^ I am sorry about your loss KJP, but I am glad to see you back on the line!

I don't have anything to add to this, except my condolences to you and yours...

i am sorry about your loss kjp.

 

you are back on a roll, thanks so much for the simple to understand breakdown. now if only rta, nocoa and a few other key players would listen! i have my fingers crossed on the backdoor valley commuter rail for now (vs. a wfl extension).

 

and we'll all just have to wait and see on the ecp silver line---at least it will be striking looking and distinctive and the streetscapes will look nice (and that is important).

 

KJP, many regrets re your loss ...

 

... glad you're back in the saddle  :clap:.  A couple comments re your post:  these ideas of creative transit financing are great, but can we get the pols/transit “leaders” to buy in?  I mean, it's great we have a (hopefully soon to be Guv) Sherrod Brown who is spearheading the CVSR-to-commuter rail movement, but what about the others?  Joe Calabrese, who I'm no fan of, gives lip service to TOD development (most notably to spanking new Crocker Park in his beloved home/sprawl-burb, Westlake), but can he be pushed to seriously consider the kind of creativity you propose?

 

And what must we do to help Brown, yourself and others push CVSR commuter rail to reality?

 

Calabrese lives in Westlake?  Seems a bit contradictory for a transit head to live out there. 

Thanks for the best wishes and condolences.

 

I don't really expect Cleveland-area leaders to buy into anything creative. We didn't get to be the poorest city in the nation because we're actually such a smart city and everybody else just hates us. We got this way because too many leaders in this region find more enjoyment in playing politics (seriously, a lot of these people get off on that time-wasting crap!) than solving problems by shrinking their egos so their thinking caps will fit better.

 

Who knows. Maybe one day I'll wake up surprised. I hope it happens before I move out of this cobwebbed city.

 

KJP

You're correct, wimwar, it does seem contradictory.  And I'll bet you don't see big Joe on the freeway-flyer bus out to Westlake very often, either.

 

 

... glad you're back in the saddle :clap:.  A couple comments re your post:  these ideas of creative transit financing are great, but can we get the pols/transit “leaders” to buy in?  I mean, it's great we have a (hopefully soon to be Guv) Sherrod Brown who is spearheading the CVSR-to-commuter rail movement, but what about the others?  Joe Calabrese, who I'm no fan of, gives lip service to TOD development (most notably to spanking new Crocker Park in his beloved home/sprawl-burb, Westlake), but can he be pushed to seriously consider the kind of creativity you propose?

 

And what must we do to help Brown, yourself and others push CVSR commuter rail to reality?

 

 

hopefully sherrod leaves his dc staff in dc, they are some of the most incompetent, lazy, flat out dumbe people on the face of the earth

TO KJP:  well, if we can't get them to buy in we must FORCE THEM to buy in; back them into a corner w/ the “creative” facts such as yours; go public.  Problem is, is that we, as a transit oriented/high-density/ped-oriented urban advocate group are wimps.  The bad guys always win  :whip: :evil: -- it only takes one man – Albert Porter killed the subway; Norm Krumholz (Porter, Jr.), the ex-Kucinichite shouted down the worthwhile "Mode Mixer": the Green Line ext to I-271, yelling that it would only benefit the "Fat Cats" , RTA backed down like a bunch of scared rabbits, and, most recently, Dennis himself killed off the West Suburb commuter rail plan w/ his "deal" to limit trains through Lakewood -- funny, it seems freights are back on that line w/ a vengeance; nearly all of my Red Line/airport runs have witnessed trains on this segment.  And to top it off, apparently the City of Lorain has even built a commuter train station for no trains!!!!

 

And now we have RTA Boss Joe Calabrese  :evil:whose seeming goal is to choke off rail service, at least on the Waterfront Line which, I'm convinced, will be cut to a "special events only" line w/in the next year.   Hell, it's at the bare bones now with 1/2 hourly service during the day and 25 min service at rush hour.  Publicly, our Westlake domiciled transit chief, badmouths the WFL every chance he gets while cozying up to, and engaging in a public lovefest with the Bushies every chance he can get re his precious ECP bus… And we LET HIM get away with this.  Why?

