KJP

Gee, I thought human beings designed cities, not happenstance. And I thought quality of life, including attractive surroundings, positively influences economic development. But I guess he missed that chapter in his urban studies class(es).

You are correct. I checked PRR timetables going back to the 1920s, and in all cases, the Broadway stopped in Ft. Wayne. It was the only station stop it made between Englewood and Pittsburgh, though it probably made crew changes at Crestline and Canton.

If this isn't grassroots support, then I don't know what is! ___________________ THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS November 19, 2006 Sunday FIRST EDITION SECTION: POINTS; EDITORIALS; Pg. 2P All Aboard Support massing for local-option vote on transit State lawmakers from North Texas have asked for clear instructions on how they can help their communities with the job of building out the region's transit system. They have those instructions now. Things couldn't be clearer. More than 50 North Texas city councils, regional and civic organizations, and business groups have voted to issue a joint imperative to the legislative delegation. That message: Go down to Austin next year and secure the opportunity for North Texas communities to hold local-option elections for transit. A more important set of instructions is hard to imagine. It has implications for the economic and environmental health - and future - of the entire region. Success in the Capitol would mean dozens of communities now outside transit-agency boundaries could vote to bump up their sales taxes to attract vital rail service for commuters. The instructions to lawmakers are contained in a resolution drafted by the three local transit agencies - Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Fort Worth's "T" and the Denton County Transportation Authority - and circulated to local city halls and governing boards for a vote. The joint initiative is unprecedented. And that reflects how the region has been coming together on the need for mass transit since a watershed regional summit on the issue in 2004. Hundreds of representatives at that session voted to support an additional half-cent in taxing authority for cities that want to link up to the rail network. By signing the current resolution, local communities are saying they want the right to make an even bigger investment in mass transit - up to 1 cent on the dollar - and attract fuller transportation services and a sleeker variation of rail transit. We support the right of voters in North Texas communities to make the higher-level investment in mass transit. We commend and support those involved in the effort to clarify the region's expectations of lawmakers for the 2007 legislative session. It has provided fresh energy at a crucial time. Where to from here? The next step in the process is a critical meeting in 22 days - on Dec. 11 - involving members of the legislative delegation, plus local elected and transit officials. They will try to hammer out an approach for advancing the region's transit agenda in Austin next year. In pre-election interviews with this newspaper's editorial board, nearly all candidates for the Texas House and Senate said they supported the regional transit initiative. Their energy and support at the Dec. 11 meeting will be important to keeping momentum going. Lawmakers who remain unconvinced - despite the clear sentiments of their constituents - also have a responsibility to play a constructive role. We invite reluctant lawmakers to review the results of a regional survey this year that polled residents of nontransit cities on a new tax to attract rail. More than 70 percent in each North Texas state Senate district supported a half-cent increase for transit. Support across the region still was considerable- about 45 percent - for a full cent. Many transit supporters no doubt have purely practical reasons: the ability to get to work or shopping without traffic tie-ups. Or maybe it's the cost of the next fill-up or the ability to cut household expenses by becoming a one-car - instead of two or three - family. Businesses in hot-growth, high-end bedroom communities are discovering their own practical reasons to support transit: ensuring a sufficient supply of workers to meet the needs of the suburban economy There's a greater good, too. Fewer cars on the road means cleaner air and a healthier environment. It's just not acceptable to have to tell school kids that outdoor recess has been cancelled because the air is too unhealthy to breathe. Finally, there's the question of sprawl. The metro area continues to push out onto the prairie to accommodate galloping growth, putting a greater distance between home and work for tens of thousands every year. Without transit options, the cost is unsustainable: countless miles of more roads, more cars, more fumes. We are capable of a better blueprint for the future. TRANSIT TAX PRIMER The state now levies a 6 1/4-cent sales tax; cities can add up to 2 cents more. -Most cities use a penny from that 2 cents for general revenue. -Dallas and other DART cities levy the remaining penny for mass transit. Many nontransit cities use the remaining penny for economic or community development. What communities want: To allow voters in nontransit cities to decide whether to levy as much as 1 cent more for transit. Cities already in transit systems could decide to use an extra cent for other purposes. Transit supporters The following have approved a joint resolution backing local-option elections for transit: Commissioners courts: Collin County Denton County Tarrant County DART member city councils: Addison Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Highland Park Irving Plano Richardson Rowlett University Park "T" member city councils: Fort Worth Richland Hills DCTA member city councils: Denton Highland Village Lewisville Nontransit city councils: Allen Anna Arlington Benbrook Burleson Cedar Hill Coppell DeSoto Duncanville Euless Fairview Frisco Grand Prairie Haltom City Lancaster McKinney Melissa Mesquite Murphy North Richland Hills Watauga Regional organizations: Regional Transportation Council Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition Region 13 Texas Municipal League chapter Tarrant County Mayors' Council North Texas Commission Chambers of commerce: Greater Dallas Chamber Fort Worth Chamber Burleson Chamber Southeast Dallas Chamber Northeast Dallas Chamber Metrocrest Chamber Richardson Chamber Lancaster Chamber GRAPHIC: PHOTO(S): (FILE) DART currently provides transportation to Dallas and 12 other cities in North Texas. LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2006

