 260th Street.
The key themes arising from all meetings were:



Some attendees favored an extension of the Red Line east to the county line providing a one seat
ride to the Airport from Euclid (or extended into Lake County).
If a street-running alternative is used in the extension, attendees indicated they would like to see
a route from Windermere through either: Five Points and Waterloo Road to Euclid via Lake Shore
Blvd, or Five Points down St. Clair to E. 185th to Euclid.
Many attendees favored Rapid+ or BRT for city residents that rely on bus service to encourage
more ridership and attract more transit-oriented development (TOD) that will hopefully bring
people back to city (idea of live, work and play).
116
AECOM






8.2.3
May 9, 2016
Many East Cleveland residents preferred the routes that travel east from Windermere via Euclid
The cities of Cleveland and Euclid were very pleased with all the alternatives being advanced.
The City of Euclid has suggested to the study team to extend the eastern terminus several streets
east from Downtown Euclid to accommodate the residential towers on Lake Shore Blvd near E.
260th Street.
Most Lake County residents who attended the meetings favored the Red Line extension.
Most Cuyahoga County residents favored investing in the street running alternatives (HealthLine
and Rapid+) to better serve existing neighborhoods.
Many people asked if there is a possibility of developing hybrid alternatives.
The third round of public meetings were held during the week of May 22, 2014 and included:



May 20 – City of East Cleveland – East Cleveland Public Library City
May 21 – City of Euclid – MCMS
May 22 – City of Cleveland – Collinwood Recreation Center
As with prior public meetings, on May 6, 2014, and May 8, 2014, the study team facilitated a Steering
Committee meeting and a Stakeholder Involvement Committee meeting. These sessions focused on
updating the Committees on the progress of the study, delivering updated information on the testing
results for route alternatives presented in the second round of public meetings, discussing these findings,
and soliciting feedback from Committee members on how to enhance the presentation prior to the public
meetings.
Table ‎8-3
City
Summary of Issues Meeting 3
Cleveland
 Largely favored Alternative B (Red Line extension).
 Inquired about when they would know what final option was
selected, and whether RTA would let them know when/if they will
be officially moving forward with construction.
 Some resident attendees were interested in the development
opportunities that would arise.
 Some attendees wondered if it’s possible to get a route that
serves the Waterloo Arts District and the Nottingham Village/E.
185th Street rather than one or the other.
East Cleveland






Discussed how pleased they were that RTA was involving the
community in these decisions.
Are concerned about potential fare increases.
Prefer routes that travel east from Windermere via Euclid Avenue
to Ivanhoe Road before turning to Five Points.
Bus service to areas in Cleveland Heights such as South Taylor
Road, Lee Road and Coventry are seen as unreliable by riders.
Some attendees favor commuter rail for suburban attendees to
get to work and entertainment, and BRT/streetcar for city
attendees who rely on bus service to get around.
Favored Alternatives “E” due to cost savings and their worries of
fare increases.
117
AECOM
City

Euclid
May 9, 2016
Were interested in what economic development opportunities
would come from each alternative under consideration.
Residents favored the following build alternatives and suggestions:
 Alternative B (HRT). A resident advised this was “by far” his/her
favorite alternative because it would make the difference
between making trips East of University Circle using the Red
Line instead of the HealthLine. The same resident advised that
they regularly use the Healthline, but it goes out of his/her way to
use the Red Line whenever possible.
 E. 185 to Waterloo via Villaview rather than St. Clair. This would
help retain ridership of G and the cost savings of E.
 Extension of Red Line to Noble or Ivanhoe.
 Preference for Alternative “E”, with the Red Line extended to
Noble Rd. Intersection.
 Some attendees:
o Wondered if either proposed extension would bring new
people into the area and if it would bring new money into
Cleveland.
o Hope that the proposed increase of public transit helps to
keep cars off the road (less traffic and air pollution), as
well as make it easier to get around the entire county to
destinations such as hospitals, schools, shopping,
entertainment, etc.
 Residents want the study team to look into extending the eastern
terminus of the street-running alternatives further east from
downtown Euclid to accommodate the residential towers on Lake
Shore Blvd near E. 260th Street.
The key themes arising from all meetings were:








Some attendees favored Route Alternative B Red Line extension as the best route option.
If a street-running alternative is used in the extension, attendees indicated they would like to see
a route from Windermere through either: Five Points and Waterloo Road to Euclid via Lake Shore
Blvd, or Five Points down St. Clair to E. 185th to Euclid.
Many attendees favored BRT for city residents that rely on bus service to encourage more
ridership and attract more transit-oriented development (TOD) that will hopefully bring people
back to city (idea of live, work and play).
Many East Cleveland residents preferred the routes that travel east from Windermere via Euclid
The cities of Cleveland and Euclid were very pleased with all the alternatives being advanced.
The City of Euclid has suggested to the study team to extend the eastern terminus several streets
east from Downtown Euclid to accommodate the residential towers on Lake Shore Blvd near E.
260th Street. The route was extended to Shoregate Shopping Center in adjacent Lake County.
Most Lake County residents who attended the meetings favored the Red Line extension.
Most Cuyahoga County residents favored investing in the street running alternatives (HealthLine
and Rapid+) to better serve existing neighborhoods.
118
AECOM

May 9, 2016
Many people asked if there is a possibility of developing hybrid alternatives.
Summary of issues/ideas:
The “Hybrid” alternative described in the body of this report was developed as a response to the public
inquiries and comments regarding the choices among the remaining alternatives. The public could not
make a clear, consensus driven choice of what alternative they preferred. It was determined that a
Hybrid alternative, combining the two BRT options Alternatives E and G with a short extension of the Red
Line HRT to Noble Road, might result in an alternative that could gain community consensus. The
Hybrid alternative was developed as a direct result of public comment. .
8.2.4
The last public meeting was held on February 11, 2016. The purpose of this last meeting was to share
the study findings and recommendations for future action and project development. The meeting was
organized around the FTA Project Evaluation Summary rating criteria and weighting. A presentation and
display boards explained the alternatives under active consideration and illustrated how the project was
evaluated. The presentation materials can be found on the project page of the RTA website.
Table 8-4
Public Meeting Round 4 – Summary of Questions and Comments
Attendees
Q: Has the RTA considered private funding sources and/or corporate
Number of comment cards: 0 partnerships?
A: Yes, Cleveland Clinic, University Hospital, and Cleveland State
University all fund us in some small way but it’s still not enough to
make up for lost sales tax revenue and other costs. Ideally,
developers will develop the vacant land in the recommended corridors
– this causes the land value to increase, causing the taxes to
increase, and we need to find a way to capture the revenue from this.
Q: What about the Greater Cleveland Partnership? It seems they only
fund projects they want to happen, which doesn’t include transit projects.
A: GCP won’t fund projects they don’t consider to be economically
viable. We’ve had many conversations with them over the years but
unfortunately that’s their policy.
Q: What about Lake County – can RTA partner with them? Can RTA
and Laketran combine? If there is service to Lake County than they
should be paying RTA the sales tax too.
A: We’ve had many conversations with Laketran over the years to
discuss combining the organizations and services, but even if we did
it would cost more than $1 billion to extend to rail line to Lake County.
We don’t have the money. Lake County just passed their own tax
increase last year to increase funding for Laketran.
Q: What stakeholders have seen this presentation?
A: Our project stakeholder and steering committees have both seen
119
AECOM
Attendees
May 9, 2016
this presentation, including representatives from all three cities in the
study area and many local economic development and community
development organizations.
Q: In Nashville, buses are allowed to use the HOV lanes on the highway.
Why doesn’t Ohio have this?
A: RTA and Laketran buses can use the shoulders during times of
high volume traffic on I-90. Unfortunately the shoulders on I-77 and I71 can’t support this.
Q: Why can’t the City of Cleveland or Cuyahoga County require parking
garages to pay taxes on parking spaces that goes directly to the RTA?
A: Too much pushback from the owners, they would start losing
revenue because people would stop driving and parking – they would
never agree to it.
Q: Is there a way to connect the 37 bus better or more efficiently to
University Circle? Right now you have to take several connections from
Severance Center (which isn’t much of a destination anymore) and
nobody wants to do that.
A: Possibility – RTA can look into that.
Q: The 39 bus is always packed – can RTA provide a longer bus to carry
more riders at a time, or more service on this line?
A: Possibility – RTA can look into that.
A: Most buses come in the same sizes and actually the longer CNG
buses are more cost effective to run and maintain than any other
buses.
8.2.5
Public Meetings – Summary
Overall, the public meetings were well attended and individuals provided valuable comment and ideas
that helped inform the study and its outcomes. The public meetings were informative and kept the
general public attending the meetings apprised of the current status of the study. There were several
repeat attendees, which directly illustrated the vested interest of the public, and the importance of these
decisions as it relates to RTA’s next steps. The attendees liked the presentations and appreciated the
visual display boards, which assisted in providing tangible illustrations of real opportunities for their
communities. All in all, the general public feedback was positive, and meeting attendees have felt
confident and appreciated RTA’s outreach efforts.
8.3
Community and Development Workshops
A series of Community and development workshops also took place during the same week as Round 2 of
the Public Meetings. The workshops were working meetings to give key stakeholders, community
organizations and developers a chance to provide their input about potential station sites and their impact
120
AECOM
May 9, 2016
on development. It was also an opportunity to update these key individuals and groups on the study’s
progress. These workshops occurred during the week of December 9, 2013.