 

TO THE POPE: OK, maybe you know a little more about Sherrod Brown than I but we/you need to put your/our differences with him aside as he's a powerful advocate behind commuter rail in Akron -- and he's about the only public official w/ juice who we can say this about.  Let's do all we can to back the guy...

 

 

 

hopefully sherrod leaves his dc staff in dc, they are some of the most incompetent, lazy, flat out dumbe people on the face of the earth

 

But his wife won a Pulitzer!  That counts for something right?

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I was feeling that way even before yesterday, when Joe C & Co. came out to our office to pitch their proposed restructuring of west side transit routes. I don't have a problem with their basic proposal, which includes running more downtown-bound buses from Westlake and Bay Village during rush hours via I-90 east of Rocky River. At off-peak times, these buses would end at the Triskett Rapid station.

 

My thought was, with all these extra buses going downtown on I-90, why not make use of the center median of I-90, which was left vacant for a future rapid transit line? Use it for a transit-only corridor, to bypass the traffic back-ups on I-90, especially during the morning rush. It could even become a bus rapid transit route, with stations at the Triskett Rapid, West 117th, Westown, Lorain/Clark, West 65th and a joint rail/bus transfer station in the West 41st/44th area. Joe C's response was "We don't have the traffic congestion other cities do." My response? "There is traffic congestion on I-90 now and there is an unused piece of infrastructure on I-90 to help relieve it. So why not use it?"

 

He said RTA asked ODOT about using the vacant rapid transit right of way for an HOV lane, but ODOT said it would save only about five minutes from commuting times and, thus, was not worth the investment. RTA also asked about a direct bus and car ramps from/to the median of I-90, into/from the Triskett Rapid station, to be paid for as part of the Inner Belt rebuild. Again, ODOT rejected the idea, saying it wouldn't have a major impact on the Inner Belt project.

 

This morning, I had breakfast with a friend of mine from Chicago. He was in town visiting family he left behind. Why did he leave Greater Cleveland? Because he got tired of the "can't-do" attitude of too many Clevelanders. Can't say I blame him. I'm not sure what's kept me here. I guess I keep seeing the region's potential, but I also keep seeing opportunities missed or ignored outright. It's very frustrating and I'm not sure how much more of this I can take.

 

KJP

I hear you.  One wants to believe in this town so much because it's nice comfortable town brimming with so much potential, but the naysayers seem to rule.  I do think there was a brief period, say a decade, from the late 80s to the late 90s when a lot developed and a "can do" spirit permeated the town on many levels-- things got done; projects built and we were feeling good about ourselves -- kinda... But bad luck, bad economy and, more than anything, that old bear of selfishness/lack of cooperation/lack of confidence has reared its head, again -- the Cleveland we've all come to know and despise.

 

... and yes, going to Chicago, a Midwestern city like us, just bigger, can be humbling in that there seems nothing under the sun they CAN'T do.  It's not a perfect place, either, but you'll never see them looking on the half-empty side like we do.... and so ODOT, Calabrese (what absurd answers both from Calabrese as well as his 2nd hand quotes from ODOT – we just don’t get the transit thing either in this city or in this state), Jane Campbell, et al., rule the day here... So I guess we just have to just be content to appreciate our baby steps... like the small scale Pinnacle condo a-building, nice though it is, while we have friggin acres and acres of ugly, density-adverse, wide open surface parking in the center of the WHD and abutting Public Sq (to name but one example)... So much for the WHD becoming our version of Soho…

 

... we can either appreciate it, or move, like your friend to Chicago (and there are many other towns like Chicago; it just happens to be a "rust belt" town, like ours - I could of said Boston, or the Twins, or Baltimore, or D.C., or,...)... you get the picture; ugh!

