Though on the surface this appears to be just a story about a planned "dinner train", this plan helps keep alive the possibility of commuter rail along this very same rail line: a line that could someday extend commuter rail to Akron & Canton.

(www.fallsnewspress.com/news/article/1584321)

 

Fallsnewspress.com

Dinner train moves ahead

February 11, 2007

by Laura Freeman

Reporter

 

The residents of Hudson, Stow, Silver Lake Village and Cuyahoga Falls will hear a train whistle along a length of tracks, which has been silent for at least 10 years.

 

Gabriel Hall, president and CEO of U.S. Rail Corp., confirmed Feb. 6 a dinner theater train will be traveling the rails from Cuyahoga Falls through Silver Lake Village and Stow to Hudson beginning this fall.

 

Hall said the U.S. Rail Corp. board of directors decided Jan. 29 to go ahead with the project after winning a four-year-old lawsuit filed by Silver Lake Village, which attempted to prevent the dinner train from traveling through the village.

 

"The area is a great location to operate the dinner train," Hall said. "It is a great opportunity to create jobs, restore rail service and increase industrial activities."

 

Hudson City Manager Anthony Bales did not return phone calls for comment by press time.

 

More at link above:

Though on the surface this appears to be just a story about a planned "dinner train", this plan helps keep alive the possibility of commuter rail along this very same rail line: a line that could someday extend commuter rail to Akron & Canton.

(www.fallsnewspress.com/news/article/1584321)

 

 

And extend Ohio Hub services to Akron & Canton as well.

 

Ed

Running as I post this is the CVSR Wine Tasting train which will be heading south towards Akron.  Its cool to have multiple excursion trains within miles of each other.  Hopefully people won't be too confused.  Just like there's the Towpath in the valley and there's the hike and bike path outside the valley.  Perhaps it will even be complementary... 

Weird that Silver Lake Village would be concerned about noise and congestion from one short train a night. They must have more than their share of village idiots.

Amazing, isn't it?

Weird that Silver Lake Village would be concerned about noise and congestion from one short train a night. They must have more than their share of village idiots.

 

They certainly do.  I went to a couple of public meetings about the CAC commuter train proposal.  All emotion, not one iota of rational behavior and they made no attempt whatsoever to assemble any facts. 

It's good to see the line preserved and put to use.

 

I wonder, though, if the dinner-train folks have any grasp of the cost of repairing/maintaining track and rolling stock to safe standards and the cost of liability insurance. Even if it proves very popular, I doubt if the operation can generate enough revenue to cover costs and show a profit.

 

Crossing rehabilitation alone can be staggeringly expensive; I believe that if crossing signals and/or gates exist, they must be maintained in operating condition. If the operators don't have private or public sponsors to help underwrite the costs of capital and operations, they probably won't last long.

I think Akron Metro which owns the track will give them a break on the insurance costs and other operating expense. U.S. Rail Corp. runs a dinner train in Michigan (Adrian?), so they have some experience with this.

 

As for the track upgrading costs, I don't know if U.S. Rail is paying for it or if someone else is.

The line in Michigan is called the

Adrian & Blissfield

 

As for the track upgrading costs, I don't know if U.S. Rail is paying for it or if someone else is.

 

As I recall being told from an Akron Metro employee, US Rail is paying to upgrade the track.

 

 

US Rail also intends to operate this line for freight as well, when the dinner train isn't running (weekends & evenings).  I'm told that freight customers along the line are expected to generate utp 4-thousand carloads of freight a year, including aggregates and steel coils. 

 

In all likelihood, US Rail will work with the Ohio Rail Development Commission to work out loans and/or grants for rail, tie and ballast work.

^The people in Silver Lake are really going to hate that.  Oh well.  What goes around comes around.  When the CAC was being debated, tThere were some anti-rail people in Silver Lake who actually made threatening phone calls, etc to other residents within the village who supported the project. 

 

At the public meetings many of them said they would accept passenger trains but not freight.  Now, they're getting both. 

