Home Link
Widen and Reconstruct Pearl Road in Strongsville

 

On September 8, 2006, the NOACA Governing Board approved the following regarding this project: Resolution No. 2006-035 Project Planning Review Resolution No. 2006-036 Plan and TIP Amendment

Title:  Widen and Reconstruct Pearl Road in Strongsville
Sponsor:  City of Strongsville
PID No. 80983
Estimated Total Cost: $20,000,000
Proposed Source of Federal Funds: SAFETEA-LU (earmark) and to be determined

 History/Background: The Council of the City of Strongsville via Ordinance 2002-214 authorized the mayor to enter into a contract for engineering services in connection with the Pearl Road widening. The project is currently listed in Tier III of NOACA’s long-range transportation plan Connections 2030. Strongsville has unsuccessfully applied to the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) for funding for this project in the past (the project received a 2004 TRAC draft score of 21 out of a possible 130 points). The City of Strongsville received an earmark of $800,000 from SAFETEA-LU, the federal transportation law (House High Priority Projects Earmark No. 3205-Widen Pearl Road).

Current Conditions: Pearl Road (US-42) is functionally classified as an urban principal arterial. This section of Pearl Road is two lanes, each lane eleven feet wide (the pavement width is twenty-two feet), with no curbs or sidewalks. The legal speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). The average daily traffic (ADT) is 20,975 (2004) with 3 percent trucks. The projected ADT is 22,950 vehicles per day (2007).

Proposed Project:  The project involves widening and reconstructing two miles of Pearl Road, from Shurmer Road to Boston Road. The sponsor proposes the project be done in two phases; Phase 1, from just south of Drake Road to Shurmer Road; and Phase 2, from Boston Road to just south of Drake Road. The sponsor proposes widening Pearl Road from two to five lanes with center lanes twelve feet wide and curb lanes thirteen feet wide (the proposed pavement width is sixty-two feet), with curbs and sidewalks five feet wide on both sides. The total construction cost is estimated to be $20,000,000, as listed in the sponsor’s most recent TRAC application. In the application, the sponsor states that it will invest $5,000,000 in local funds for design, environmental, right of way and construction. The sponsor is again asking for TRAC to fund $6,000,000 of the project. The sponsor also lists the following potential funding sources: $5,600,000 (NOACA); $2,500,000 (Issue 1); $600,000 (Cuyahoga County); $300,000 (ODOT). The Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) application states the project will be constructed in 2013.

NOACA staff met with the City of Strongsville to discuss the financial situation. The City understands that NOACA cannot currently commit to funding. The City requests that this project be amended to the Transportation Plan (Tier II) so that it can access the earmark funds.

Staff Comment (Summary):
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Team:
  • At its March 17, 2006 meeting, the RTIS authorized staff to inform applicants that it is unlikely that any new application requesting federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for 2006-2009 would be approved due to the funding shortfall. Because circumstances may change, we recommend that successful applications requesting funds for 2006-2009 be placed on the Transportation Plan (2010 and beyond). If funding becomes available, proposed projects can be considered for funding on a case-by-case basis. Criteria used by the RTIS for programming a project will include the status of other reservoir projects, project readiness, county targets, type of project, project cost and Board priorities.
  • Recommend this project go to the Regional Transportation Investment Subcommittee (RTIS) and Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) for consideration.
Regional Transportation System (RTS) Team:
  • This section of US-42 is congested between Boston and Drake Roads.
  • This project includes an 11-foot multipurpose path on one side of the road and a 5-foot sidewalk on the other side, which accommodates bicyclists and pedestrians.
  • This project should be coordinated with any other construction on US-42 to extend the sidewalk and the multipurpose path.
  • This section of Pearl Road carries two GCRTA routes, which operate a total of 56 weekday buses in both direction.
Plan Forecast Team:
  • This segment is one of the most highly congested in the region according to NOACA's Congestion Management System (CMS). The surrounding land is close to built out in low-density. However, to the southwest the US-42 corridor remains mostly undeveloped. Therefore, the Plan/Forecast Team recommends that this project go to the RTIS and TAC for consideration as a capacity-adding project with the following caveat: The cycle of low density development and ever-expanding roadways is not regionally sustainable. This project needs to be reviewed in the context of the Board-approved transportation plan goals elated to the regional economy and natural environment.
John Hosek, Director of Transportation Programs: Presented at TAC August 18

"I want to provide some background information and context regarding the U.S. 42 project before the RTIS and TAC today. I would first like to talk about the project itself, and its possible regional impact. Following that, I will discuss funding issues related to the project.