 

don't get me wrong, i like sherrod and he's a good guy, but most any congressmen is only as good as his aides are

While we are on the topic of transit..

 

I have two things:

 

First, as I read this latest blurb on the innerbelt reconstruction, I got to thinking. While this is probably not feasible, What if we took out the inner belt bridge? Yes, and not replace it.  490 could be widened and let that serve as the main connector to downtown and 77.  I realize that this would add some time on to the daily commute, but it would help connect Tremont back to Ohio City, open up a lot of space south of Gateway and in the Flats.  I don't think it would work, but what if?

 

Also, here is the latest on the innerbelt bridge..

 

ODOT studying a new Innerbelt Bridge

Consultants for the Ohio Department of Transportation are studying ways to build an entirely new Innerbelt bridge as part of its massive Innerbelt reconstruction project.

 

At a project meeting in February, the ODOT consultants dismissed the idea, saying that a new span couldn't be built without taking down Tremont's iconic Greek Orthodox church (a political non-starter). But community groups and County officials pressed for a more detailed study, citing a wide variety of concerns about ODOT's desire to add additional traffic lanes to the existing bridge.

 

Consultants are now privately showing an engineering diagram that shifts the bridge slightly to the south, and reconfigures ramps to create new development opportunities south of Jacobs Field. We're told that the design would also drop the road deck of the bridge significantly, improving views across the valley from both Tremont and downtown, and helping to improve street networks in the Gateway and Quadrangle districts.

 

As we reported in January, proponents of a new Innerbelt bridge have called for world-class architectural design. Just as importantly, they've urged ODOT to realign the bridge and highway south toward the river bluff, which would create enormous development opportunities near the $1.5 billion Gateway complex.

 

To that end, KSU's Urban Design Center, Cleveland Public Art and EcoCity Cleveland are considering a "Gateway Challenge" design competition similar to last year's successful Lakefront Challenge, seeking development visions for 30-50 acres just south of Carnegie Avenue. The competition would help raise community awareness about the land's potential, and also encourage ODOT to take a closer look at realignment possibilities.

 

If this Inner Belt reconstruction goes through in a manner that I hope and dream it would, then I think the next step has to be a downtown rail loop. The local share for this could come from a TIF, as described earlier, since there are large tracts of land the rail loop would pass through that are under-developed (north of Superior) or even undeveloped (southwest of Prospect).

 

Ever see pictures of what sections of New York City looked like before the subway/elevated lines were built? Much of it was rural, and developed with very high-density housing right off the bat, once the rail line came through. I envision a similar scenario at the fringes of downtown Cleveland, where surface parking lots and suburban-style highway interchanges predominate.

 

Yet, I would design the loop in combination with a new rail line to the northeast, that could also be afforded with the local share funded through a TIF. But I would build that in stages, with the first segment extending out only as far as a large piece of vacant land on the south side of I-90, yet is in Bratenahl, off Coit Road.

 

KJP

As you know, I'm not a fan of the loop at all, but would go along w/ it only if there was a fully-electrified WFL extension along the lakeshore to the N.E. as you mention. If RTA built the loop connecting it w/ the current Red, Blue and Green lines, there would have to be a 3rd, (also as you’ve previously suggested) and possibly, 4th track built into Tower City.  Otherwise, foresee horrific operational and rail traffic jams on those 3 lines into and out of downtown.  Operating the 3 lines into TC during rush periods is bad enough even without the Loop.

 

As for the Inter Belt bridge proposal, I'd love it to be monumental in design but not so gaudy as to distract from or overshadow our skyline.  Contrarily, I would love, also, for the bridge and route to be removed from Tremont (as wimwar proposes) so that this wonderful old/new neighborhood could, once again, become reattached to the surrounding city.  The multiple West Side freeways carving up West Cleveland have been so terribly damaging to the city’s urban fabric.  Sadly, this fantasy bridge removal/traffic relocation via I-490 and 77 won't happen.  ODOT would have to totally reconfigure and enlarge ingress/egress ramps to both I-71 and I-77 (off I-490), and you know they won't spend that kind of money or risk probable yelping from the highway lobby for the extra few minutes such a drastic alteration could cause drivers...