The Cleveland-Akron-Canton is coinciding with the West Shore Corridor project (Cleveland-Lorain) because there is now an effort to combine the two in joint requests for funding (federal for planning $$, state for demo $$). NS is saying that if two demo projects are desired, do them at the same time so that the sponsor doesn't have to come to NS again to work things out. But a demo in the CAC Corridor probably wouldn't go all the way into downtown Akron due to the expense. An earlier proposal was to have the CAC intro service end at Tallmadge and Home avenues north of downtown, just off Route 8. That may be the option again this time.

Oh, let me get the tissues out for the residents of Silver Lake. What did you _expect_ would happen when you moved to a city with a rail line that was active (in 1996)? And now that it is being reconstructed that could not only benefit your region but others, you whine and complain?

 

This makes as much sense as those suburanites who move out into the country, then complain about the farm smells.

I agree, Seicer.  Like I mentioned, the public meetings I attended were full of irrational, uninformed, and selfish people. 

 

KJP:  I know that it would be more expensive to have a demo project go all the way into downtown Akron, but wouldn't it be worth it?  How many riders are they going lose because it stops short of downtown?  What about commuters who want to go to Akron?

Oh, let me get the tissues out for the residents of Silver Lake. What did you _expect_ would happen when you moved to a city with a rail line that was active (in 1996)? And now that it is being reconstructed that could not only benefit your region but others, you whine and complain?

 

This makes as much sense as those suburanites who move out into the country, then complain about the farm smells.

 

Well, I don't know if that is exactly a fair comparison. Silver Lake isn't Avon or Westlake. Those people have been there for a while. But I agree they shouldn't be able to hold up everyone else.

They have been there for a while -- therefore, they were alive or active when the rail line was active. And now they are complaining?

Ironically, Silver Lake was the site of an amusement park built and owned by an electric interurban railway (Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co.). The route serving Silver Lake ran between Akron, Cuyahoga Falls, Kent, Ravenna, and Warren. After the Supreme Court forced the split of electric railways and electric utilities (they were seen as all-powerful trusts), the low/no-profit railway facilities were abandoned. The NOT&L later became Ohio Edison.

 

BTW, the NOT&L's main route was Akron - Cleveland, where they had an 80-mph double-track line over the middle portion, and which later was converted to the highway portion of Route 8. But street-running in Akron-Cleveland kept the service to 1-hour running times.

 

KJP:  I know that it would be more expensive to have a demo project go all the way into downtown Akron, but wouldn't it be worth it?  How many riders are they going lose because it stops short of downtown?  What about commuters who want to go to Akron?

 

I'll have to dig up the old studies on it, but the ridership drop wasn't that much. To get into downtown Akron required the construction of a flyover bridge of CSX at Arlington Street. That alone was projected to cost something like $25 million.

Yes, I'm starting this thread for a reason. Seems there are those who are wanting to start up the planning work again, especially in the Akron area. Something about $4 per gallon gas being the reason for it....

 

In my other job for All Aboard Ohio, I get quite a few e-mails from people living along the CAC Corridor and working in downtown Cleveland and who want commuter trains (not buses). They know of my work in the West Shore Corridor, but I have my hands pretty full with that project, and with my other job at Sun. I encourage residents and business owners along the CAC Corridor to get together, start their own stakeholders group to promote commuter rail through public education and create the grassroots support necessary for public funding.

 

I'll be happy to help you get started and assist where I can, but this needs to be your project. Your first order of business is to securing funding (at least $500,000) for an alternatives analysis.

 

When I have a few more minutes, I'll post some of the findings of NOACA's NEOrail study that came out in 2001.

Don't forget Youngstown!

That's another route, the Cleveland - Pittsburgh corridor, which is intercity, not commuter (though I'm always amazed at how many people commute daily from Trumbull and Mahoning counties to Cuyahoga and Summit counties in Ohio and Allegheny in Pennsylvania). If I remember right, there's something like 7,000 people commuting each day between Mahoning/Trumbull and Cuyahoga.