Then they shouldn't have built the houses so close to the tracks. The reporter seemed to overlook the basic premise that the rail line was built before the community of Silver Lake and its zoning laws existed. The article makes it seem like the railroad intruded upon the community, when in reality it's the other way around.

These guys usually rip from other news outlets like the Sun or PD. But I didn't see this in either publication. Anyone have more details? Metro Networks Communications Inc., A Westwood One Company "Downtown" Planned In Solon 11-24-2006 5:42 AM (Solon, OH) -- Solon city leaders are hoping to build a "downtown" district to attract new businesses and visitors. Their center-of-town proposal would be located at Bainbridge and SOM Center roads. Plans call for a new firehouse, parks and a bandstand. The renovated and expanded fire station is the first priority, with a 5-million-dollar upgrade on the drawing board. Supporters of the Solon downtown plan say it will attract upscale shops and restaurants that attract people to neighboring cities. ###

I'm not sure I understand why such skepticism is rearing its ugly head so soon. I haven't followed the Banks situation closely, so I don't know how long that thing has been kicking around. And just because we're not hearing as much news publicly with Pesht or FEB in the last few months as we did in prior months, doesn't mean stuff isn't happening. They're into the nitty-gritty with both projects, which isn't necessarily newsworthy. Keep in mind, a large project like Crocker Park was first announced in 1999. Construction didn't start until 2004. We didn't hear the first details about Pesht until a year ago, though Stark's downtown inclination was revealed in prior months. Patience, people.

Both a daily Cardinal and a train extended to Columbus are in All Aboard Ohio's draft proposal.

BTW, Noozer, Amtrak's Wolverine Service between Chicago and Detroit is not state-supported. The three daily round trips receive no operating subsidy from Michigan. The state did pay for station rehabs, converting Amtrak Metroliners into cab cars, and for helping to pay for the high-speed upgrades between Porter Indiana and Kalamazoo. So Michigan does have some say in what happens with those trains. But, ultimately, it's Amtrak's call in how those trains are scheduled and routed.

Here we go again....

As you know, I'm no Amtrak fan. But one theme I continually hear from public officials (as well as here at UO) is skepticism as to whether anything with the Ohio Hub will happen. Ironically, they let that skepticism prevent them from helping to make it happen -- a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one. States having decent rail service have it because they had a baseline level of usuable Amtrak service to build on. And I'm not talking the long-distance trains. In Illinois, they had two Amtrak-funded trains between Chicago and St. Louis. Between Chicago and Milwaukee, they had three daily Amtrak-funded trains. Between Harrisburg and Philadelphia, five round trips were Amtrak funded. Between Los Angeles and San Diego, three daily round trips were Amtrak funded. Those were their starting points. What is our starting point? Two daily, middle-of-the-night trains across northern Ohio and one thrice-weekly train along the Ohio River. They all start someplace other than Ohio, so we don't even get the benefit of having the originating train operating on time. The net effect is we have ZERO usuable trains in Ohio. In those other states, there was something for people to use, and for public officials to see and measure. And, in each of those states, public officials were able to build on that by providing state support to offer more train services, and in some cases, substantially more. The laws of physics say that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Objects that have no momentum, stay standing still. That's not a criticism of the Ohio Hub planning. That has to happen if we are to build toward something truly worthwhile. But so does offering some trains at a very low start-up cost, with low risks, and that people can use to keep the issue in front of them in a tangible way. I can put my disdain for Amtrak aside to put things in perspective. There are a lot of things that need fixing with our nation's rail system, and Amtrak is a symptom of many larger problems. Even the Ohio Hub, as massive as a plan as it is, still depends on many other solutions that are still larger than it. We can't swallow the elephant in one bite. But we can start biting off manageable pieces.