 

... wouldn't be nice if our transit lobby were so powerful?  Such a pipe dream..  :|

 

Not to mention that if 71 and 77 were merged and then the highway got blocked off for some reason, all freeway traffic going south or west or even SE would be stopped.  Our highway system has a very funny setup that way.

I think the proposed "loop" idea could come not as a result of adding new lines, but altering the route of existing lines.  I think everyone here has been involved in these discussions throughout, so I'm reiterating what I've already said when I suggest a re-routing of the eastbound lines through a new neighborhood (created with the new innerbelt bridge alignment) and down through the city by the post office and Tri-C Metro, rather than through the industrial valley.  This could happen with or without the bridge realignment.

 

Also, the possibility exists that one or two lines could continue on a more "express" route through the valley (first stop out of Downtown being 55th) while the other could stop at local spots such as the new Carnegie and Ontario station, E. 9th and Broadway, E. 30th and Orange Avenue, etc.  We could even call this branch the "Orange Line," named after Orange Avenue.  Or the "Broadway Line," if it follows Broadway.

http://www.riderta.com/pressreleaselist.asp?listingid=733

 

WATERFRONT: The Board passed a resolution supporting the Greater Cleveland Waterfront District Plan, which includes an extension of public transit services.

 

hmm i wonder what this means...?

 

 

Below is what Steve Litt wrote about it in 2003, but still makes no mention of a specific transit route. To me, however, it sounds like extending the Waterfront Line to the east using TODs and a TIF to finance the local share, as has been discussed by some Cleveland government types, including Chris Ronayne.

 

KJP

_________________

 

Waterfront agency plan looks forward

 

05/16/03

 

Forget for a moment that Cleveland has no con struction cranes on its skyline. This is the hottest season for city planning in recent memory - despite the economic slump, the persistent loss of manufacturing jobs statewide and a potential $12 million budget deficit at City Hall.

 

In fact, given all the bad economic news, it's more important than ever to figure out how to turn the city around now, and in the long term.

Regarding West 117th Street, the first image below shows the low-density land uses within a few minutes walk of the high-density mode of transportation available at the Rapid station. The land uses include underutilized parking area, a self-serve storage facility, fast food restaurants and vacant land -- little or none of which is transit supportive.

 

 

This image is a conceptual drawing by the Center for Urban Design of what a West 117th TOD could look like.

 

 

While I like this design (I wish I had a bigger version of it, though), perhaps some of you can come up with another design that makes greater use of the Cadillac dealership's land. The dealership's owners reportedly want to relocate away from that area (just as Fairchild Chevy in Lakewood is moving to Westlake, making way for the high-density Rockport Square mixed-use development).

 

KJP

I'm no designer, but what I see there doesn't wow me at all!  the UDC does great graphics work, so I'm sure there's more from them on this project...no?

 

from what I can see in the image above, they've got a roundabout/dropoff area with a little public space and small retail or station entrance area, plus a scaled-down parking lot (potentially a garage with retail frontage?) on the south side of Madison.  On the north side of Madison and west side of 117th there's some new 2-3 story mixed-use structures with some additional public plaza space...  I know this is all just conceptual, but I'd like to see something more ambitious to start with!

By the way, I just went to look for more at the UDC and found what KJP posted (surprise!).  Here's the link:

 

http://www.cudc.kent.edu/Project%20Summaries/Cudell.pdf

 

by the way, if ya'll haven't already perused their "past design projects" pages, you should...though beware, you'll probably get addicted for at least a few hours!  plan accordingly...