As are most projects of this scope and size, the U.S. 42 project is complex. If you look at page 80 of the TAC mailout, you will see how the project was scored using the Board approved 'New Capacity Project Selection System.' Note that from a system congestion perspective, the project scored 35 out of a possible 40 points. Also, from a safety perspective, the project scored 17 out of a possible 20 points. The project also has multimodal characteristics and scored 10 out of 10 points in that area.

However, when you look at some of the other scores you see another point of view. The project received only 2 out of a possible 30 points for urban core reinvestment. And it scored only 3 of 40 points for economic development/redevelopment.

While we can debate adding or subtracting a few points here and there, it is apparent that the best reasons for advancing this capacity project are to relieve congestion, improve safety and provide some multimodal alternatives. All good reasons.

However, there are economic and social costs associated with this improvement. The project does not provide for urban core reinvestment or regional sustainable economic development. That is why the Plan Forecast team stated in its comments on page 20 that 'The cycle of low density development and ever-expanding roadways is not regionally sustainable. This project needs to be reviewed in the context of the Board-approved transportation plan goals related to the regional economy and natural environment.'

In all fairness, the same thing can be probably said for two other TRAC applications before you later in the agenda: U.S. 20 in North Ridgeville and U.S. 42 in Medina. These three projects are very similar in that they will help solve transportation problems (congestion, safety and multimodal issues), but they do not appear to significantly help the Board to achieve its other Plan goals of helping to build a sustainable regional economy.

The problem, from my perspective, can be encapsulated this way: How does the TAC and Board weigh the benefits of helping to achieve some plan goals (congestion relief, safety) in contrast to not helping to achieve others (regional economic sustainability)? I don't have the answers for this; better minds than mine have wrestled with the issues. But the questions and issues are before us again.

Regarding funding, the project is being advanced as a Plan amendment at this time because the City received an earmark of slightly less than a million for PE and right of way. However, the current estimated total cost of the project is over $20 million at this time. With the way material and labor costs are increasing, I suspect that when the project is ready to sell, the cost will be higher.

The City of Strongsville is well aware that NOACA does not have the funds for the project. Plus--and the City may not agree with this-- in my opinion it is highly unlikely that TRAC will fund a significant portion of the project. So where is the money going to come from?

The City has pledged that it will use local funds for the project. On page 67 of the TAC mailout you will note that the City has stated it will use close to $19 million of local funds for the project. However, the City has also stated that it will continue to look for other sources.

Will this project then come back to NOACA in the future for NOACA funds? To me, it is reasonable to assume so. In the current economic and political climate, however, I simply do not know how NOACA funds can be used to fund large-scale capacity projects in the future. We receive approximately $25 to $30 million per year of STP funds that are used to preserve and maintain the system. We simply do not have the funds to preserve the current system, let alone expand it.

For example, just this past week we received information that a preservation project scheduled for 2008 is projected to increase from about $8 million of NOACA funds to close to $14 million. We are in an unprecedented time of cost increases, coupled with revenue reductions. Perhaps we will need to consider saying 'please wait in line' to project sponsors. Or, more drastically, to say honestly to other project sponsors: 'We don’t know how we can possibly fund your project.'

Again, I don't have the answers for these issues; better minds than mine are now wresting with the overall cost increase and project finance issues before us now.

As Director of Transportation Programs, however, I have taken it as my responsibility to bring these issues to your attention. In the near future, other perhaps more controversial projects will come before this committee. But the issues will be similar. The issues will involve reflecting on the Board’s goals, and discussing the regional impact of our decisions. Also in the near future, staff will be advancing a review of the Board’s Investment policy, as stated in this year’s work program. Perhaps that will be the time to discuss some of the points I tried to address.

In conclusion, as Director I felt obliged to provide this perspective not because I am against the project or its approval. I understand the value of the project. However, as with all economic decisions there are benefits and costs. The benefits are to improve congestion and safety; the costs appear to be regional economic sustainability and financial stability. I respectfully request that you consider these in your decision today and in the future when major projects are before you."

Committee Review:
Bicycle Advisory Council (BAC):
The planned project includes a multi-purpose path with a sidewalk on the other side, which will accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.

Regional Transportation Investment Subcommittee (RTIS)/Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC):
  • No comments; recommended for amendment to NOACA's Transportation Plan and TIP.


    • Intergovernmental Review and Consultation (IGRC):
    "Supports: project w/11' multi-purpose path & 5' sidewalk to encourage pedestrians & use of bicycles for physical activity and alternate mode of transportation." - Cuyahoga County Board of Health

    If you are a representative of a governmental entity and would like to comment on this project, please email us.

    Public Involvement:
    "I support this project - this section has a high volume of traffic and commercial development."
    Debra Lynn-Schmitz, President
    Medina Area Chamber of Commerce

    NOACA encourages comments from the public on this proposed transportation improvement project. Please notify us if you would like to be added to our e-mail notification list for future updates.