December 10 – City of Cleveland (1:00pm);
December 10 – City of Euclid (3:00pm);
December 11 – City of East Cleveland
December 12 – Developer and Community Stakeholder
City of Cleveland Workshop - The City of Cleveland workshop was attended by members of the study
team as well as representatives from the City of Cleveland Planning Commission and Cleveland
Neighborhood Development. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of the study and to
review the economic development opportunities with the Collinwood community in the study area. The
discussion focused on the Five Points and Nottingham Village sub-areas of the study. The summary of
ideas and issues from the workshop are:






The City is very interested in the development potential of Five Points. The site directly south of
the new ball fields and the industrial sites between E. 152 and Ivanhoe are of particular interest.
There is not much vacancy in the immediate vicinity of the intersection so these parcels likely
have the most potential for redevelopment. The triangular area between E. 152 and Ivanhoe has
already been re-zoned to local retail.
The current land uses in the Five Points area are industry-related; however, the City’s desire for
this area is for it to be more focused on local retail. This would require some land remediation
since there will be repurposing of industrial sites.
One challenge is that people want to be right in front of the transit station; the closer you can get
people living near transit the better. There needs to be a significant start and end point so you can
fill up the middle of the ride with people.
E. 185th is a good corridor to re-energize with new transit routes. The Waterloo Arts District is up
and coming and another good corridor to consider. Once station locations are specifically
defined, the City can identify vacant land, see what is available in the land bank, find strategic
opportunities to add to the land bank and put a “hold” on this land until an appropriate
development opportunity presents itself.
E. 152nd and Ivanhoe Road is a huge piece of vacant land with tremendous development
opportunity. We need to make sure these areas are zoned for the type of transit-supportive
development that would be envisioned for this area.
The consultant team pointed out that if development were going to occur around bus routes it
would have already happened. Therefore, we need to take the alternatives a step further and
enhance them by making a major investment in infrastructure including substantial stations.
City of Euclid Workshop - The City of Euclid workshop was attended by members of the study team as
well as representatives from the Planning and Development Department along with the Urban Design.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of the study and to review the economic
development opportunities within the City of Euclid. The discussion focused on the East 185th Street
commercial district and Downtown Euclid including the former St. Roberts land acquired by the city. A
summary of issues and ideas from the workshop are:


The City has heard from residents that they want to see anything from a water park to a travel
center to Euclid Square Mall. The City is interested in seeing an economic analysis to see what is
truly feasible in terms of TOD at this site.
The last major retailer moved out of Euclid Square Mall in 2013; 2014 might be a critical year for
this site.
121
AECOM






May 9, 2016
The City sees a lot of potential in the E. 185th Street corridor given its proximity to affordable
housing and the existing neighborhood amenities.
Are there practical ways to integrate transit into downtown Euclid? There are now three major
shopping areas now and Lake Shore Plaza is ripe for redevelopment. Downtown has generally
tended towards an entertainment district.
North of Lake Shore Blvd. is a water treatment plant that needs to be taken into consideration
during transit planning.
The Saint Roberts Church site (owned by the City) is seven acres on the south side of Lake
Shore Blvd. at E. 238th St. This site is in close proximity to high end commercial buildings – could
this have potential to be a terminus?
E. 200th and Lake Shore has a small amount of retail and Our Lady of the Lake Church which has
a strong congregation.
The intersection of E. 185th and Lake Shore Blvd. has two hospitals and a high school. Euclid is
working with the City of Cleveland to promote this area as an educational and medical campus.
City of East Cleveland workshop – The workshop in East Cleveland was attended by members of the
study team as well as Joe Mazzola (City of East Cleveland Director of Economic Development and Mike
Smedley (City of East Cleveland Mayor’s Office). The summary of issues and ideas coming from this
workshop included:




Agreed with the proposed alternatives and felt that they are in the appropriate places and make
sense.
Questioned how the study team would choose between Coit, Noble and Ivanhoe as a way to get
from Euclid Ave to Five Points. The team responded that it depends on City and public interested
for how far east the service runs in East Cleveland, as well as travel time for the service.
Preliminary thoughts are leaning toward Ivanhoe Road since it provides improved service to the
longest stretch of Euclid Avenue; it’s a direct shot to Five Points, and an opportunity for
development on both sides of E. 152nd. Joe Mazzola mentioned that having some photos on what
the development could like would be beneficial.
Supports Bus Rapid Transit as their preferred technology choice as they feel it best serves Euclid
Avenue, which is the front door of their community.
Is in the midst of a Target Area Neighborhood Stabilization Plan, which they plan to complete by
March 2014. The Land Bank bought anything available on Euclid Avenue, but there is no strategy
for development beyond that; the study team needs to know what properties may be sold for tax
purposes.
The summary of the three workshops resulted in decisions to extend the HealthLine route alternatives to
Ivanhoe Road to maximize the length of the BRT in East Cleveland and to Shoregate Shopping Center in
adjacent Lake County to maximize the length of the BRT in Euclid. This would also provide good timed
transfer connections to Laketran services. The Five Points commercial district and the Noble Road areas
would become focal points for development incentives.
8.3.1
NOACA Transit Council and RTA Citizens Advisory Board
There were four additional meetings during the study period addressing the study: a NOACA Transit
Council meeting on November 15, 2013 and February 19, 2016 and an RTA Citizens Advisory Board
(CAB) meeting on December 17, 2013 and February 11, 2016. During the NOACA meeting, RTA
reviewed the study process at a high level with Transit Council members to which there were no
questions. During the CAB December 17, 2013 meeting, RTA staff presented the status of the study.
One member had a question about the proposed alternatives:
122
AECOM

May 9, 2016
Would RTA consider combinations of alternatives because it seems that the Norfolk Southern and
Euclid corridors and the “neighborhood” corridors of Collinwood/Nottingham serve distinct and
different purposes?
RTA addressed the question by responding that the next tier of screening would consider combinations
of alternatives if the strength of the operational and travel market analysis called for serving various
markets. Costs would then need to be considered as more corridors served equates to more capital and
operating expenses. This report reflects the “Hybrid” alternative responding to this concern.
8.3.2
Other Outreach Activities
The project team also engaged the community using a variety of social media and other methods. The
list below describes some of the other outreach methods used for this project:

Project Phone Line. A project telephone line was maintained to answer questions from the
public.

Project Website. The project employed a project website which has been taken over and hosted
by RTA. This is referenced on the RTA home page and allows the public to view current Red
Line/HealthLine Extension Study project information. The website provides all project-related
materials and is updated periodically as new information becomes available. Comments can be
submitted to the project public involvement coordinator through the website at any time.
http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/redlinehealthlineextension

Project videos. Three project videos were produced for the Red Line/HealthLine Extension
Study. The first video was published as a part of the initial project scoping process in September
2013; the second video was published in December 2013 to discuss the initial alternatives and a
third video was produced after the second-tier screening was completed. All the videos are
hosted on the project website.

E-mail. The project team developed a comprehensive mailing list of agencies, stakeholders, and
members of the general public for the purpose of sending announcements, invitations to meetings
and study reports.

Twitter. The project managed a Twitter account for two years through the second tier screening.

Facebook. The project developed a Facebook page, which has been absorbed into the RTA
Facebook page.
8.3.3
Outreach Interaction Measures
Table 8-5 tabulates all the outreach interactions tracked by the project team for the first two years of the
study. The study website created exclusively for the study was migrated to the RTA website in August
2015 when resources to manage the exclusive website were exhausted. Consequently, the total
interactions reflect only the known totals as of August 2015.
123
AECOM
Table 8-5
May 9, 2016
Summary of Outreach Interactions
INTERACTION TYPE
TOTAL
Public Meeting Attendees
Public Comments: Submitters - Online (Website/Email)
Public Comments: Submitters- Hard Copy-Comment Cards
Survey Participants -Online and Other
Hot Line Calls
Website Visits
Facebook Followers/Likes
Facebook Messages
Twitter Followers
Twitter Messages
YouTube Views - Video #1, #2, #3 and #4
207
23
33
213
8
5,697
63
224
0
218
873
TOTAL = PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INTERACTIONS
7,568
It is quite apparent that public meetings, while important, are less effective in communicating project
goals, objectives and findings. Only 207 people attended public meetings while the project received
nearly 5,700 website visits resulting in 873 video viewings. There were over 7,500 total public
involvement interactions.
8.4 Outreach Summary
Numerous comments were received from public agencies and the general public throughout the study.
These comments generally fall into the following categories:







Concerns about traffic congestion, property values, public safety, and noise and visual impacts
associated with the various alternatives.
Several groups and a number of individuals have expressed support for extending the Red Line
along the Norfolk Southern right-of-way.
Other individuals have indicated support for the BRT alternatives.
Questions were received about the criteria used for defining and evaluating the alternatives,
particularly mobility impacts and cost effectiveness.
Some questions have been raised about noise impacts related to the BRT options routed through
residential neighborhoods.
Comments were received from the cities of East Cleveland, Euclid and Cleveland supporting the
alternatives still under active consideration, including the Red Line extension along the Norfolk
Southern owned right-of-way and the BRT alignments serving Five Points, Waterloo and
Nottingham Village.
The public could not make a clear, consensus driven choice of what alternative they preferred. It
was suggested that a Hybrid alternative, combining the two BRT options Alternatives E and G
with a short extension of the Red Line HRT to Noble Road, be developed and explored during the
Tier 3 screening.
124
AECOM
May 9, 2016
9 Project Feasibility Determination
This feasibility determination was intended to investigate the eligibility of any of the Build alternatives
under active consideration for a competitive FTA Capital Investment Grant (CIG) under the New Starts
program. This section of the Preferred Alternative Report is based on the findings of the detailed
technical investigations of the alternatives under active consideration with regard to project justification
and financial ratings. This section summarizes the assessment of benefits and impacts of the proposed
Red Line/HealthLine extensions and evaluation criteria ratings in accordance with the FTA Capital
Investment Grant Program Final Interim Policy Guidance issued August 2015.
New Starts projects are evaluated and rated according to CIG criteria set forth in law. The project
justification criteria outlined in law include: mobility improvements, environmental benefits, congestion
relief, economic development effects, land use, and cost-effectiveness. The law also requires FTA to
examine and rate local financial commitment, which includes availability of reasonable contingency
funds, availability of stable and dependable capital and operating funding sources, and availability of local
resources to recapitalize, maintain, and operate the overall existing and proposed system extension
without requiring a reduction in existing services. By law, each criterion is to be rated on a five point
scale, from low to high. Summary project justification and local financial commitment ratings are prepared
and combined to arrive at an overall project rating. The rating scheme and weightings were illustrated in
Figure 2-1.
RTA has elected to use the FTA Simplified Trips-on-Projects Software (STOPS) to estimate trips on the
project. The STOPS model has been used to generate ridership forecasts and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) information for use in the mobility, congestion relief, and cost effectiveness evaluation measures
and environmental benefits measure. The following sections highlight the feasibility determination based
on the FTA project justification and local financial commitment evaluation.
9.1
Project Justification
As noted, the project justification criteria outlined in law include: mobility improvements, congestion relief,
environmental benefits, economic development effects, land use, and cost-effectiveness. Each criterion
is discussed below in terms of the measure, how the evaluation measure is calculated and what the
resulting rating would be based on the computed values when compared to current FTA rating values.
9.1.1
Mobility Improvements
Mobility benefits are measured by accessibility, public transport network boardings, trips and
transportation system user benefits. All forecasts of ridership and mobility improvements are the product
of STOPS model runs. FTA evaluates mobility improvements for New Starts projects as the total number
of linked trips using the proposed project, with a weight of two given to trips that would be made on the
project by transit dependent persons. Linked trips using the proposed project include all trips made on
the project whether or not the rider boards or alights on the project or elsewhere in the transit system. If a
project sponsor chooses to estimate trips using STOPS, then trips made by transit dependent persons
are trips made by persons in households that do not own a car. If a project sponsor chooses to estimate
trips using their local travel forecasting model, trips made by transit dependent persons are defined in
local travel models generally in one of two ways: as trips made by persons in households having no cars
or as trips made by persons living in households in the lowest income bracket as defined locally.
The mobility improvements measure is computed by adding together the estimated number of linked
transit trips on the project taken by non-transit dependent persons and the number of linked transit trips
taken by transit dependent persons multiplied by a factor of two, thereby giving extra weight to these
trips.
125
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Table 9-1 shows the results of the computations for each of the Alternatives under consideration. The
results are for Alternative B (HRT) operating at a 7.5 minute peak period frequency between Tower City
and Babbitt Road or Noble Road and BRT options of Alternatives E and G terminating at Shoregate
Shopping Center. A Hybrid BRT alternative operates every 7.5 minutes on the common route segments
and 15-minutes alternating along the branch routes of Alternatives E and G to Shoregate is also
considered and highlighted.
Table 9-1
New Start Mobility Improvements Criterion
Alternative B
Terminus
Babbitt
Noble
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shore/Noble
13,408
3,900
10,082
10,424
12,592
% trips from zero car households
31.8%
33%
38.4%
37.4%
33.7%
4,270
1,287
3,871
3,902
4,244
Weighted dependent trips
8,540
2,574
7,742
7,804
8,488
9,138
2,613
6,211
6,522
8,348
17,678
5,187
13,953
14,326
16,836
5,303,400
1,556,100
4,185,900
4,297,800
5,050,800
Medium
Low
Medium-low
Medium-low
FTA Mobility Improvement rating
Medium
Source: AECOM, STOPS model runs April 2014, and March 2015 and calculations .
Alternatives E and G would be rated MEDIUM-LOW using FTA’s criterion definition for mobility
improvements with the threshold being 2.5 – 4.9 million trips. The Hybrid BRT alternative alternating
service on both routes E and G would generate a mobility benefit that exceeds 5.2 million also resulting
in a MEDIUM rating.
However, the mobility improvement criterion value for Alternative B Red Line extension to Euclid
operating on 7½ -minute frequency is 5.3 million resulting in a MEDIUM rating. The Red Line extension
has the highest mobility improvement absolute value.
9.1.2
Congestion Relief
FTA evaluates congestion relief based on the number of new weekday linked transit trips (new transit
riders) resulting from implementation of the proposed project. FTA recognizes that this is an indirect
measure of roadway congestion relief resulting from implementation of a transit project, but it serves as
an indicator of potential cars taken off the road. Additionally, it keeps FTA from double counting the total
transit trips evaluated under the mobility criterion or the vehicle miles traveled evaluated under the
environmental benefits criterion.
Because the measure of new weekday linked transit trips is an incremental value, a basis for comparison
is required. The Red Line/HealthLine Extension Study evaluated the ridership and mobility benefits using
current year inputs of population and employment. Consequently, the proposed Build alternatives are
compared to the existing transit system as defined in the No Build alternative.
126
AECOM
Table 9-2
New Start Congestion Relief Criterion
Alternative B
Technology
Terminus
HRT
HRT
Babbitt
Noble
Route Miles
May 9, 2016
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
BRT
BRT
BRT/HRT
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate/
Noble
6.5
1.3
10.5
10.4
14.0
7
2
23
23
31
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
7.5 min
13,408
3,900
10,082
10,424
12,592
New Transit Riders
11,070
2,820
3,902
4,316
5,531
Congestion Relief Rating
Medium-high
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Stations
Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and calculations.
Based on the number of new trips attracted to the transit system, the Red Line extension would be rated
MEDIUM-HIGH while the HealthLine extensions of Alternatives E and G would likely be rated MEDIUM.
The Hybrid alternative also would be rated MEDIUM.
9.1.3
Environmental Benefits
FTA evaluates and rates the environmental benefits criterion for New Starts projects based upon the
dollar value of the anticipated direct and indirect benefits to human health, safety, energy, and the air
quality environment scaled by the annualized capital and operating cost of the project. These benefits are
computed based on the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from implementation of the
proposed project. Because change in VMT is an incremental measure, a point of comparison is
necessary to calculate environmental benefits. To calculate the measures for the current year, the point
of comparison is the existing transit system as defined by the No Build alternative. The estimated
environmental benefits are monetized and compared to the same annualized capital and operating cost
of the proposed New Starts project as used in the cost effectiveness calculation.
Environmental benefits include the following subfactors: change in air quality criteria pollutants, change in
greenhouse gas emissions, change in energy use, and change in safety. Values for change in energy
use and greenhouse gas emissions have been established so as to not double count. The subfactors
are calculated from forecasts of changes in automobile and transit vehicle miles traveled (VMT). All
measures are converted from VMT into their native units (e.g., tons of emissions or total accidents) using
national-level standard conversion factors. The native units are monetized based on standard dollar
values established by research. For air quality subfactors, weights are applied to reflect FTA judgment
that higher priority be given to projects achieving reductions in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
The monetized and weighted values of the various environmental benefits are summed and compared to
the same annualized capital and operating cost of the proposed project as is used in the cost
effectiveness calculation for New Starts projects.
127
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Green Book” listings, Cleveland is considered:
CO – Maintenance
NO2 – Attainment
Ozone – Nonattainment
PM 2.5 - Maintenance
Air Quality Criteria Pollutants – Air quality improvements are measured by determining the changes in
Carbon Monoxide (CO), Mono-Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM2.5), and Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) by calculating emission rates per VMT for automobiles (cars and light trucks) and
transit vehicles including buses (diesel, hybrid-electric, and CNG, light rail transit vehicles and heavy rail
vehicles. Because of the potential for double counting the value in reductions of PM2.5 and PM10, FTA
includes only PM2.5 in the air quality measure.
Table 9-3
New Start Air Quality Criterion
Alternative B
Annualized changes in VMT
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
-22,572,000
-7,935,923
-8,440,000
-9,328,154
CO (kg)
-378,532
-133,085
-148,313
-156,433
NOx (kg)
-20,540
-7,222
-8,048
-8,489
VOC (kg)
-13,543
-4,761
-5,306
-5,596
-225
-79
-88
-93
$557,832
$195,966
$218,390
$230,345
PM2.5 (kg)
Monetized Value
Source: AECOM; STOPS model runs April 2014, March 2015 and New Starts templates November 2015.
It is clear from Table 9-3 that Alternative B, the Red Line extension, is clearly superior to the HealthLine
extension alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative. The Red Line attracts more new riders from
automobiles and reduces VMT significantly resulting in greatly improved air quality when compared to the
BRT options.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions - The calculation of the proposed unit rates for GHG emissions
includes the application of emissions factors by fuel type. To capture the monetary value of change in
GHG emissions, FTA uses the $38 midrange estimate of the social cost of carbon obtained from the
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order
12866 (May 2013), which is a document developed and updated periodically by an Interagency Working
Group comprised of a number of Federal agencies. The $38 value is the 2015 midrange estimate based
on a 3 percent discount rate. Using the latest New Starts template, the following reductions in GHG
emission are determined and highlighted in Table 9-4.
Table 9-4
New Start Greenhouse Gas Criterion
Alternative B
Emission decrease (tons)
Monetized Value
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
-22,572,000
-12,008
-7,935,923
-4,222
-8,440,000
-4,705
-9,328,154
-4,962
$456,315
$160,432
$178,790
$188,578
128
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Again it is clear from Table 9-4 that Alternative B, the Red Line extension, is clearly superior to the
HealthLine extension alternatives E and G in reducing GHG. The Red Line attracts more new riders from
automobiles, reduces VMT significantly and the Red Line railcars are powered by electricity resulting in
greatly reduced GHG when compared to the BRT options.
Energy Use - A significant part of the benefits that come from reducing energy use is already accounted
for by the resulting reduction in pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. In this measure, FTA is
attempting to capture the benefit coming from reduced reliance on foreign fuels. Thus, the change in
energy use is only computed for modes that use petroleum fuel. The measure estimates the change in
energy consumption rates for transit and automobile modes based on the forecasted change in VMT.
FTA then monetizes the change in energy use based on the economic cost of dependence on imported
petroleum for fuels. FTA uses a value of $0.20 per gallon of petroleum fuel (Leiby/ORNL 2012). To
convert from Btu to gallons of petroleum fuel, FTA uses conversion factors (from the GREET model) of
116,090 Btu per gallon of gasoline and 128,450 Btu per gallon of diesel fuel. Therefore, the monetization
factors are $1.72 per million Btu for gasoline and $1.56 per million Btu for diesel fuel. Gasoline is
assumed to be the sole fuel for changes in automobile VMT for simplicity in the computation.
Using the latest New Starts template, the following reductions in energy use are determined and
highlighted in Table 9-5.
Table 9-5
New Start Energy Savings Criterion
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
-22,572,000
-7,935,923
-8,440,000
-9,328,154
Energy use decrease (millions Btu)
-170,621
-59,987
-66,851
-70,511
Monetized Value
$293,469
$103,178
$114,985
$121,280
Alternative B, the Red Line extension, is clearly superior to the HealthLine extension alternatives E and G
and the Hybrid alternative in reducing energy use. The Red Line attracts more new riders from
automobiles, reduces VMT significantly and the Red Line railcars are powered by electricity resulting in
greatly reduced oil consumption when compared to the BRT options.
Safety - To measure change in safety, FTA uses the change in VMT to calculate changes in disabling
injuries and fatalities for automobiles and transit. FTA does not attempt to capture the changes in
pedestrian or bicyclist accidents or injuries resulting from changes in VMT because of the difficulty in
accounting for such changes using readily available national data. To monetize the estimated changes in
safety, FTA uses USDOT guidance on the value of a statistical life and injuries. According to the most
recent guidance, published in 2014, the current value of a statistical life is $9.2 million. The value FTA
uses for a disabling injury for both transit and automobiles is $490,000, which is 5.39 percent of the
USDOT value of a statistical life, based on the KABCO23 scale in the 2009 Highway Safety Manual
published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in coordination with
the Federal Highway Administration.
23
KABCO is not an abbreviation or acronym. It is a catenation of the coding system police use to categorize injuries.
129
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Using the latest New Starts template, the following decrease in the number of fatalities and injuries are
determined and highlighted in Table 9-6.
Table 9-6
New Start Safety Criterion
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
-22,572,000
-7,935,923
-8,440,000
-9,328,154
Decrease in fatalities per million VMT
-0.29
-0.10
0.11
0.12
Decrease in injuries per million VMT
-4.4
-1.55
1.72
1.82
$1,891,289
$1,994,825
Monetized Value
$4,827,021
$1,694,096
The Red Line extension Alternative B is clearly superior to the HealthLine extension alternatives E and G
and the Hybrid alternative in reducing fatalities and injuries and improving safety. The Red Line attracts
more new riders from automobiles, reduces VMT significantly resulting in fewer automobile accidents
when compared to the BRT options.
Summary Rating for Environmental Benefits - The environmental benefits measure for New Starts
projects 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 same annualized capital and operating cost of the
project as used in the cost effectiveness measure. FTA multiplies the resulting ratio by 100 and
expresses the environmental benefit measure as a percentage. The resulting calculations and ratings
are highlighted in Table 9-7.
Table 9-7
New Start Environmental Benefits Criterion Rating
Total monetized value of benefits
Annualized cost of alternative
Ratio of benefits to annualized cost
Environmental Benefits Rating
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
-22,572,000
-7,935,923
-8,440,000
-9,328,154
$6,134,191
$2,156,675
$2,403,455
$2,535,029
$37,700,000
$19,900,000
$20,700,000
$26,200,000
16.2%
10.8%
11.6%
9.7%
High
High
High
Medium-High
The Red Line extension would be rated HIGH. The HealthLine extension alternatives E and G also
would be rated HIGH. The Hybrid alternative would be rated MEDIUM-HIGH. The Red Line clearly
attracts more new riders from automobiles, reduces VMT significantly more than the BRT options
resulting in fewer emissions, fewer GHG, reductions in energy use and automobile accidents when
compared to the BRT options including the Hybrid alternative. However, the lower CAPEX and OPEX of
the BRT options result in significantly lower annualized cost of the BRT options, which in turn boost the
environmental benefits rating by being slightly higher than 10 percent of the annualized cost.
9.1.4
Economic Development Effects
The measure of economic development effects is the extent to which a proposed project is likely to
induce additional, transit-supportive development in the future based on a qualitative examination of the
130
AECOM
May 9, 2016
existing local plans and policies to support economic development proximate to the project. FTA
evaluates transit supportive plans and policies, the demonstrated performance of those plans and
policies, and the policies and tools in place to preserve or increase the amount of affordable housing in
the project corridor.
Urban Fabric Analysis24 and Market Perspective analysis25 were prepared to illustrate the applicable set
of economic development and urban design challenges and opportunities, which differ considerably
across transit technologies and community settings of each of the alternatives under active consideration.
In fact, the urban fabric analysis did not, by itself, give the complete economic development picture. A
companion report on development market analysis outlines, in preliminary fashion, the extent to which
future economic conditions in the study area and Northeast Ohio might be expected to support the kinds
of development outcomes identified as part of the evaluation of the Red Line/HealthLine extension
alternatives.
The work of the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium (NEOSCC) delineated a broad
public policy choice between a “business as usual” or “trend” scenario and a series of alternative futures
for the region. The scenario planning effort is an aspirational framework for long-term growth and
transportation planning which the state, NOACA, the region’s counties and municipalities, and several
regional advocacy groups have developed collaboratively. The extent to which the affected jurisdictions
adopt policies consistent with this framework remains to be seen, and there is no guarantee that adopting
such policies would influence the market sufficiently to favor the study area. But a major transit
investment, capitalizing on University Circle, Five Points, Nottingham Village/East 185th Street,
Downtown Euclid and Lake Shore Blvd, coupled with the study area’s exceptional highway and rail
access, would fall squarely in the Growing Differently regional vision
One of NEOSCC’s policy statements addresses the drivers of the region’s long-term outward migration of
population and jobs and the corresponding barriers to redevelopment of older areas undergoing
disinvestment and abandonment. While the underlying economic barriers are significant enough, the
outward flow is exacerbated by the location-neutrality of most existing state and local development
incentives. NEOSCC concluded that “there is nothing in Northeast Ohio’s primary economic development
incentives that directs development toward communities that have particular transportation infrastructure,
housing characteristics, or population attributes, such as median income or poverty level. These
programs are silent on questions of how to maximize location-based assets and meet location-based
needs. This absence is particularly true for state programs.”
If a major transit investment is to succeed over time in attracting economic development and transit
oriented development (TOD) to the study area, a multi-faceted public intervention will be required. There
are important differences in how the three alternatives intersect the urban fabric, both in its present
condition (which determines whether existing land use patterns are transit-supportive and adequately
connected to the stations) and in the opportunity for future TOD. Those differences can be summarized
as follows:
Alternative B Red Line Extension:

Alternative B interfaces meaningfully with existing residential neighborhoods and community
institutions only in its first two station areas, Shaw Avenue and Noble Road. These stations also
24
AECOM, “Urban Fabric Analysis,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Red Line/Healthline Extension Major
Investment Analysis; June 20, 2014.
25
AECOM, “Market Perspective,” Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Red Line/Healthline Extension Major
Investment Analysis; June 18, 2014.
131
AECOM
May 9, 2016
place Alternative B within close walking distance, and even within eye contact, of the Euclid
Avenue corridor. However, much of the Noble Road station area, and all of the station areas east
of Noble, are dominated by a mix of active, underutilized, and vacant industrial land, with
relatively little pedestrian connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. Alternative B is on the
fringes of Five Points and a two-mile bus ride from Downtown Euclid. In terms of existing transitsupportive land uses, or proximity to main streets and neighborhood business districts in need of
revitalization, Alternative B, except at Shaw and Noble, is relatively “off the grid”.

Alternative B would directly serve the study area’s two district-scale opportunities for transitoriented redevelopment: the industrial triangle at Noble Road station and the expanse of vacant
land and shuttered malls at Babbitt Road. In the face of its weak population and employment
densities, the transformative scale of these two opportunities (albeit over what might be a long
period of time) is an argument for considering Alternative B. The increased ridership generated by
the Red Line extension is equivalent to the current average combined daily ridership of the Blue
and Green Lines serving residential neighborhoods in Shaker Heights.

Alternative B would involve stations removed from the normal pedestrian environment. While they
would generate streetscape improvements in their immediate environs, these would be, by
nature, routes to and from the station rather than investments in the fabric of busy streets and
intersections. Again, the exceptions would be Shaw, Noble, and, in the sense of creating a new
street grid from scratch, Babbitt.
Alternatives E, G and Hybrid HealthLine Extension:

By contrast, the street-running BRT technologies of Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid
alternative are woven, from end to end, into the fabric of the three communities. The stations are
all in the street, either at the curb with the platforms integrated into the sidewalk or in the center
median in the iconic style of the HealthLine. People will walk to these stations, which are closer
together and part of a highly visible streetscape upgrade along the corridor. The BRT alternatives
were designed to serve Euclid Avenue, Five Points, Lakeshore Boulevard, and Downtown Euclid,
traditional “main streets” served historically by streetcar lines. Where Alternatives E and G
diverge, the choice is between similar opportunities. No single BRT station would have the
ridership impact of one Red Line station, but BRT offers, in each segment, a series of stations in
full contact with their surroundings and as the spine of an enhanced public realm.

Alternatives E and G are similar but not identical, and their unique segments traverse areas
where BRT would reinforce the urban fabric. Alternative G would serve two very different
corridors. On St. Clair Avenue, from Five Points to Nottingham Village, the transit line would serve
residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including the study area’s largest concentration of
industrial land designated for future light industrial use. On East 185th Street, Alternative G would
be woven into one of the strongest neighborhood commercial corridors in the region, yet one that
needs reinforcement and is a priority for both Cleveland and Euclid, whose mutual boundary it
forms.

Alternative E would reinforce the Waterloo Arts District, serve the residential neighborhood along
East 156th Street, and cover more of Lakeshore Boulevard. As worthwhile as these urban fabric
interventions would be in their own terms, the greater need and the greater upside appears to lie
with Alternative G.
132
AECOM