By the way, I saw Joe Calabrese at a meeting last week and we talked more about the proposed bus route changes for the West Side. Again, I plugged the idea of using I-90's center reservation (originally built for a Chicago-style rapid transit) for a BRT. Again, he mentioned that I-90 doesn't have the traffic congestion, so I finally said -- "not for congestion relief, but for connectivity to intersecting routes like the Red Line, 50 (West 117th), 22 (Lorain -- very busy!) and others. It could also be a tool for economic redevelopment on the West Side.

 

Obviously I didn't expect him to begin a major investment study on the spot. But I was pleased that he didn't have a negative response. Instead, he said that during his commutes in the last couple of weeks, he has been looking at that center reservation on I-90, after he was informed why it was there. Hopefully he will ponder its use for transit.

 

KJP

Hey KJP, I know there is that Federal standard for transit money that ties into the reduction in commute time.  Is that reduction in time based on current transit times of RTA, or of cars on the streets and freeways?

How is Voinovich on transit issues?  I know he more or less dictated that the waterfront line be built, so is that where it ends or is he pro-transit?

 

Just wondering where some of our other elected leaders stand.

Is the extension of BRT onto Detroit Ave through W. 117th a logical idea?  Seems like it would be a natural expansion.

Detroit Avenue isn't a terribly wide street, so there's not much room to create bus-only lanes. I'd rather see Detroit Avenue (as well as Superior Avenue) traffic signals be retrofitted with transit prioritization features. That would not only improve the on-time performance of the #326 buses, but might also improve ridership by reducing travel times.

 

Put a west-side BRT on Clifton as a supplement to the Lakefront Boulevard project, and/or add a BRT to the middle of I-90 between West 41st and Warren Road.

 

BTW, Punch, the reduction in travel time does have a transit component in the rankings of projects. But the folks at the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration place a higher ranking on a transit project that reduces the vehicle-miles traveled by cars/light trucks on parallel roads while similarly reducing greenhouse gases.

 

KJP

What is more likely in the next 10 years...

1. Extending the red line east

2. Extending the waterfront line to loop downtown

3. A new line

4. Nothing

what should happen, imo:

red line should go further south through BW and to strongsville;

blue line should extend west and green line head due east.

then the rapid route map would start to look functional.

 

what will happen: nothing w/out some serious $ and a significant change in attitude by regional leaders and residents. 

 

that's why i'm particularly excited about the TODs that are slowly starting to infill around existing redline stations.  make this route successful and there will be momentum for expanding the rest of the system.

I think the most likely project is to extend the Waterfront Line northeastward along the lakefront, tied in with new TODs/high-rise development.

 

But, I think Urbanlife is right. If the TODs really start to take off along the Red Line, then you'll see more communities wanting that for themselves. But I don't think the Red Line will be extended anytime soon, southwest of Hopkins Airport. Berea oldtimers fought the last attempt and Olmsted Falls doesn't seem to want it. Besides, unless they push TOD as part of an extension, Olmsted Falls doesn't have the densities that Berea has.

 

I do like the idea of sending one of the Shaker lines west, across the Detroit-Superior bridge. There is small section of earth separating the Rapid tracks from the bottom of the buried streetcar ramp at the east end of the Detroit-Superior bridge. I would be surprised if it cost more than a couple million dollars to break through that. Of course, ramping up to street level at the west side will inur another few million, and some bucks will be needed for relocating utilities on the lower level of the Detroit-Superior bridge. But, boy, that would cost a lot less than adding another high-level bridge across the valley. And it gets the rail line in a position where it can follow the Lakefront Boulevard (ex-Shoreway) toward Lakewood.

 

KJP

What is in the future for Cleveland transit?  Something cheap.  It seems that there isnt the population growth nor the foresight to make large projects a reality.  If anything could happen, I would say that a line going out from the Detroit Superior Bridge (as KJP points out) extending along the new shoreway boulevard and into Lakewood would be a great and cheaper idea.  I know that Lakewood and Cleveland are looking at ideas for Clifton.  I think one idea was to put a median in the middle.  That street could handle double the traffic and is way too big for its present burden.  We could turn Clifton into a Shaker Boulevard-like corridor.  While that is not the densest part of lakewood, except near 117th, it is still dense enough to garner significant ridership. 