 

But that's nothing compared to the 40,000+ people commuting between Cuyahoga and Summit counties each day! No two counties in Ohio have more commuting between them than these. About one-quarter of those are commuting to downtown Cleveland -- a perfect commuter rail market. In the NEOrail study, it was projected that about 30 percent of those downtown commuters (or 3,500 total per day) would take the train. The study was done when gasoline sold for $1.20 per gallon.

Here's a map of the corridor and the potential routing options. Ishould have made the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) a dotted yellow line, too, since it doesn't have any freight service over 90 percent of its route....

 

I'm glad to hear there's still interest in this very important (imho) commuter rail corridor... KJP, of these options, which do you think has the best chance of materializing?  While CVSR's route is comparatively poor – it exists, of course, mainly in the Cuyahoga Nat’l Park and thus skirts most high population areas btw Cle-Akron (although Peninsula seems a popular destination which CVSR directly serves), is overwhelmingly single-track cutting capacity potential and rides adjacent to the Cuyahoga river which floods out CVSR tracks rather frequently from what I understand.  CVSR still is a working passenger line with (what?) about 90% in service now as a tourist line with rolling stock and maintenance facilities.... Seems like it would make the most sense to start with this one, esp w/ the NIMBY's out there, like those of Silver Lake who killed the last C-A-C plan.  CVSR does serve the Independence office park area and would stop at Steelyards Commons and end at Tower City.

 

How far along is the plan to extend CVSR into Tower City?

 

Interesting thread.  Commuting is now available 5 days a week from Canton to Akron. Wednesday to Sunday.  Hopefully lessons will be learned and they try to run during the times that people are clogging up I-77 at rush hours in the Fall and Winter...  Here's a poorly written article about this from mr. 1 sentence paragraph:

 

Scenic railroad expands Canton service

 

By Bob Downing

Beacon Journal staff writer

 

POSTED: 03:26 p.m. EDT, May 29, 2008

 

The Canton Lincoln Highway Station should be a busy place this summer.  The Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad is expanding its Canton rail service from the depot starting June 4.  It also is cutting ticket prices on some excursions and expanding its Polar Express runs in Canton.  The Peninsula-based tourist railroad will operate two trains a day five days a week from Canton to Akron, Steven W. Wait, railroad president and chief executive officer, said at a press conference today.

CHOPPED

 

^Nice article.  Didn't know about the Metroparks Zoo option... As with most rail transit forms, CVSR is only going to get more popular with the wacko gas prices we're experiencing.

I would think the zoo options would be a hit!

One big plus for the CVSR is having Steve Wait as it's President.  He runs it like a railroad, because he used to be President of the Wheeling & Lake Erie RR.  He sees the potential to grow and offer new services.

Sorry to go off topic but the above needs to be corrected. The trip from Independence to the zoo is by bus not by train.

 

http://www.cvsr.com/trips.php?id=148

^OK, that makes sense... There'd have been a lot more hoopla had it been a direct rail trip to the zoo.

this would be good for the region. it really would not affect me personally because I only travel 2.3 miles one way to work. I was watching feagler and friends the other day and He had on someone from the Ohio rail commision. (ohio hub) He said that if the funds were in place as of now the 3 C train (Cleve -Cbus - Cinti) would start up within 2 years and run at prices around 40 dollars fora round trip from Cleve to Cinti. As well as frequent rider passes and so forth. It looks as if Ohio is going to be one of the first states with High speed mass commuting. Can't wait.

I thought this was still "talk." Ohio has approved and has funding for high speed rail between the 3 C's?

No...what was stated on Feagler's show is that IF the $$$$ were in place....

 

Keep in mind that commuter rail projects do have a federal funding source through the Federal Transit Administration, and that's where funding for Cleveland-Akron or Cleveland-Lorain-Vermilion could be obtained via a state/federal match. 

Oops! I missed the IF, that's one little word with a lot of power!

 

From KJP's Cleveland-Akron Towpath photo thread...