May 9, 2016
The Hybrid alternative combines the characteristics and design features of both Alternatives E
and G and adds a short extension of the Red Line to Noble Road. The Red Line extension could
be a catalyst for the redevelopment of the long abandoned industrial land north of Euclid Avenue
between Noble Road and Ivanhoe Road in East Cleveland and could be designed to be in
harmony with General Electric’s NELA Park. The possibilities are only limited by imagination and
developer interest and funding.
The choice of any of the Build alternatives would involve some degree of aspiration with respect to future
economic development. That said, the four alternatives, with their different relationships to the urban
fabric, would address different potential market futures.
A choice of Alternative E or G would primarily target the infill market, using the transit and associated
public realm investments to help attract a mix of residential, retail, civic, and employment uses to Euclid
Avenue, Five Points, the Waterloo Arts District (Alternative E), St. Clair Avenue and East 185th Street
(Alternative G), Lakeshore Boulevard, and Downtown Euclid. The HealthLine BRT extensions would also
seek to support a transformational market outcome in the "industrial triangle" between Euclid Avenue and
Five Points. If Alternative G were chosen, the BRT investment would support the industrial market on St.
Clair Avenue, where the City of Cleveland has designated large area for light industrial reuse. This is the
inspiration for developing the Hybrid alternative. No choice between Alternatives E and G need be made.
But the higher cost of implementing the Hybrid alternative could become a showstopper.
A choice of Alternative B as a Red Line extension, with its high cost, weak existing population and
employment density, extensive vacant land, and fragmented pedestrian environment, would primarily
target the transformational market at the “industrial triangle” Noble Road Station bounded by East 152nd
Street, Noble Road, Ivanhoe Road and Euclid Avenue and at its terminus at Babbitt Road near Euclid
Square Mall. The Red Line would also serve the industrial market along the entire extension from Noble
Road eastward. This alternative would provide bi-directional mobility from the study area into University
Circle and Downtown Cleveland to the west and the industrial employment center in Lake County to the
east with transfers to Laketran local bus services.
Based on the findings of the Urban Fabric Analysis and Market Perspective Analysis, ratings for
economic development would likely be:
Growth Management: Limited consideration has been given to implementing growth management and
land conservation policies; adopted policies may be weak and apply to only a limited area. Existing
and/or planned densities and market trends are minimally or not supportive of transit. This has been
changing slightly over time and cities are now aware of the importance of transit investment to encourage
redevelopment. This would result in a MEDIUM-LOW rating.
Transit-Supportive Corridor Policies: Limited progress, to date, has been made toward developing station
area conceptual plans or revising local comprehensive or small area plans. Station area uses identified
in local comprehensive plans are marginally or not transit-supportive but recent planning work has been
attempting to address some deficiencies. But, more supportive policies are needed to improve the rating.
This would result in MEDIUM-LOW rating.
Supportive Zoning Near Transit: The study area is a transit supportive area of the city with dense housing
and network of highly patronized transit route. A conceptual planning process is underway to
recommend zoning changes for station areas. Local jurisdictions are in the process of committing to
examining and changing zoning regulations where necessary. This would result in a MEDIUM rating.
133
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Tools to Implement Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies: RTA and the affected municipalities have
conducted some outreach to promote transit-supportive planning and station area development. The
agencies are investigating regulatory and financial incentives to promote transit-oriented development.
Capital improvements are being identified that support station area plans, which would leverage the
Federal investment in the proposed major transit corridor. This would result in a MEDIUM rating.
Performance of Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies: A significant number of development proposals
are being received for transit-supportive housing and employment in station areas in Uptown in University
Circle. This development pattern is beginning to spill over into adjacent parts of East Cleveland that
border University Circle. Significant amounts of transit-supportive development have occurred in other,
existing transit corridors and station areas in the region, notably the Euclid Corridor in Cleveland. This
would result in a HIGH rating.
Potential Impact of Transit Project on Regional Development: A significant amount of land in station
areas is available for new development or redevelopment at transit-supportive densities. Local plans,
policies, and development programs, as well as real estate market conditions, moderately support such
development. This would result in a MEDIUM rating.
Plans and Policies to Maintain or Increase Affordable Housing in Corridor: Affordable housing plans are
being developed that identify and address the current and prospective housing affordability needs along
the corridor. The plans include efforts to preserve existing subsidized housing. The plans also explicitly
address the needs of very- and extremely-low income households. Some financial incentives are
available along the proposed corridor to support affordable housing acquisition (including acquisition of
land and/or properties intended to be converted to affordable housing), development and/or preservation
consistent with adopted plans and policies. These commitments may include early phase or acquisition
financing as well as permanent financing. Local policies and zoning codes support affordable housing
development in and near transit corridors to a moderate extent. Some developers are starting to work in
the corridor to secure priority development sites and/or maintain affordability levels in existing housing
units. This would result in a MEDIUM rating.
Table 9-8 tabulates the qualitative assessment and assigned ratings based on experience and review of
prior FTA New Start project evaluations and rating of economic development criteria. Because these
ratings are qualitative in nature, they are subject to discussion and debate. However, the underlying
assumption is the projected continued out-migration of population from Cuyahoga County to adjacent
counties suggests an underlying weakness in developer interest and demand for renewal of aging
communities and its attendant infrastructure. A major public transportation investment could help arrest
and reverse this trend.
Table 9-8
New Starts Economic Development Criterion Rating
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
Implementation tools for TOD
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Performance of TOD policies
Medium-High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Potential TOD impact of project
134
AECOM
Plans and policies affordable housing
Economic Development Rating
May 9, 2016
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium-low
2.8
Medium
3.0
Medium
3.0
Medium
3.0
Source: AECOM qualitative analysis.
The overall rating for economic development for Alternative B HRT would likely be MEDIUM-LOW with a
very strong chance of being elevated as the project is defined during the project development and
engineering phases of the New Starts rating process. The BRT options would be rated MEDIUM.
The affected cities served by these alternatives can begin to develop the transit supportive and growth
management policies and programs necessary to create the incentives and tools essential to achieve the
regeneration and redevelopment desired in the station areas previewed in this report. By so doing, the
ratings for growth management and transit-supportive policies specific criteria can be raised from low to
medium thereby raising the summary rating to medium.
A major transit investment using any of the Build alternative alignments under active consideration would
help focus public and private investment in a long-established employment and residential area of
regional importance. This study area represents over a century of prior infrastructure investment and its
revitalization over time would advance the region’s growth management goals. All the infrastructure and
building blocks for revitalization are present. What the area needs is the stimulus a major transit
infrastructure investment can provide.
9.1.5
Land Use
The land use measure includes an examination of existing corridor and station area development;
existing corridor and station area development character; existing station area pedestrian facilities,
including access for persons with disabilities; existing corridor and station area parking supply; and the
proportion of existing “legally binding affordability restricted” housing within ½ mile of station areas to the
proportion of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing in the counties through which the project
travels.
A legally binding affordability restriction is a lien, deed of trust or other legal instrument attached to a
property and/or housing structure that restricts the cost of housing units to be affordable to households at
specified income levels for a defined period of time and requires that households at these income levels
occupy these units. This definition, includes, but is not limited to, state or federally supported public
housing, and housing owned by organizations dedicated to providing affordable housing. For the land
use measure looking at existing affordable housing, FTA is seeking legally binding affordability restricted
units to renters with incomes below 60 percent of the area median income and/or owners with incomes
below the area median that are within ½ mile of station areas and in the counties through which the
project travels.
FTA bases the rating primarily on quantitative measures, including station area population densities, total
employment served by the project, and the proportion of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing
within ½ mile of stations areas to the proportion of “legally binding affordability restricted” housing in the
counties through which the project travels. Poor pedestrian accessibility may reduce the rating, as it
reduces the effective amount of population and employment directly served by the system. Otherwise,
the presence of high trip generators, a pedestrian-accessible and friendly station area environment, and
135
AECOM
May 9, 2016
limited availability of parking all serve to support the rating. A station area encompasses a ½ mile radius
of the station.
The value, affordability, and condition of housing are important dimensions of an area’s socioeconomic
status. Three common measures are described below and summarized in Table 9-9.

Percent Owner-Occupied. While rental housing is often a valuable and important part of a
community’s housing stock (and much of the currently available capital for new housing
development, both affordable and market-rate is in the rental market), home ownership is
traditionally seen as an indicator of community strength. There is a clear divide between the
Cuyahoga and Lake communities. Home ownership is lowest in East Cleveland and Collinwood,
but on this measure the difference between Euclid and the immediately adjacent Lake County
communities of Wickliffe and Willowick is also pronounced—48% versus 85% and 86%.

Median Gross Rent. While 2010 rental prices in Euclid were comparable to those in Lake County,
those in East Cleveland and Collinwood were measurably, although not dramatically, lower.