 

Is the RTA kicking any ideas around?  It seems that before teh BRT, we heard ideas of redline expansion, WFLs and subways to UC.  Is the leadership different and lacking of imagination? Does the leadership own stock in Ford SUVs? Or, are we at a point where transit in Cleveland is too expensive to build?

JamieC, just in case you're reading this, I'll answer your question about rail routes through Hudson. The frequent freight train traffic through Hudson comes southeast from Cleveland, through Bedford and Macedonia and on to Ravenna, Alliance and Pittsburgh. The proposed commuter rail service would travel from Cleveland southeast through Bedford, Macedonia and Hudson, but turn south at Hudson on a idled track bought from Conrail in the 1990s by the Akron Metro Regional Transit Authority. That track continues through Silver Lake to Cuyahoga Falls, and would be restored from there south into downtown Akron. Akron Metro also owns tracks from Akron to Canton, much of which is used by the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad.

 

I hope that helps.

Okay...not on point for the future, but a historical question.  Why did RTA rail choose to use overhead power lines instead of third rail power?  Just curious if anyone might know....

It was a safety issue for steam railroad workers, whose tracks were immediately adjacent to the transit tracks.

^ Thanks!  Too bad the rail workers here couldn't have been as safe as the ones in NYC or Chicago.....the third rail just looks a lot less "busy" and clean...imo

I grew up in Cuyahoga Falls, and I never knew Silver Lake had a mayor. It's a nice little neighborhood, but I wouldn't say it's Eden. It seems to me that a commuter rail route from Akron to Cleveland would be a lot more productive and useful than going through the national park -- but that's just me. I want to go down to all the development around the park and fight it off with a pitchfork, lol. It'd be nice to connect the two cities more directly.

 

Thanks for clearing it up, KJP!

KJP et all,

 

I'm sure this question has been asked before, i'd also bet that I may have asked it. Anywho:

 

Is there significant cost difference in the traditional third rail versus the overhead catenary? Off the top of your head will do, I'm not writing a thesis here.

 

thanks

I don't know the exact costs, but overhead catenary tends to be a bit more expensive to construct.  However, the long-term cost of maintaing them, while not cheap< isn't too bad.

 

But the liability concerns over using a "third rail" requires that any possible pedestrian access to the rail line be prevented.  That tends to drive the $$$ cost up considerably.

 

Given that tresspassing along railroad rights-of-way is a huge problem.... both pedestrians and knuckleheads reiding ATV's .... I doubt that anyone wants to gfo to the expense of using "third rail" technology.

oh i understand the safety concerns completely.

Too bad natural selection couldn't be a defense in court!

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.

This could bode well for reviving plans for commuter rail in the Cleveland-Akron Corridor.... that is if the folks at NOACA will get off their behinds and acting like an arm of ODOT and advocating for more roads.

 

Nice to see these troglodytes in Silver Lake get slam-dunked by the Supremes.

I doubt the Supreme Court will hear the case.  They have more important things to deal with. 

 

And, troglodytes is putting it nicely about the anti-rail NIMBY's in Silver Lake.

 

As I said previously, I hope that some point after the CLE-DET, CLE-CHI, and CLE-BUF routes are built that these corridors will be extended to Akron and Canton via the Akron Secondary. 

 

It will be very difficult for the NIMBY's in Silver Lake to fight because it would fall under "interstate commerce" which can only be regulated by the federal government.   

Village loses fight to keep train off nearby tracks

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Reginald Fields

Plain Dealer Bureau

 

Columbus- A divided Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday said a dinner excursion train can rumble along the edges of a tidy Summit County village that fought hard against the plan.

 

In a 4-3 decision, the court said Metro Regional Transit Authority - the county's public transportation system - has the right to lease its railroad tracks for profit, including a 1.5-mile stretch along the western border of the village of Silver Lake.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1164275509116100.xml&coll=2

"I'm very disappointed," said Silver Lake solicitor Robert Heydorn, who added the train would pass behind 30 to 40 houses with back yards as shallow as 40 feet.