 

It reminds that this is a potentially vital rail corridor w/ many TOD possibilities and should be converted to into a 60-mile commuter rail line (while maintaining the vital tourist aspect)... at least at some point.  How solidified is CVSR's station inside what appears to be the future Tower City/Cleveland Medical Mart Convention Center?  How hard are officials working to secure passenger rights over the last 8 miles from Rockside Road? ... It's funny, years ago Akron METRO RTA took over the CVSR route and extended it some 25 miles to Canton (and apparently, per MSN's "Birdseye View", there's at least some freight uses over the Canton leg), and yet in big, powerful Cleveland, when it comes to extending a mere 8 miles to our commerce/transit hub, we're still picking our nose.

It's a horrible commuter rail corridor. Within the National Park there are few if any development opportunities. Everything would have to be done as park-n-rides, with the minimum drive being several miles from the nearest residential areas (most of which are very low density).

 

And, I seem to recall CVSR is prohibited from operating a commuter rail service as is the National Park Service, the owner of the tracks, from hosting it. But I'd double check this part, if it's even worth it considering the poor commuter rail route offered by the CVSR.

There are a significant amount of people that live in Summit Co. in particular Bath, Richfield, Hudson, Stow, Cuyahoga Falls, and Akron that commute to Cleveland.  A central location for all these people if not downtown Akron is Peninsula and there should be plenty of parking available there on weekdays.  Should there prove to be overwhelming amounts of people wanting to park and ride there they could easily open up the Ira Rd/Hale Farm lots.  Otherwise there's Botzum lot further down or even Boston Mills lots further North.  I don't see any "development" restrictions holding the CVSR line back.  Yes it can't build a TOD on its own.  But I've said before there's an instant TOD in the Merriman Valley if the CVSR opens its eyes.

I don't even know where to begin on this one. OK, let me try it this way....

 

Budgetary:  National Park Service, owner of the railroad right of way in the valley, is maintaining the unsignaled track for top operating speeds of 15 to 30 mph. To increase the number of trains on this track and to provide a car commute-competitive travel time will require the expenditure of significant sums to upgrade ($2 million per mile is probable) and additional costs to maintain the infrastructure.

 

Structural/Political: The NPS could tap FTA Transit In The Parks funding to upgrade the line (see next section for pitfalls of this) but a local funding source for leveraging the federal grant and for securing the operating funds is needed. What is the local source? Furthermore, NPS officials have expressly told CVSR that they don't want commuter service operated on this route. That is such a hot potato for the NPS that friends of mine who run CVSR won't even use the word "commuter rail" in public, let alone around NPS officials. Why? See next section. But even CVSR folks aren't interested in running commuter trains. If people happen to ride them to get to work, fine. They're not going to kick them off. But they aren't interested in seeking them.

 

Environmental:  The NPS is all about operating a nice, quiet, serene setting in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park where people can get away from it all. That's especially true since NPS markets CVNP as being the only national park in the midst of a urbanized area. They really want to maintain the quiet, rural character of the area. They are very interested in tapping FTA Transit In The Park funding for the extension to Cleveland. Why? Because it will likely mean less people driving into the park to enjoy it. That's the goal of that funding -- fewer cars in national parks, and thus less air, noise and water pollution. Having park-n-ride lots for commuters in a national park runs totally counter to the NPS's concept for the park.

 

Practical:  Let me ask you this: what commuter is going to ride this line? You won't find a bigger commuter rail support than me. In fact, my second job is to advocate for it. But since few people live in the valley, everyone will have got to drive to it. There's your first strike right there. Commuter rail lines succeed best when people can walk or bike to stations. Their next best access method is to take transit to stations. When people have to drive to a train station, they are more likely to drive the rest of the way to work. That's especially true when someone has to drive so far to a station. So if I live in Bath, or Hudson, or Cuyahoga Falls or Brecksville, why would I:

 

> drive 5- to 15 minutes into the valley

> wait 5 minutes or so for a train (that hopefully is on time)

> ride a train for an 1- to 2-hour ride to Cleveland (remember, NPS isn't upgrading the tracks to highway-competitive speeds -- assuming they'll even allow a commuter rail/park-n-ride service)

> walk the rest of way to work, taking perhaps another 5 to 15 minutes.