Percent vacant. This measure is averaged over five years (2006-2010) to provide a meaningful
indicator of conditions in each community. There is 11% of the units in Euclid and 35% of the
units in East Cleveland were vacant.
Table 9-9
Housing Stock Characteristics
Percent Owner
Median Monthly
Percent Units Vacant
Community
Occupied (2010)
Rent (2010)
(2005-10)
36%
$ 649.31
18%
East Cleveland
22%
$ 604.18
35%
Euclid
48%
$ 806.19
11%
Study Area Average
35%
$686.55
21%
Source: US Census 2010; NEOCANDO (Case Western Reserve) from US Census
Housing affordability is an important concept in evaluating potential transit improvements for two distinct
reasons. First, thanks to the recent work of both the Urban Land Institute and the Center for
Neighborhood Technology (CNT), housing affordability is increasingly understood as just one side of a
more complex measure that combines housing costs and daily transportation costs. Housing on the
fringe of a metropolitan area may cost less than housing closer to the core, but if the suburban or
exurban alternative requires a long daily commute (with the all-in costs of an additional car, parking, and
gasoline) the difference may be eliminated or reversed. While housing is traditionally considered
affordable at 30 percent of a household’s income, CNT has demonstrated that the threshold for housing
plus transportation is 45 percent of income. By CNT’s metric Collinwood and East Cleveland are largely
affordable; Euclid, Wickliffe, and Willowick are mixed; and Eastlake, Willoughby, Mentor, and Mentor-onthe-Lake are largely not affordable when post-recession incomes, housing prices (mostly for-sale), and
commuting costs are all factored in.
Housing units in the study area were identified that are officially categorized as affordable, with legally
binding income eligibility criteria, as part of the Baseline Conditions Report. Error! Reference source
not found. Figure 17 in the Baseline Conditions Report (2013) locates such units, as provided by the
Ohio Housing Finance Agency. The number of affordable housing units within ½-mile of stations was not
tallied, but it was demonstrated that the study area has sufficient affordable housing units to qualify for a
MEDIUM rating. The proportion of legally binding affordability restricted housing in the project corridor is
within the lower boundary of the MEDIUM rating.
136
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Another measure of land-use is the density of population and total employment within ½-mile of stations.
The average population density should exceed 5,760 people per square mile to achieve a medium rating.
Employment within the same ½-mile radius of stations includes all jobs that can be reached by a oneseat ride using the project alternative being considered. In addition to the study area, the Red Line and
HealthLine extension serve University Circle and Downtown Cleveland with one-seat ride services.
These are, among the highest employment centers in the State of Ohio.
Table 9-10
Stations
Square miles
Population ½-mile station catchment
Population density per mile
2
Population Density Rating
Population Density and Employment
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
7
23
23
31
5.53
18.17
18.17
24.49
24,752
54,480
53,038
61,907
4,479.9
2,998.3
2,918.9
2,527.8
Medium-low
Medium-low
Medium-low
Low
Study area employment
Downtown + University Circle
Total Employment
Employment Rating
10,050
8,744
10,117
26,755
130,000
130,000
130,000
130,000
140,050
138,744
140,117
156,755
Medium-high
Medium-high
Medium-high
Medium
Source: US Census 2010, AECOM calculations.
Average population densities within a ½-mile of the stations of the planned extensions of the Red line
and HealthLine do not exceed the lower boundary for a medium rating for land-use. Alternatives B, E
and G would all be rated MEDIUM-LOW and Table 9-11 tabulates the individual land-use criteria used to
develop a summary rating for the land-use criterion. The study area has a diverse land-use base and is
characterized by very large tracts of industrial land. The study area also includes major railroad
infrastructure including the CSXT Collinwood Yard and the NS Euclid Yard. The relatively low population
density per station area is affected by this industrial land-use. However, the residential neighborhoods
are very dense and walkable having been developed at the turn of the prior century when streetcars were
the primary mode of transportation. Consequently, land-use would likely be rated MEDIUM for all the
alternatives being considered.
Table 9-11
Summary Land-Use Criterion Rating
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Affordable housing rating
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Population density rating
Medium-low
Medium-low
Medium-low
Low
Employment rating
Medium-high
Medium
Medium-high
Medium-high
Medium
Medium-low
Medium
Medium-low
Land-Use Rating
Source: AECOM calculations and qualitative analysis.
137
AECOM
9.1.6
May 9, 2016
Cost Effectiveness
The law requires that the cost-effectiveness criterion for New Starts projects be based on a cost per trip
measure. Therefore, the cost effectiveness measure for New Starts projects is the annual capital and
operating and maintenance (O&M) cost per trip on the project. The number of trips on the project is not
an incremental measure but simply total estimated trips on the project.
Costs and annualized costs were highlighted in Chapter 5. The incremental cost per transit trip on the
project is calculated by determining the annualized capital expenditure of the alternative and adding the
annual net operating cost to obtain the sum of annualized costs. In Section 7.2 the cost effectiveness
indices were calculated for the Build alternatives under consideration. Table 9-12 again illustrates the
results of these calculations for the alternatives being considered and presents the cost per trip for each
alternative and the FTA cost effectiveness rating.
The FTA threshold for a medium rating for cost effectiveness requires a cost per trip between $6.00 and
$9.9926. All the BRT options, Alternative E and G including the Hybrid alternative satisfy this criterion in
terms of cost per trip. Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid alternative would all achieve a MEDIUM rating.
The Red Line Alternative B extension to Babbitt Road has the highest cost per rider but it would also be
rated MEDIUM falling below the $9.99 threshold. The Red Line Noble Road extension if examined as a
minimum operable segment of Alternative B would be rated MEDIUM/HIGH falling below the $6.00
threshold at $5.87 per rider. All of the Build alternatives are cost effective.
Table 9-12
Cost Effectiveness Index – Cost per Trip
Alternative B
Alternative G
Hybrid
Shoregate
Shoregate
Shoregate
Terminus
Babbitt
$ 25,890
$ 5,091
$ 13,829
$ 13,734
$ 16,785
$ 11,900
$ 2,300
$ 6,100
$ 7,000
$ 9,400
$ 37,790
$ 7,391
$ 19,929
$ 20,734
$ 26,185
4,022
1,170
3,024
3,127
3,777
Annualized Trips on Project (000)
Noble
Alternative E
$9.41
$5.87
$6.58
6.62
$6.90
Cost Effectiveness Rating
Medium
Medium-high
Medium
Medium
Medium
Source: AECOM calculations.
9.1.7
Summary Project Justification Rating
The resulting tabulations and ratings are summarized and highlighted in Table 9-13.
26
Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Guidance FY2015; Washington, DC; August 2013.
138
AECOM
Table 9-13
Criteria
May 9, 2016
Alt B
Alt E
Alt G
Hybrid
Mobility
Medium
Medium-low
Medium-low
Medium
Congestion relief
Medium
Medium-low
Medium-low
Medium
Environmental benefits
High
High
High
Medium-High
Economic development
Medium-low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Land-use
Medium
Medium-low
Medium
Medium-low
Cost effectiveness
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
3.16
Medium-low
2.8
Medium
3.0
Medium
3.0
Project Justification Rating
It is important to recognize how the FTA Project Justification Criteria are being used at this early stage of
project discernment and evaluation. The data being generated and being applied for rating purposes
cannot be viewed as rigid metrics to choose among alternatives being considered. Rather, the evaluation
of potential projects is based on locally-established goals and objectives. As part of that process, the
rough, preliminary, partial estimates of the Project Justification Criteria are being used to see if the any of
the alternatives appear to be markedly differentiated—i.e., whether one choice would clearly have a
better chance in a future national competition for federal Capital Investment Grant program funding.
Clearly, each of the alternatives under consideration could be rated MEDIUM for project justification. With
Alternative E being rated slightly below the other alternatives at MEDIUM-LOW, there is room to
speculate that this rating would also be MEDIUM if a few other changes were made to the economic
development rating. As one would expect, each alternative has its own strengths and weaknesses and
an evaluation that weights all the criteria equally does not allow a proper discernment of the total benefits
of the alternatives. As a consequence, it will be difficult to recommend a preferred alternative from a
project justification perspective.
The Red Line extension Alternative B receives higher ratings for mobility and congestion relief when
compared to the BRT options of Alternatives E and G. Alternative B is equal to the Hybrid alternative in
those criteria that evaluate transportation benefits. But Alternative B costs $917 million and is more than
twice as expensive to plan, design and construct as the BRT options and is one-third more expensive
than the Hybrid alternative. Alternative B, E and G all receive high ratings for environmental benefits
despite the Red Line extension generating significantly more new transit riders thereby reducing daily
VMT. Although the BRT options have significantly less mobility benefits and attracts fewer new transit
riders, the lower CAPEX and OPEX when compared to the HRT option results in the same high rating for
environmental benefits as a percent of annualized cost.
9.2
Local Financial Commitment
The law requires that proposed New Starts projects be supported by an acceptable degree of local
financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct,
maintain and operate the transit system or extension, and maintain and operate the entire public
transportation system without requiring a reduction in existing services.
139
AECOM
May 9, 2016
A financial plan and 20-year cash flow statement must be prepared in accordance with FTA’s Guidance
for Transit Financial Plans. The measures FTA uses for the evaluation of local financial commitment for
proposed New Starts projects are:

The proposed share of total project capital costs from sources other than the Section 5309 CIG
program;

The current financial condition, both capital and operating, of the RTA;

The commitment of funds for both the capital cost of the proposed project and the ongoing transit
system operation and maintenance;