Yes, at a suburban location nearer to the Turnpike.

It's always shocked me how the Cleveland Clinic, despite its density of development, has done everything possible to function inward in so many respects. And visually speaking, every time I'm on Carnegie Avenue, I feel like I'm on a bobsled and the Clinic's large, icy buildings are like the track's walls. Or maybe "gauntlet" is a better metaphor? And even this beauty (below) of a building has been "clinicked" -- note the street-facing retail spaces have been bricked up or otherwise covered. Seems the owners of this building have been taking notes from the Clinic on how to make sidewalks as barren as possible.

Interesting that there's such a huge peak in new members in January to March in the last two years. I guess people are suffering from cabin fever during the depths of winter. That also tells me we don't have enough winter sports or cold-weather events to keep us busy during those months.

More often due to width, but I suspect the double-decker commuter trains like those shown above would come a little too close to the overhead catenary wires on the Red Line for the FTA to be comfortable with. I doubt they would come into contact with the wires, however.

Saw the Chicago-bound Megabus loading on Huron Road in downtown Cleveland this morning. I don't know how in the world they got all those people to squeeze into that 40- or 50-seat bus. It was quite a crowd.

Good Riddance Bee-yoo-tee-full!! Nice pictures, BTW. In the fifth photo, can anyone read the rest of the guy's shirt that starts with "Lose Carbs"? And, for MTS, you said "manscaping" -- didn't you mean "man scraping"? Manscaping sounds like what you and MayDay would consider as the ideal way to decorate a landscape!

If the issue is compatibility with a transit facility, then the Federal Transit Administration would have to be approached for a waiver. If the compatibility issue is with the freight railroad, then it's the FRA. In this case, both agencies would probably have to be approached to approve having a lightweight, self-propelled, dual-powered (electric and diesel) rail car operate on both the Norfolk Southern rail line and the RTA's Red Line. To operate on the NS line, the FRA would require a time-of-day separation between freight trains and lightweight rail transit trains (not be confused with heavier, locomotive-hauled commuter trains). In other words, as an example, freight would operate only from something like 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., and the rail transit service would operate within a 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. time frame. That's how the new RiverLINE in New Jersey operates, on a line that sees more freight traffic that NS's line through Lakewood. The Sprinter service north of San Diego will require the same time-of-day separation. The reason for the time separation is because a diesel light rail transit vehicle does not meet FRA buffer-strength standards that would allow the vehicle to "survive" a collision with a freight train. On the Red Line, the compatibility issue is whether the diesel-electric light-rail vehicle can fit next to existing station platforms or safely negotiate tighter curves and steeper grades than you would see on a freight rail line. By the way, Dan, I realize you know a lot of this stuff, so I'm writing much of this for the benefit of others who may also be reading this. Here's a visual comparison of the two different types of train equipment... Diesel light rail (can be retrofitted with pantagraphs atop the trains to switch over to electrical power and draw electricity from overhead catenary wires): One of New Jersey Transit's RiverLINE trains, shown here in Camden NJ on streetcar-like trackage where freight trains don't travel - The RiverLINE on a section where it shares trackage with NS freight trains - This could just as well be in Rocky River (freight trains operate here, too, but only at night) - Locomotive-hauled commuter trains (which cannot operate on RTA's Red Line due to these trains' physical size): New Mexico's new RailRunner commuter train service - Nashville's new Music City Express commuter rail service - The Altamont Commuter Express between San Jose and Stockton Calif. - There's more examples out there from around the country, but those show the differences in equipment types.