 

Who is going to want to devote 1.5 hour to 2.5 hours to commute EACH WAY to work?

 

Is the expense warranted for upgrading and maintaining these tracks to highway competitive speeds? Nope. Does NPS and CVSR want that? Nope. Is NPS and CVSR willing to change their minds about seeking commuters as riders? Ask them sometime -- but they won't be as nice to you as I've been in this message. And, would commuters be willing to devote so much of their time to commuting each day to go out of their way into the valley to ride slow train to Cleveland? I wouldn't, not when there are commuter buses and interstate highways already running where the people are living.

 

In past studies, the CVSR route has shown to be a ridership dog for commuter rail. Not surprisingly, the route that performed the best against FTA criteria was the route using NS and Metro-owned tracks via Maple Heights, Bedford, Macedonia, Hudson, Stow and Cuyahoga Falls. It's where the most people are within 1-2 miles of a rail line. Yet even that route barely met FTA's criteria. The only the way that it's ranking went further into the FTA "feasible" category was if capital expenses were shared with another user -- ie: the Ohio Hub. As it stands, the Cleveland-Hudson portion of the route is proposed to be used for the Cleveland - Pittsburgh component of the Ohio Hub.

 

I don't want to discourage you. I want to focus you. If you want commuter rail from Akron to Cleveland, focus your desire on where the commuter service will function most effectively.

 

A rustic National Park is the poster-boy antithesis of a commuter rail-friendly setting.

I certainly would prefer the original route through Hudson, which you id as part of Ohio Hub -- no question, it's much superior to CVSR's route.  But that was, unfortunately, shot down years in Summit County (if I recall) ago when it looked like studies were leaning toward giving it a shot... And I'm sure, RTA under JoeC has zero interest in pursuing any commuter rail.  Add to that the fact, if I recall, at least another track would have to be added to accommodate passengers with freight (unless, of course, that's already a part of Ohio Hub's planning)... More power to Ohio Hub to get this going.  I guess service would end in Hudson unless the original Summit naysayers have a change of heart.

^^KJP, I would agree 15-30mph through the entire valley would be too slow of a speed to go.  Its 24 miles to drive from Peninsula to downtown Cleveland I would guess it would be in that range probably a little less in miles by train.  I can't see why a train getting outside the unsignaled zones couldn't hit 50-60mph or obviously more in the industrial part of the valley. 

 

I wouldn't want nor expect a train coming from Akron to Peninula to be hitting over 50mph.  Say a train leaves Northside station going 30mph all the way to Peninsula.  Thats probably a 20 minute ride.  It shouldn't take much more than a half hour to get to downtown Cleveland averaging 50mph the rest of the way. 

 

I don't see an issue with the tracks being used as commuter rail 5 days a week.  There are hardly any crossings in the valley north of Peninsula.  The only 2 I can think of are at Boston Mills and the other on Highland road 3 miles north of that.  Its pretty clear the rest of the way north as far as I can tell. 

 

You say its unrealistic to expect people to drive 5-10 minutes to a park and ride to hop on a train.  They currently do that for a bus in Akron for the NorthCoast Express to downtown Cleveland.  The buses are packed.  It takes 45-50 minutes to get to downtown cleveland from Ghent according to the Metro timetable.  But being how unpredictable I-77 is, I'm sure that trip can take an extra half hour.

 

  The CVNP is a working park and is all about being the contrast to the environment just outside of it.  But it can't help but be affected by all the outside forces.  Why are they bothering to bring back a steam train next month if its such a tranquil place.

Blossom can have crazy traffic jams coming into the valley.  The ski resorts get packed in the winter with plenty of cars.  Constantly there are people just touring around via bike, motorcycle, or car.