 

"And it will have two diesels," Heydorn said. "If you have any idea of the size of a diesel, it's bigger than a house."

 

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.

what does this mean for the commutter rail lines

Cleveland to Akron/Canton

Cleveland to Kent

Cleveland to Youngstown

Cleveland to Mentor/Ashtabula

Cleveland to Lorain (i know there is an existing thread)/Sandusky

Cleveland to Mansfield

 

I tried to read and catch up im just wondering if there are still talks behind the scenes but not released to the media?

what does this mean for the commutter rail lines

Cleveland to Akron/Canton

Cleveland to Kent

Cleveland to Youngstown

Cleveland to Mentor/Ashtabula

Cleveland to Lorain (i know there is an existing thread)/Sandusky

Cleveland to Mansfield

 

I tried to read and catch up im just wondering if there are still talks behind the scenes but not released to the media?

 

There's presently no politician or political body promoting commuter rail.  If Metro succeeds in getting the dinner train operational, this decision at minimum will increase public awareness of alternative uses for underused freight tracks.  At best it will stir ideas among the public for doing more with passenger trains on freight tracks, including intercity rail in Ohio.

Public Transportation.....scratch that.....Reliable Public Transportation is essential to the growth of an urban core. That is why I was excited to hear about this innovative idea.

 

I recently took a look at a proposal by a group that is taking care of the old trolley car collection that is housed north of Cleveland Browns Stadium (in a storage facility). Most of these trolleys not only work, but are from the old Cleveland streetcar lines. Because they are operational, and hold huge significance to Cleveland's history, this group wants to utilize these trolley cars to bring value to the fledgling Lakefront line.

 

The proposal calls for the construction of a new rail house near the Municipal Lot (just east of E. 9th), at the end of the Lakefront line. This would provide a space to store the Trolley cars and work on them. These operational trolleys would then run on the lakefront line, instead of the regular lakefront trains.

 

This "tourist attraction line", even though it would generate a lot more interest and ridership than the current line, is still not enough to "save" the Lakefront line. The Lakefront line must serve a pragmatic purpose. That is why this proposal calls for the extension of the Lakefront line up E. 9th street, past the Galleria, the Banks, the new County property, the Gateway Neighborhood, and the Jake.....a right on Carnegie....back down into the flats, onto the Rapid tracks and back into Tower City. Creating a complete loop.

 

The great thing about this proposal is....not only would it work, but it would give legitimacy to the Lakefront line as a means to get around the city. The Lakefront line currently serves nobody except Brown's Games, occasional tourists, Lakefront events, and the future East Bank of the Flats project. If you complete the loop, it serves most of the downtown core, especially the employment corridor of E.9th. The trolley cars were designed to make sharp turns and climb steep embankments, so getting the trolley cars off the current tracks and onto E. 9th would not be a problem. The infrastructure for a relatively short street car line would not be cost prohibative, especially if the completed loop resulted in thousands of people actually using the Lakefront line to get to work or around town every day.

 

I'm not sure what needs to happen to make this project a reality...but I am whole heartedly behind it! This is not just a much needed piece of downtown public transportation, it is win for RTA, a win for the Cleveland Historic Trolley Association (not sure if that is the actual name of the group), and a win for Cleveland tourism.

 

There is one way to find out if this project could work. Reroute the E-line trolley (once the Euclid Corridor Project is complete and we no longer need that loop) to complete the loop between the current Lake front line and Tower City. Publicize this route change to let Clevelanders know about the "Lakefront loop" and gauge how effective it is.

I like it a lot urban manna, and welcome to the forum!

 

Not only would this potenitally help Cleveland in a number of ways, but just by having the name "Lakefront loop," it will constantly remind Clevelanders (and tourists) of Cleveland great resource--Lake Erie.