Very good news from the Ohio Supreme Court... It wasn't a unanimous decision, so Silver Lake will probably appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They don't have to take the case, though. The conclusion and majority opinion is listed about two-thirds the way down. ____________________ 111 Ohio St.3d 324; Silver Lake v. Metro Regional Transit Auth.; Page 324 VILLAGE OF SILVER LAKE, APPELLANT, v. METRO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Silver Lake v. Metro Regional Transit Auth., 111 Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-5790] 2006-Ohio-5790 Regional transit authorities - Lease of unused rail line and right-of-way - R.C. 306.35(G). (No. 2005 1074 - Submitted March 15, 2006 - Decided November 22, 2006.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. CA 22199, 2005-Ohio-2157. O'DONNELL, J. {¶ 1} The village of Silver Lake appeals from a decision of the Summit County Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the trial court and authorized the Metro Regional Transit Authority to lease the Akron Secondary railroad track which borders Silver Lake, to a subsidiary of the Adrian & Blissfield Railroad, known as the Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company, for the operation of a dinner-excursion train. For the reasons that follow, we affirm that decision. {¶ 2} In 1972, the cities of Akron, Barberton, and Cuyahoga Falls each passed ordinances creating the Metro Regional Transit Authority for the purposes of preserving and maintaining the existing level of mass transit service in the area and providing the administrative and financial capability to upgrade that service in the future. In 1995, using funds from the Federal Transit Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation, Metro purchased the tracks and right-of-way known as the Akron Secondary, from milepost 8.0 in Cuyahoga Falls north to milepost 1.45 in Hudson, from the Consolidated Rail Corporation. One and onehalf miles of that track are located along the western border of Silver Lake and run parallel to State Route 8. Eight-tenths of a mile adjoin 33 homes in the village. In 2002, the Adrian & Blissfield Railroad contacted Metro regarding the possibility of operating a dinner-excursion train on the Akron Secondary. Metro invited public bidding for the venture and ultimately accepted a proposal submitted by the Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company. Metro then leased the track and right-of-way to the Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway for a period of five years for the operation of the dinner train. {¶ 3} The proposed dinner train was initially to consist of two dining cars, a kitchen car, and two locomotives, with passengers departing from and returning to Cuyahoga Falls. The parties anticipated the excursion train to be a revenue Page 325 producing project for Metro. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the lease, Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company agreed to maintain and improve the railroad infrastructure. {¶ 4} As a result of the proposed dinner train, the village of Silver Lake sued Metro in the Summit County Common Pleas Court to enjoin it from leasing the Akron Secondary, asserting that its zoning code does not permit the operation of a railroad for a commercial use and urging that a dinner-excursion train is not a transit facility. The village timely sought a judgment declaring that Metro lacked the statutory authority to lease its facilities to operate a dinner train. The trial court granted Silver Lake's request for both injunctive and declaratory relief, and found both that there was an "imminent threat" that the proposed dinner train would violate the Silver Lake zoning code and that the dinner train did not fit the definition of a transit facility; it therefore held that the lease exceeded the scope of Metro's statutory authority. {¶ 5} On appeal, the Summit County Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that because the Akron Secondary had been excluded from any zoning designation in the Silver Lake zoning code, the dinner train would not violate any zoning code restrictions. It further held that Metro had the statutory authority to lease the Akron Secondary regardless of whether the dinner train itself was a transit facility. Silver Lake appealed to our court, and we granted discretionary review on the limited question of Metro's statutory authority to lease the Akron Secondary. Silver Lake v. Metro Regional Transit Auth., 106 Ohio St.3d 1532, 2005-Ohio-5146, 835 N.E.2d 382. {¶ 6} Silver Lake asserts in our court that Metro exceeded its statutory authority in leasing the Akron Secondary to the Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company to operate a dinner-excursion train, contending that a regional transit authority is confined to utilizing its property only for an activity in which the primary purpose is the regularly scheduled mass movement of passengers. {¶ 7} Metro, on the other hand, argues that the law permits a regional transit authority to lease transit facilities to accomplish the purposes of its organization and that the law authorizes a regional transit authority to lease real property to protect and improve its transit facilities or for any other necessary purpose. Therefore, Metro claims, it leased the Akron Secondary for the dinner-excursion train in accordance with its statutory authority, not only to generate revenue for Metro but also to obligate the railway to assume responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of the Akron Secondary until Metro can engage in the regularly scheduled mass movement of passengers on that line. {¶ 8} The issue then presented for our review concerns the scope of the statutory authority of a regional transit authority, specifically, whether the Metro Regional Transit Authority is authorized to lease the Akron Secondary to the Page 326 Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company on an interim basis for the operation of a dinner train until Metro can use the tracks for the mass movement of passengers, or whether Metro is restricted to leasing property that is only being utilized as a transit facility. {¶ 9} A transit facility is defined in R.C. 306.30: "As used in sections 306.30 to 306.53, inclusive, of the Revised Code, `transit facility' means any: {¶ 10} "(A) Street railway * * * or other ground * * * transportation system having as its primary purpose the regularly scheduled mass movement of passengers between locations within the territorial boundaries of a regional transit authority, including all right-of-way * * * attendant thereto * * *." {¶ 11} Also relevant to this issue, however, are subsections (G) and (J) of R.C. 306.35, which provide additional statutory authorization for a regional transit authority to lease transit facilities or to lease real property. Specifically, R.C. 306.35 provides: {¶ 12} "Upon the creation of a regional transit authority * * *, the authority shall exercise in its own name all the rights, powers, and duties vested in and conferred upon it by sections 306.30 to 306.53 of the Revised Code. Subject to any reservations, limitations, and qualifications that are set forth in those sections, the regional transit authority: {¶ 13} "* * * {¶ 14} "(G) May acquire, construct, improve, extend, repair, lease, operate, maintain, or manage transit facilities within or without its territorial boundaries, considered necessary to accomplish the purposes of its organization and make charges for the use of transit facilities; {¶ 15} "* * * {¶ 16} "(J) May * * * lease as lessee or lessor * * * real and personal property, or any interest or right in real and personal property, * * * for the location or protection of transit facilities and improvements and access to transit facilities * * * or for any other necessary purpose * * *." (Emphasis added.) {¶ 17} These foregoing subsections require no judicial interpretation: "When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no need for this court to apply the rules of statutory interpretation." Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Smyth (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 549, 553, 721 N.E.2d 1057. "Statutory interpretation involves an examination of the words used by the legislature in a statute, and when the General Assembly has plainly and unambiguously conveyed its legislative intent, there is nothing for a court to interpret or construe, and therefore, the court applies the law as written." State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391, 2006-Ohio-2706, 848 N.E.2d 496. Page 327 {¶ 18} Thus, two bases exist that authorize the Metro Regional Transit Authority to lease the Akron Secondary to the Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company for the operation of a dinner train. First, assuming that the Akron Secondary, consisting of a railroad right-of-way and six and one-half miles of railroad track, is a transit facility, Metro is authorized to lease it while it is being held for future use. Second, Metro is authorized to lease the Akron Secondary because it is owned by Metro and it consists of real property that may be leased for the protection of or improvement and access to transit facilities, or for any other necessary purpose. R.C. 306.35(G): Lease of Transit Facilities {¶ 19} Consistent with R.C. 306.35(G), a regional transit authority is authorized to acquire or lease transit facilities "considered necessary to accomplish the purposes of its organization." The ordinances of Akron, Barberton, and Cuyahoga Falls that created the Metro Regional Transit Authority set forth its purposes: to preserve and maintain the current level of mass transit service and to provide the administrative and financial capability to improve and upgrade mass transit service in the future. {¶ 20} In addition, the Ohio Department of Transportation provided partial funding for Metro's purchase of the Akron Secondary to further the Department's commitment to secure feasible transportation options for the future. The Department believed that retaining Conrail's Akron to Hudson rail line for future rail freight, passenger, and commuter service is one action consistent with that goal. Further, Federal Transit Administration policies also encourage transit systems to participate in joint development projects, including leases of real property "to secure a revenue stream for the transit system" while the property is held for a future use. Federal Transit Administration Policy on Transit Joint Development, 62 F.R. 12266 01. Therefore, although the Akron Secondary is not currently used by Metro for the regularly scheduled mass movement of passengers, it nonetheless constitutes a transit facility, as it is a rail line acquired with federal and state funds to preserve a potential future commuter rail line. Metro is thus authorized to lease the tracks to accomplish the goals of its organization, and the dinner-train lease will not only generate revenue for Metro but will also obligate the lessee, the Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company, to maintain and improve the Akron Secondary. R.C. 306.35(J): Lease of Real Property {¶ 21} Even if the Akron Secondary is not considered to be a transit facility, the Metro Regional Transit Authority is nonetheless authorized to lease it because it is real property consisting of a railroad right-of-way and a rail line. The plain language of R.C. 306.35(J) authorizes Metro to lease the Akron Page 328 Secondary for the protection of or improvement and access to transit facilities or for any other necessary purpose. The terms of the dinner-train lease provide that the Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company will maintain and improve the rail line, and the anticipated revenue from the lease will provide the financial capability to improve transit facilities in the future. Conclusion {¶ 22} Where a regional transit authority acquires an existing rail line and right-of-way, R.C. 306.35(G) and (J) independently confer upon it the discretion to lease the rail line and right-of-way while it is being held for future use to accomplish the purposes of its organization, to make charges for the use of transit facilities, for the protection of or improvement and access to transit facilities, or for any other necessary purpose. {¶ 23} Here, the Metro Regional Transit Authority leased the Akron Secondary to the Cuyahoga Falls & Hudson Railway Company for the operation of a dinner train in accordance with this statutory authority. Therefore, we are compelled to affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK and O'CONNOR, JJ., dissent. O'CONNOR, J., dissenting. {¶ 24} R.C. Chapter 306 governs the creation and authority of regional transit authorities, including the appellee, Metro Regional Transit Authority. As creatures of statute, regional transit authorities may exercise only those powers that are expressly granted or that may be reasonably inferred from an express grant of authority. See D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo Lucas Cty. Bd. of Health, 96 Ohio St.3d 250, 2002-Ohio-4172, 773 N.E.2d 536; Burger Brewing Co. v. Thomas (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 377, 71 O.O.2d 366, 329 N.E.2d 693. Implied powers are those that are incidental or ancillary to an expressly granted power; the express grant of power must be clear, and any doubt as to the extent of the grant must be resolved against it. State ex rel. A. Bentley & Sons Co. v. Pierce (1917), 96 Ohio St. 44, 47, 117 N.E. 6. {¶ 25} Pursuant to R.C. 306.31, a regional transit authority may be created for the purpose of "acquiring, constructing, operating, maintaining, replacing, improving, and extending transit facilities" and for similar acts, such as controlling and administering the public utilities franchise of transit facilities; entering, supervising, and accepting the assignment of franchise