The reasonableness of the financial plan, including planning assumptions, cost estimates, and the
capacity to withstand funding shortfalls or cost overruns.
Individual ratings will be given to each of the following measures:
Current Capital and Operating Condition - The rating for the current capital and operating condition will
be based upon the average fleet age, bond ratings if given within the last two years, the current ratio as
shown in the project sponsor’s most recent audited financial statement (ratio of current assets to current
liabilities), and recent service history including whether there have been significant cuts in service. In
arriving at a current condition rating, the majority of the emphasis will be placed on the fleet age and
current ratio. The bond rating and service history will have less emphasis. Temporary aberrations in any
of these measures would have less of an effect than ongoing systemic concerns.
Commitment of Funds - The rating for commitment of funds will be based on the percentage of funds
(both capital and operating) that are committed or budgeted versus those considered only planned or
unspecified.
Reasonableness of Financial Plan - The rating for the reasonableness of the financial plan will be based
upon whether capital and operating planning assumptions are comparable to historical experience, the
reasonableness of the capital cost estimate of the project, adequacy of meeting state of good repair
needs, and the project sponsor’s financial capacity to withstand cost increases or funding shortfalls.
The summary local financial commitment rating will also take into consideration the share of CIG funding
requested. If the summary local financial commitment rating is rated at least Medium and the CIG share
is less than 50 percent of the project’s capital cost (i.e., the project sponsor is providing significant
overmatch), then the summary local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.
9.2.1
Current Capital and Operating Condition
The average age of the existing RTA bus and rail fleets are instructive. The average age of the RTA bus
fleet is approximately 9.2 years old reflecting heavy purchases of new buses in the earlier part of the
century. Purchases tapered off over the past 10 years. RTA has begun a bus replacement campaign
that will include the purchase of 240 new CNG buses over the next four years. RTA commenced this
campaign in 2015 by purchasing 90 new Gillig 40-foot CNG buses replacing some of the oldest buses in
its fleet, which were purchased in 2001. This campaign will continue to reduce the average age of the
bus fleet to about 7.2 years by 2018. There is a $6.0 million per year funding gap from local and federal
formula funds to maintain this fleet replacement program. RTA has been seeking competitive grant funds
to close this gap.
140
AECOM
May 9, 2016
The RTA replaced the entire rail fleet it inherited from the Cleveland Transit System and Shaker Heights
Rapid Transit shortly after commencing operations in 1975. The RTA replaced its low platform PCC
streetcar rail fleet between 1980 and 1982 with 48 light rail vehicles built by Breda Costruzioni
Ferroviarie. RTA replaced its fleet of St Louis Car and Pullman-Standard high platform heavy rail
vehicles with 60 stainless railcars manufactured by Tokyu Car Corporation between 1984-1985. The
current average age of the rail fleet is 33 years. This is approximately eight years beyond the life
expectancy of the rail fleet. RTA began a campaign to rebuild and overhaul its aging rail fleet about eight
years ago. It is expected the overhaul will extend the rail fleet life another 10 years. The rail fleet is
expected to be replaced in 2025. The estimated cost to replace the rail fleet is in excess of $280 million.
There is no source of funding sufficient to generate the local matching share for the rail fleet replacement.
In 2014, RTA reported it has $254 million in unfunded projects that are needed to restore the system to a
state-of-good-repair. The stark math of the shortfall was discussed during the Board hearings on the
2016 budget for infrastructure investments. RTA took a five-year look at its needs through 2020.
RTA’s 2016-2019 CIP has identified federal, state and local sources for $309 million in improvements
over the next five years, though $100 million of that will be for simply maintaining buses, trains and track.
The biggest new projects include the purchase of CNG buses as noted above ($67 million), bridge repair
($23.8 million), upgrading the overhead power distribution and catenary of the rail transit lines ($19.3
million) and rehabilitating stretches of rail track ($31.3 million). But RTA's plan for vehicle, track and
station improvements also cites more than a quarter of a billion dollars in work that languishes without
money to pay for it. And this does not include the $280 million for railcar fleet replacement.
RTA has the ability to borrow funds up to limits prescribed by law or it can seek an increase in its ad
valorem taxes. As pointed out in Section 5, RTA needs approximately 0.3 – 0.05 percent increase in the
sales and use tax to bring the system up to a state-of-good-repair and provide local match for system
expansion. RTA has not indicated any willingness to present a tax increase to the voters of Cuyahoga
County.
The RTA has sold un-voted general obligation (capital improvement) bonds to partially finance the
purchase and construction of various capital assets. Payment of debt service on the outstanding unvoted general obligation bonds of the RTA is secured by a pledge of all revenues of the RTA, except
those specifically limited to another use or prohibited from that use by the Ohio Constitution (state or
federal law, or any revenue bond trust agreement that RTA might execute). In practice, debt service has
been paid from the receipts of the RTA sales and use tax.
Subject to the approval of the County Budget Commission, the debt service can also be paid, in the event
it is not paid from other sources, from the proceeds of the levy by the RTA of ad valorem taxes within the
ten-mill limitation provided by Ohio law. The RTA can also, with the approval of the voters within the
territory of the RTA, issue general obligation bonds that, unless paid from other sources, are payable
from the proceeds of the levy by the RTA of ad valorem taxes that are outside that ten-mill limitation.
The RTA had $153.2 million of outstanding capital improvement bonds as of September 2015. Of this
amount $11.3 million is non-callable and $43.6 million is callable. The RTA general obligation debt is
rated ‘Aa2’ by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and ‘AAA’ by Standard & Poors. The sales tax revenue
bonds were rated AAA by S&P and Aa2 by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
Current sales and use tax is not generating sufficient revenue to fund on-going capital improvement and
system operations. RTA has signaled the general public that a fare increase and another round of
141
AECOM
May 9, 2016
service cuts and adjustments are necessary to balance the 2016 budget. System expansion is not
possible.
Because of the significant backlog in state-of-good-repair and no identified sources of funding to pay for
deferred capital replacement, renovation and overhaul and system expansion, this aspect of local
financial commitment would likely be rated LOW.
9.2.2
Commitment of Funds
RTA is unable to commit any substantial percentage of the capital cost of any of the alternatives under
active consideration in light of the foregoing discussion on current capital and operating condition. In
addition, there is no ability to fund additional operating costs for service expansion given the current
limited revenue sources. This aspect of local financial commitment would likely be rated LOW.
9.2.3
Reasonableness of Financial Plan
While the fare paid by transit users pays a portion of the cost of transit, the majority of the cost of RTA’s
public transit service is provided by county sales tax revenues. The balance of the funding is from state
and federal funding. State funding is near zero with no prospect of any increases in state support despite
the findings from the ODOT sponsored Transit Needs Assessment. Like the rest of the transit agencies
in Ohio, RTA has struggled with declining revenues and must continue to investigate and pursue
alternative, reliable and adequate funding sources. Deciding the best way to invest in capital resources to
receive the best return on the dollar for customers is vital. RTA must aggressively pursue new funding
sources and investments to sustain its financial future. One such consideration is to seek an increase in
the percentage of sales and use taxes. Until the RTA can demonstrate the ability to bring the system up
to a state-of-good-repair, find the funding necessary to replace the rail fleet and do so without cutting
existing service, this aspect of local financial commitment also would be rated LOW.
9.2.4
Summary Rating for Local Financial Commitment
Given that all aspects of local financial commitment would likely be rated LOW, the overall rating for local
financial commitment also would be rated LOW. This is 50 percent of the summary rating for any of the
alternatives and would decrease the summary rating when combined with the overall rating for project
justification.
9.3
Overall Project Evaluation Rating
The overall project evaluation ratings are highlighted in Table 9-14.
Table 9-14
Mobility
Congestion relief
Environmental benefits
Economic development
Land-use
Cost effectiveness
Project Justification Summary Rating
Current capital and operating condition
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Medium
Medium
High
Medium-low
Medium
Medium
Medium
3.33
Low
Medium-low
Medium-low
High
Medium-low
Medium-low
Medium
Medium-low
3.16
Low
Medium-low
Medium-low
High
Medium-low
Medium
Medium
Medium
3.16
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium-High
Medium-low
Medium
Medium
Medium
3.33
Low
142
AECOM
Commitment of funds
Reasonableness of financial plan
Local Financial Commitment Summary
Overall rating
May 9, 2016
Alternative B
Alternative E
Alternative G
Hybrid
Low
Low
Low
Medium Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium Low
Source: AECOM; New Starts templates, calculations and qualitative assessments.
As expected, the very low rating for financial commitment lowers the overall project evaluation rating
below the MEDIUM threshold needed to qualify for federal funding. Consequently, despite the medium
ratings for project justification, RTA cannot afford to move any of these projects forward without
significant financial assistance from state and federal sources.
143
AECOM
May 9, 2016
10 Summary and Conclusions
The alternatives screening and evaluation process was structured around criteria and indicators designed
to reflect the study goals and objectives as endorsed by the RTA, affected cities and involved
stakeholders.
Comparative evaluations of several alternatives were undertaken as part of the alternatives analysis
process. Based on the technical analysis, study results, meeting records, along with feedback provided
by the general public and stakeholders throughout the identification and evaluation of the study
alternatives, the project team screened the alternatives and was unable to reach consensus on selecting
a preferred alternative based on local goals and objectives and the feasibility assessment using the FTA
New Starts project justification and local financial commitment criteria.
The public and concerned stakeholders will be given an opportunity to review the alternatives analysis
study findings and to ask RTA staff and the consultant team questions regarding the alternatives and the
study findings and determinations.
10.1 Findings and Determinations
Based on a variety of evaluation criteria, none of the alternatives being actively considered rise to the
locally preferred alternative (LPA) designation. Arguments can be made for and against any of the
alternatives under consideration. These arguments are presented in the paragraphs below based on the
locally developed goals and objectives of the study:
Mobility
The mobility goal was to provide more transportation choices and to increase transit ridership and mode
share for all communities in the study area. Alternative B best meets the purpose of the project, which is
to accommodate existing and projected travel demand in the corridor. The Red Line extension alternative
is projected to attract over 4 million annual riders, which are nearly 1 million more riders than the BRT
options. The BRT Alternatives E and G are projected to attract over 3.0 and 3.1 million annual riders
respectively. Alternative B attracts the most new riders. The Red Line extension attracts 11,100 new
daily riders who had not previously used transit when compared to Alternatives E and G, which attract
3,800 and 4,300 new daily transit riders respectively. The Hybrid alternative attracts only 5,531 new
transit riders, which is about half of the Red Line extensions attraction.
Alternative B attracts more new transit riders and decreases VMT more than the BRT options.
Automobile emissions and GHG decrease more with Alternative B as daily VMT and daily congested
VMT decrease at significantly greater rates than with the BRT options of Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid
alternative. Consequently, Alternative B scores higher on the evaluation criteria for many of the
components of the project purpose.
Alternative B provides a logical phasing terminus for a minimum operable segment (MOS), the Noble
Road Station. This station could attract significant redevelopment as it serves General Electric’s NELA
Park Research Center. The station could also shift some local bus services and provide a major transfer
point and logical terminus for the Route 41 Warrensville crosstown bus line. Initial construction of the
MOS from the Louis Stokes Station at Windermere to the Noble Road Station would capture about ¼ of
the ridership while constructing one-sixth (1/6) of the total full-build distance. The capital cost for the MOS
is substantially less than the capital cost of the full-build Alternative B Red Line extension ($176 million
compared to $917 million). The total annualized cost for the MOS is also substantially less than the fullbuild Alternative B Red Line extension ($6.8 million compared to $37.7 million). Phasing of the project
144
AECOM
May 9, 2016
would spread the capital cost requirements for the preferred Build alternative over more years than would
construction all in one phase. Constructing the project in phases is a suggested risk-management
technique.
Economy - Although the HealthLine BRT extension Alternatives E and G do not generate the same level
of ridership, mobility, congestion relief and environmental benefits as does the Red Line extension, these
options are significantly cheaper to build. Moreover, this feasibility assessment assumed a very
aggressive urban design component that duplicated the design features of the HealthLine in the
Downtown, Midtown and University Circle segments of the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project. These
urban design features can be scaled back to be more in line with the recent implementation of the
Cleveland State University Viking Line, which is considered to be BRT Lite. This would substantially
reduce the capital cost of the project.
Alternative B is so much more costly in absolute terms that the difference cannot be ignored. Every
alternative is unaffordable today, but Alternative B presents a much higher CAPEX and OPEX hurdle to
financial feasibility and a higher opportunity cost in terms of other projects that would have to be foregone
to accommodate it.
However, it was determined RTA does not have the fiscal capacity to undertake any of the Build
alternatives without a substantial infusion of capital funding from local and state sources. Without any
state support, the burden of providing additional capital funds necessary to bring RTA up to a state-ofgood repair falls to the Greater Cleveland community. The existing 1 percent Sales and Use tax can no
longer support system renewal and expansion without further cuts to existing services. RTA does not
have the local funding necessary to support the required studies to advance any of the alternatives under
consideration nor does it have any future sources of funding for the required local match for a Build
alternative.
Livability – This local goal examines the environmental benefits of the alternatives including conserving
energy, supporting lifestyle choices involving sustainable development. The Urban Fabric Analysis
showed in detail what is obvious on its face. The BRT alternatives are woven into the built community,
while the Red Line extension is isolated. Three Red Line stations—Shaw, London, and East 193rd Street
(Indian Hills)—have enough residential population nearby (and not blocked by vacant industrial
properties) to capture substantial walk-in ridership, assuming streetscape improvements. The other new
Red Line stations would be far more isolated. One of the metrics within the Land Use criterion is existing
station area character with respect to pedestrian-bike access, mix of uses, and isolation-versusintegration. By this measure, while Alternative E goes through some badly disinvested places (Euclid
Avenue, Ivanhoe), it does it by traveling on streets that were historic streetcar corridors where some
fabric still exists. In other segments (Waterloo, East 156th, Lakeshore Boulevard) it serves areas of
normal, built-out, functioning community fabric.
The quantitative population density metrics are also interesting to consider. When you calculate
population per square mile across all the station areas using half-mile radii (the specific metric in the FTA
Guidance), Alternative B is somewhat higher than Alternative E (4,418 to 3,321)—but that’s an artifact of
Alternative B having seven stations and Alternative E having 23. When total population within a half-mile
of stations is examined, the half-mile population for Alternative E is more than double that of Alternative B
(54,740 versus 24,275). And if you drill down to a quarter-mile - not the FTA metric, but a better indication
of what the station areas are like on the ground - the quarter-mile population for Alternative E is almost
four times that of Alternative B (27,242 versus 7,385). The latter number is a very low number for a
seven-station heavy rail project. Also, at the quarter-mile catchment, Alternative E has the higher average
population per square mile (6,610 to 5,376).
145
AECOM
May 9, 2016
When employment in the station areas is examined, Alternative E is much stronger in the quarter-mile
catchment; Alternative B is slightly stronger in the half-mile. However, the main FTA metric for
employment is total employment within a half-mile of any station served by a one-seat ride on the
corridor. Thus, both Alternatives B and E get the benefit of all the jobs in University Circle and Downtown.
B also gets the west-side jobs on the Red Line between Tower Square and the airport, but Alternatives E
likely has more jobs within a half-mile of station stops between University Circle and downtown. The
Hybrid alternative gets the benefit of all Alternatives B, E and G. In short, the in-depth qualitative Urban
Fabric Analysis and the quantitative catchment area analysis are telling the same story - on Land Use,
Alternatives E and the Hybrid are better than Alternative B.
From an environmental benefits point of view, all the alternatives are rated equally despite the higher
absolute reductions in VMT, GHG, energy consumption and fatalities and injuries
Economic Development - On its face, one could argue that all four alternatives are equally weak on
economic development because there are no fully formed plans and policies, or equally strong because
each alternative has an abundance of land that could be redeveloped and the corridor as a whole
represents a regional-scale smart growth opportunity. The Market Perspective Report went deeper,
identifying three distinct types of market aspirations:



the infill market (along the traditional neighborhood centers and corridors);
the transformational market (large-scale redevelopment of derelict industrial or commercial lands,
especially the Noble-Ivanhoe Triangle and the vacant malls in Euclid);
The industrial market (the extent to which traditional or new industries can be supported in the
industrial/rail/Euclid/St. Clair corridor.
The report concluded that the transit alternatives potentially serve different markets:
 Alternative B would serve the industrial market and the transformational market. With respect to
the latter, “Mini-B” would terminate at the Noble-Ivanhoe Triangle, but in order to reach the vacant
malls, “Full B” would have to be built out to Babbitt.
 Alternatives E and G would be designed to serve the infill market. But they could be routed in a
way to support the transformational opportunity at the Noble-Ivanhoe Triangle. Alternative G, on
St. Clair, would support the industrial market.
A strategic argument for Alternative E (and its future opportunity to add a “G branch” as part of the Hybrid
alternative lies in these relationships between alternatives and markets. The infill market served by
Alternatives E and G (and the Hybrid alternative is arguably the most realistic and multi-faceted over
time, the easiest (relatively speaking) to get going, and the most likely to combine jobs, community
development, and affordable housing.
Affordable housing along an Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid alternative alignments would have good
pedestrian access to stations along established streets, while affordable housing near most proposed
Red Line stations would either be surrounded by vacant industrial land or not within a quarter-mile walk.
Alternatives E and G and the Hybrid alternative is the most versatile, serve one of the two large-scale
transformational sites, the core of the industrial market as well. Extending the existing Red Line also
expands opportunity for transit-oriented development, especially surrounding the Noble Road and Babbitt
Road Stations.
The FTA Economic Development criterion is ultimately seeking the extent to which an LPA (given proper
plans and policies) could support future development at a transit-supportive level and future affordable
146
AECOM
May 9, 2016
housing. It’s easier to make that argument for Alternatives E, G and the Hybrid alternative than the Red
Line extension of Alternative B.
To advance any of the alternatives to the Project Development phase of the New Starts process, RTA
must identify and document the funding available and committed to conduct the Project Development
work. This can be an expensive undertaking as it must include an anticipated timeline for completing the
Project Development phase including:



Preparing an environmental document in compliance with NEPA and related environmental laws;
Selecting a locally preferred alternative (LPA); adoption of the LPA in the fiscally constrained long
range transportation plan; and
Completing the activities required to obtain a project rating under the evaluation criteria outlined in
law.
Therefore, RTA cannot select a locally preferred alternative and advance it into Project Development.
The only action is to adopt the No Build alternative as the recommended alternative and continue the
planning necessary to discern the LPA while attempting to secure the local or state funding necessary to
achieve the financial stability necessary to become eligible for Capital Improvement Grant funding under
the New Starts program.
10.2 No Build Alternative Recommended
The No Build alternative is the recommended alternative because of the lack of financial commitment
from local and state sources that would provide the needed 50 percent match for FTA Capital
Improvement Grant funds. The No Build alternative includes planned and committed highway and transit
facilities that are likely to exist in 2035. NOACA’s long-range transportation plan, Connections+ 2035
(updated in May 2013), provides a vision for the region’s transportation system through 2035. The 2035
long-range transportation plan was developed within the constraints of reasonable financial assumptions.
The list of specific highway and transit facility improvements contains only those projects that can be
funded between now and 2035.
The No Build Alternative assumes normal maintenance and replacement of existing facilities and
equipment as their design life is exceeded. The No Build Alternative provides a baseline for comparing
travel benefits and other environmental impacts associated with the other alternatives.
10.2.1 Planned and Committed No Build Highway Improvements
The highway improvements included in the background highway network under the No Build Alternative
are those projects from the updated NOACA long-range transportation plan. Highway improvements in
the study area included in the No Build Alternative are the following:


Improvements to Wade Park
Opportunity Corridor, linking I-490 to University Circle
10.2.2 Planned and Committed No Build Transit Improvements
Transit services under the No Build Alternative consist of RTA routes and operating schedules in the
region as of December 2015 and include all existing facilities, plus other planned and committed transit
projects in the NOACA long-range transportation plan.
147
AECOM
May 9, 2016
Other planned projects include bus service improvements on several corridors as outlined in the RTA
Strategic Plan and other planned and committed infrastructure renewal projects identified in the RTA
Capital Improvement Program.
The proposed Red Line/HealthLine extension is not part of the planned and committed projects identified
by NOACA. Therefore the Red Line and HealthLine extension projects were not included in the
background travel demand network. This was done to isolate only those travel benefits and
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed extension of the Red Line and HealthLine alternatives
from Louis Stokes Station at Windermere to Babbitt Road and Shoregate Shopping Center respectively.
10.3 Conclusions
The RTA must forego the significant increase in new ridership that would result from extending the Red
Line east to Euclid. RTA would also forego the marginal increase in ridership if the HealthLine was to be
extended on either of two alignments serving East Cleveland, Five Points and Euclid and either the
Waterloo Arts District or Nottingham Village/East 185th Street. The Greater Cleveland community would
lose the potential benefits derived from lowering VMT, including reductions in congestion, pollutant
emissions, GHG, and automobile accidents. Without the major transit investment these alternatives
represent, the affected communities will lose a potential catalyst for economic development. However,
RTA must focus its limited financial resources to bring the system up to a state-of-good-repair, replace
aging railcars and maintain its current services.
148
AECOM
May 9, 2016
11 Next Steps
The completion of this report is generally the first step in moving a preferred Build alternative forward in
the FTA New Starts process commencing with Project Development. The next steps would usually
include:



Adoption of the preferred Build alternative as the LPA by the RTA Board of Trustees and the
NOACA Governing Board);
Commencing environmental scoping with a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental
document that complies with NEPA and other environmental law and regulations;
Requesting entry into the FTA Project Development phase of the New Starts process.
With the documented need for RTA to focus its resources on bringing the system into a State of Good
Repair, none of the Build alternatives are being recommended as the LPA. Therefore, the study is being
concluded with the No Build Alternative as the recommended alternative. However, the No Build
Alternative is not going to be formally adopted as the LPA in order to preserve the ability to re-evaluate
the Build alternatives if the RTA financial condition and availability of other funding sources were to
change.
149
AECOM
References
AECOM
2013a
2013b
2013c
2013d
2013e
2013f
Travel Market Analysis (July 29).
Baseline Conditions Report (August 28)
Purpose and Need Report (October 14)
Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report (November 12)
Initial Alternatives Screening Report (December 9)
Environmental Red Flag Analysis (December 19) – ASC Group
2014a
2014b
2014c
2014d
2014e
2014f
2014g
2014h
Technology Assessment (January 15) – Virginkar & Associates
Capital Cost Methodology and Estimates Report (January 16)
Operating Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report (March 17)
Ridership Methodology and Results Report (March 25)
Financial Analysis Report (May 20)
Urban Fabric Analysis (June 20)
Market Perspective (June 24)
Detailed Alternatives Screening Report (August 25)
City of Cleveland
2004a
2004b
Lakes Shore Boulevard Revitalization Strategy (December)
St Clair Revitalization Plan
2005
200x
Five Points Development Plan (December 27)
Connecting Cleveland Citywide Plan 2020
2003
City of East Cleveland Master Plan
City of Euclid
2007
2009
Downtown Euclid Transportation and Redevelopment Plan (December)
Euclid Waterfront Improvements Plan (November)
Federal Transit Administration
2011
2015
Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning (December)
Final Interim Policy Guidance for Capital Investment Grant Program (August)
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
2007
Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines (February)
150
May 9, 2016
AECOM
2012
2014
2015
Strategic Plan (May)
Annual Report
Capital Improvement Plan (July)
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
2013
Connections 2015 Long Range Transportation Plan (May)
151
May 9, 2016

Final Report - Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Transcription

Similar documents

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

Fastfrate Roadfrate SS.indd

june 4 : fado irish pub

Flyer 2 (2.7 mb pdf)

Table of contents

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ - St. Stephen Church

SHOW PASS

Pharr District Regional Characteristics and Inventory

PATransit Port Authority of Allegheny County DR500C Talking Bus

Wish List - Cleveland Animal Protective League