 

 

It would not be possible to use the CVSR to do this.  You can't use a volunteer force for serious commuter service.  It would have to be a METRO-RTA alliance likely building off the Northcoast Express success.  I seem to recall that Metro owns the rail line.  Local funding would come from Summit County government and Metro in Summit County and Cuyahoga County and RTA in Cuyahoga.

You seem to be missing one of KJP's main points: neither the CVSR or the Park Service want commuter rail.  You cannot just impose it on an operating railroad..even one that is running excursion trains.

 

I would also back up KJP on the fact that the line just isn't set up for commuter rail and would easily cost in the millions per mile to bring it up to FRA and FTA standards.  Even if it were finanically possible, doing it would ruin the very nature of the "scenic" railroad: a nice, slow ride in the woods and farmland.  It is precisely why they draw such a good tourist crowd.

A full bus is a half-full rail car. Yes, a few people are willing to drive to catch a bus. A few more probably would be willing to drive to catch a train -- if its speed were competitive with the car. A LOT more would be willing to walk out the front door of their TOD-style higher-density mixed-use village built around a rail station in Hudson, or downtown Cleveland, or Cuyahoga Falls, or Macedonia, or Bedford, or downtown Akron, or Maple Heights, or East 55th and Euclid, etc. etc. That's how you use transportation and land use to change a region's energy efficiency, environmental sustainability and dramatically enhance access to jobs for people of all incomes and physical/economic abilities. You don't do it by using a rail line to string together a bunch of park-n-ride lots. That's called an amusement park ride.

Commuter rail aside, I'll be happy just to see the CVSR extension reach DT Cleveland. There have been no updates since 2006.

when it is finally brought up into downtown cleveland the cvsr will function best as a more long distance commuter rail line for akron & cantonites, not so much the suburbanites in-between akron & cleveland. once the train gets to tower city there is no doubt it will be used in this way by some of the more far flung commuters on the southern end.

 

 

 

Not with its current schedule. It runs once or twice a day 4 to 5 times a week. That isn't reliable enough to be used as a commuter rail line.

i know. we're talking after the downtown section. that's who knows when into the future. then we'll see what happens. i doubt it will ever be any kind of typical commuter train, best only for long distance travelors. obviously there is pressure against it and certainly no one wants the valley overdeveloped. unless of course fuel prices really hit the fan.

If gas prices really hit the fan then there will be more demand for developing CAC commuter rail where it should be developed -- on alignments where the people are, not where the protected wetlands, historical settings and wilderness areas are situated.

 

 

yes, that too eventually. however, the cvsr getting into downtown cleveland will likely happen first. consider it a cac commuter rail test scenario.

yes, that too eventually. however, the cvsr getting into downtown cleveland will likely happen first. consider it a cac commuter rail test scenario.

 

I'm confused.  Are you saying that the cvsr should eventually change its schedule in order to test out commuter rail possibilities, or that the existing schedule can be maintained, and that rail advocates begin tracking how many folks are using the service?  If the former, I think that KJP conclusively described why that wouldn't happen, and if the latter, it is highly unlikely that anybody would use the service to commute (for example, all Canton to and from Independence trains leave at 9 a.m., well past rush hour, and they don't run on Mondays and Tuesdays).

yes, that too eventually. however, the cvsr getting into downtown cleveland will likely happen first. consider it a cac commuter rail test scenario.

 

I hope not. No one will ride a 15 mph CVSR train to work.

 

C'mon people. Can't we be happy with and write about the function that CVSR does perform, and performs very well?

 

Future posts discussing CVSR/NPS operations as a commuter rail service will be moved from this thread to the Cleveland-Akron-Canton commuter rail thread.

Amen.  Thank you KJP.

ok, but since i was asked i will respond. first, its disingenuous to leave it like it would need to go 15 mph the whole way. secondly, i'd think the cvsr weekday schedule will likely change when the northern end gets done. remember crude oil was $50/barrel when this thread started in 2005, if that continues...!