agreements; and accept Page 329 ing assignment of and exercising a right to purchase a transit system according to the terms of an existing franchise agreement. The General Assembly thus conferred some breadth upon the counties, townships, and municipalities to create regional transit authorities. Metro suggests that once a regional transit authority has been created, it can then act broadly to exercise an array of rights, including proprietary and contractual rights. But while some breadth of rights may be conferred in the creation of a regional transit authority, the exercise of the authority's power is not unlimited. Rather, any exercise of that power must be consistent with the purposes of the statute. {¶ 26} Central to the understanding of R.C. 306.31 and other sections of R.C. Chapter 306 is the definition of "transit facility." The legislature expressly defined that term to mean a transportation system (e.g., a street railway, motor bus, subway, ferry, helicopter) that has "as its primary purpose the regularly scheduled mass movement of passengers between locations within the territorial boundaries of a regional transit authority." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 306.30(A). The General Assembly's definition thus expressly requires that a regional transit facility must have as its "fundamental" or "principal" act, see Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1986) 1800 (defining "primary"), the "chang[ing] of place," id. at 1480 (defining "movement"), of "a large body of persons in a compact body," id. at 1388 (defining "mass"). When Metro helps thousands of residents of Summit County get to work, school, appointments, and social events through its bus lines, it serves the transportation needs of the public and acts clearly as a "transit facility." Here, however, Metro is not operating such a service. {¶ 27} The train at issue in this litigation clearly was not intended to provide the people of Summit County with a form of mass transit. Transportation, after all, necessarily involves the movement, conveyance, or travel of people and things from one place to another. Branson Scenic Ry. v. Dir. of Revenue (Mo.App. 1999), 3 S.W.3d 788, 791. See, also, United States v. Mohrbacher (C.A.9, 1999), 182 F.3d 1041, 1048 1049; Golden Gate Scenic Steamship Lines, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1962), 57 Cal.2d 373, 380, 19 Cal.Rptr. 657, 369 P.2d 257, quoting Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (1885), 114 U.S. 196, 5 S.Ct. 826, 29 L.Ed. 158 (noting that the word "transportation" "has been judicially defined as implying `the taking up of persons or property at some point and putting them down at another' "). Mere mobility does not equate to transportation, particularly when, as here, the movement in question is limited to a circuital route. Branson Scenic Ry., 3 S.W.3d at 792 ("Carousels, pony rides, riverboat rides, trail rides, miniature train rides, and the antique car ride at [an amusement park] * * * carry (transport) patrons * * * Yet, no one could argue persuasively that these rides were transportation rather than amusement"). Page 330 {¶ 28} Nor is there any showing in this record that a significant number of people will ever ride the train. Indeed, we can infer that a relatively small number of passengers will be able to avail themselves of the train, which Metro stipulates will have limited (one or two) weekly runs and will consist, in its entirety, of two dining cars, a kitchen car, and two locomotives. {¶ 29} Thus, we know that the train was intended neither for the masses nor for transportation. Nor is there any indication that it will foster the important public policies and benefits that are believed to flow from mass transit systems, such as providing commuting workers with a safe and reliable mode of transportation, decreasing motor vehicle traffic and concomitant harms to the environment caused by vehicle emissions, or improving domestic security by reducing dependence on foreign petroleum products. {¶ 30} Indeed, although the majority opinion, Metro, and Metro's amici rather nebulously suggest that operation of the dinner train will help maintain and improve the railway tracks for future use as a passenger line, it seems abundantly clear that the real purpose of the proposed train is to produce revenue for Metro by attracting consumers interested in purchasing a meal and entertainment. I agree with the common pleas court that initially heard this case, as well as courts elsewhere in the country, that excursion trains operating for purposes of entertainment and profit are not instruments of mass transit. See, e.g., Belton v. Smoky Hill Ry. & Historical Society, Inc. (Mo.App.2005), 170 S.W.3d 429, 435, quoting Branson Scenic Ry. v. Dir. of Revenue, 3 S.W.3d at 792 (" `[w]hen a carrier offers rides for fun, as opposed to offering them for the purpose of actually getting the rider to a particular place, then the carrier is providing amusement rides. It is not in the transportation business, even though its mode of amusement is mobile' "). See, also, Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Order, 7 I.C.C.2d 954, 965 (noting that a train operating on 18 miles of a railroad line in Napa Valley, California, was "more a local tourist excursion than a conveyance for the through movement of passengers"). {¶ 31} The majority's holding too generously reads beyond the express wording of the enabling statute, unreasonably extends the powers properly conferred on regional transit authorities, and ignores critical distinctions that courts and legislatures historically have drawn in considering passenger trains and excursion trains, see, e.g., Chicago & Alton RR. Co. v. People (1883), 105 Ill. 657, to find that the proposed train adequately serves the fundamental purposes for which the Metro Regional Transit Authority was created initially - to preserve, maintain, and improve the current level of mass transit service of its constituents. Because I do not believe that there is a sufficient and reasonable showing of a tangible nexus between the proposed train and the regularly scheduled mass movement of passengers, I dissent. MOYER, C.J., and RESNICK, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. J. Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., Todd M. Raskin, Timothy R. Obringer, and Martin J. O'Connell; and Hoover, Heydorn & Herrnstein Co., L.P.A., and Robert W. Heydorn, for appellant. Roetzel & Andress, Amie L. Bruggeman, Stephen W. Funk, and Caroline Regallis, for appellee. Lawrence Gawell, for amicus curiae Ohio Public Transit Association. Max Rothal, Akron Director of Law, and David A. Muntean, Assistant Director of Law, for amicus curiae city of Akron. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Richard L. Moore, and Erica D. Gann, for amicus curiae Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority. Barry M. Byron, Stephen L. Byron, and John Gotherman, for amicus curiae Ohio Municipal League.

Nah, I just borrowed on an idea and graphic by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the NEORail study and altered it slightly so a station could be on the connecting track to link with the West Boulevard station. Here's something of interest I learned recently: the NEOrail study considered a link between the Cleveland-Lorain commuter rail route and the West Boulevard rapid station -- BUT only as a secondary option. Thus, the ridership projection for the Cleveland - Lorain corridor did not include the potential additional ridership from such a passenger transfer point. To me, that's astonishing. I would think the ridership would be so much better if downtown-bound commuter rail passengers had TWO downtown destinations they could reach, plus the airport, plus a more geographically direct routing to University Circle and other places along the east-side rapid lines. PB said in its report that such a commuter rail/Red Line transfer point at West Boulevard would likely be expensive. That's probably true, but I also think it would be well worth it! Agreed.

True. I'd rather see a parking deck on the station's parking lot, with street-facing retail (ie: grocer, small clothier, cafe, etc) topped with residential. I think I've posted elsewhere on here a rendering of a concept I had for this station-area development. The track alignments changed with the new version shown above, but that doesn't change the station-area development that's possible. There's also a faded beauty of a building across Detroit Avenue from the station that I'd love to see renovated into live-work lofts. I think it's at the corner of West Blvd. and Detoit, and has a stone arch above the corner door.

OK, is this simple enough for ya?? http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1823.0 http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=7120.0 Additional messages on this subject should be posted at either of those two threads.

From Cleveland-based union The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=17393 Oberstar's priorities: Amtrak funding, Midwest high-speed rail (The Associated Press circulated the following article by Frederic J. Frommer on November 22.) WASHINGTON -- With Democrats taking control of Congress, Rep. Jim Oberstar is set to become chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The Minnesota Democrat has served as the panel's ranking minority member for more than a decade.

Enough! I apologize for getting people crazy here. Besides, this project has little to do with Pesht anyway.

I've never liked the argument that rail eases congestion. How? Any cars taken off the roads will be replaced by new traffic in the near future. That's true if rail transit is built or more highway lanes are added. The lanes become as congested within five years as the pre-widened road (if I'm remembering correctly what recent analyses had shown). If a highway or a rail line is well-designed and offers supportive land uses, it will become crowded. It ultimately is a value judgment of elected officials as to where they want their crowds to be -- on the trains and city sidewalks, or on the roads and parking lots.

Yes. While some raise their eyebrows, other say "but we don't have the traffic congestion" or "Ohioans won't ride trains" or "we're not a New York or Los Angeles" ....the same kinds of things that we're said in Denver, Portland, St. Louis, Albuquerque, Nashville, Salt Lake City etc. Transportation that is built as a reaction to a certain transportation condition or problem is merely a form of maintenance ("More hair of the dog that bit me" philosophy). But building transportation to create a better quality of life is what causes innovation and growth. We didn't build the canals because of traffic congestion on other canals, but because stagecoach transport was too expensive and unreliable. We didn't build railroads because the canals were congested, but because trains were exponentially faster than anything that had ever traveled before. We didn't build interstate highways to remove traffic congestion on the railroads, but to take advantage of a technology that offered travelers great flexibility. So why do we offer rail and transit? Because Americans don't earn as much much as we once did, and often cannot afford to own more than one car per household. Few appreciate that owning a car is the second-largest expense Americans have -- trailing only housing. Because we let the transportation pendulum swing too far from one extreme, when the railroads were monopolies to where the highways now have an 85-90 percent market share. Because our urbanized areas have become so sprawled out that it requires many times more public infrastructures and taxes to support them compared to the cities American had only a few decades ago. Because we are playing a risky game with our economy so dependent on cars and unstable oil supplies. Because if you are poor, disabled or old, you cannot fully participate in the economy since, as a Russian immigrant in Akron recently noted, "there is no freedom in America without a car."