Again, it would seem to be in Cedar Fair's best interest to get behind a revival of rail service. 

 

Well, at least the are connecting the dots between gas prices and people's travel choices.  Maybe they'll come around completely before long, especially if things get really ugly this summer if gas prices approach $4.00/gallon. 

 

It was in the 1990's that they made the statement about the drive to Cedar Point being part of the Cedar Point experience.  As I recall, some high school students (for some sort of environmental project) devised a proposal (more of an intellectual exercise than a fully concrete plan) to bring people to Sandusky by trains.  It was in response to their "proposal" that Cedar Fair said this.  It may have been an article in the local paper up there.  I just don't remember. 

The progress on this project is exciting.  Love it or hate it (I love it), the last time we had such public unanimity among pols on a rail project, was RTA's Waterfront Line.  Such is a rare event, indeed, in NEO....  The thing is, though, most of the positive, aggressive political talk is west of the Cuyahoga-Lorain County line... I wish we could gin up some more excitement to the east of the line... Cleve City Council's resolution supporting the project was a nice gesture, but we need more hard commitment from the powerbrokers, like Frank's people; the Commissioners, etc... We know JoeC's not going to help, so we should avoid him, but there's enough other leaders who can make this thing work without him (it's such a damn shame it has to be that way, but so be it). 

 

... and if I read one more "Kucinich couldn't be reached for comment" or "his office didn't return our calls" kinda thing, I think I'll puke.  I wish he'd stop dancing around this issue and get the hell on board... It'd sure be nice if Mr. Glamor National Liberal would stand up to his principals (the environment; less dependence on oil, etc) and step up to the plate and support this great project.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that 14 long, rumbling/noisy freight trains are a lot different than quiet, 3-4 car commuter coaches pulled by one engine.  And that the positive impact on the communities through which the tracks pass, more than offset whatever negatives there are of the few (5 if I recall, for the initial number of commuter runs) commuter coaches passing thru...

 

The key seems now, if we can get the pols on board, is delicate negotiations with N-S; ... they at least seem open to commuter trains, which is a lot better than RRs in other cities.

From The Press, April 11, 2007

 

Funding study considered for commuter rail to Cleveland

 

Avon Lake

by Andrea M. Osmun

 

Post edited 9-4-09 to comply with terms of use

^interesting.  I note that Sandusky/Cedar Pt is now in the mix... does that change the character of this proposed line beyond just a commuter line for downtown Cleveland/Lakewood workers into more of an interurban-type service which would require a lot more daytime/weekend service?

 

I also note that the West Blvd Red Line Rapid stop isn't being mentioned as the eastern terminal for service, of late, but downtown Cleveland is.  Is the W. Blvd transfer terminal still in the mi?  Or is the plan to take service over the Lakefront NS line (to North Coast's Amtrak station) or over the Red Line (into Tower City).

 

And what about equipment?  Is the plan still a demo/experimental run with hand-me-down equipment from, say, Amtrak and/or Chicago's Metra, to name a few, or is it diesel LRT - making the Red Line/Tower City entry into downtown more viable?

 

Don't these things need to be ironed out?  Or is this merely a media/speculation feeding frenzy?

That why an Alternatives Analysis is needed.  Many of these specualtive questions can be better answered when there is a clearer idea of what is possible as far as a route, connections and other right-of-way issues.

Indeed.  Thanks for clarifying.

What Noozer said.

 

We've reached out to the state to inquire about funding for a minimum two-year demonstration service, and the inquiry is being discussed by state officials (ODOT & ODOD). There also was a nice letter of support for the alternatives analysis recently sent to the Lorain Port Authority by the Ohio Rail Development Commission.

 

The details of a permanent service would be answered by the alternatives analysis. The demonstration service, if it occurs, would be determined by the stakeholders. But we're not there yet until we hear of any interest by the state to fund it.

That's good news.  Let's hope the State reciprocates.  I hope All Aboard can keep the focus on the 2-year demo funded by Columbus rather than the long, heavy-investment program, regardless of the latter's attractiveness... In an area like Greater Cleveland (indeed, all of Ohio) where rail transit projects are about as popular as the chicken pox, I think a small scale demo, keeping RTA and the feds on the sideline, is the ticket, ... then watch interst grow.

 

One other Q: what kind of investment will need to be made, for the demo, in the Red Line-commuter connection at West Blvd... for the demo?  What primary and ancillary facilities will need to be built?

PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE ONLY MY ESTIMATES AND NOT THE RESULT OF A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT!

 

West Shore Corridor

Commuter Rail Demonstration Project

 

For Discussion Only

Subject to analysis and negotiations

 

 

Conceptual start-up costs (in millions)

 

ROLLING STOCK

Purchase 2nd-hand locomotives/rail cars. . . $ 2.0 (lease may be option)

Rehabilitation/improvements . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.5

 

FACILITIES

Cleveland train layover facility  . . . . . . . . . $ 2.0

Alcott track connection construction . . . . . $10.0

Lorain Grove Site track connection constr . . $ 3.0

Lorain train layover/servicing facility. . . . . . $ 2.5

Quiet Zones/Crossing enhancements. . . . . . $14.0

 

STATIONS

Cleveland North Coast station . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.0

Cleveland West Blvd/W117th. . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.0

Lakewood downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.3

Rocky River downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.3

Bay/Westlake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.3

Avon Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.5

Sheffield Lake  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.5

Lorain downtown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.5

 

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $38.4

Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.6

 

Start-up costs total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40.0

 

 

Potential operating costs (in millions)(does not include equipment lease)

 

YEAR ONE

Liability insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2.0

Operating support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2.0

Administrative/marketing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.0

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.0

 

YEAR TWO

Liability insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2.0

Operating support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2.0

Administration/marketing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.0

Subtotal . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.0

 

Operating costs total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.0

                                                            _____

 

Total est. two-year demonstration costs. . . $50.0

I've been wondering where some of the stations along the route will be?  Some have been talked about in some detail, others not so much.

 

Lorain - Grove Site (Black River Landing), I think a second stop could eventually work on the east side of the Black River (between Harborwalk and Kansas Avenue there are several nearly vacant parcels on both sides of the tracks that used to be Lorain Products/Marconi/Emerson parking lots.

 

Sheffield Village - ? you mention Sheffield Lake, but it is entirely built-out residential north of the tracks at Lake Breeze, then the corporation line steps north, so by the time you're at Harris Road, both sides of the tracks are in the village.  I think it would be great to have the stop at Abbe Rd (or Miller in Avon Lake) for access to the Ford Plant, maybe shuttle service for employees there and at Noveon/PolyOne.

 

Avon/Avon Lake - the city of Avon Lake owns land on the north side of the tracks, west side of Rt 83; that would be a good spot for park-n-ride.

 

Westlake - transit center off Clemens/Columbia

 

Rocky River - ?

 

Lakewood - ? (more than one stop?)

 

W. 117th  - is there land for a stop there?

A Sheffield Lake stop could be at any of the locations you mentioned.

 

An Avon/Avon Lake station would most likely be at SR83.

 

Westlake/Bay locations could be at the RTA Park-n-Ride at Columbia Road (to save $$), but Bay officials would prefer that it be at Dover Center Road to benefit from/by their development of a mixed-use corridor along Dover Center.

 

Rocky River's would most likely be at the historic station downtown.

 

Lakewood officials prefer their station to be at Belle Park, just north of Lakewood Center North. But if a dual-mode diesel/electric self-propelled train is used, it could operate more like a light-rail service and have multiple station stops in Lakewood.

 

West 117th seems to be a favored spot by Cleveland city planners, who envision a street lined with new, mixed-use development (especially on the site of the JD Byrider car lot). I prefer the West Boulevard station site to allow connections with the Red Line. But if the self-propelled rail car is used instead of a locomotive-hauled train, it could operate into Tower City Center on the Red Line tracks and serve any of the stations between West Blvd and Tower City (or beyond!).

I'm currently at a conference in San Diego - every morning I catch the "Coaster" train from near Torrey Pines into Santa Fe Station, switch to the San Diego Trolley and complete my journey to the convention center.  I'd like to be able to do the same from Lorain County to a Cleveland convention center or University Circle someday.  Plus, with connections to the airport, I could be saving that $10 a day long-term parking fee right now. (why is the new $7 lot always full???).

^ i believe you could walk to the cc from santa fe station, no?

 

while the abbe road site is best and the most useful, i was thinking another sheffield lake option could be at root road right on the sl and lorain border. would be great for my brother at least.

I like the Root Road site, too. The east side of the road has some vacant land and is within a short walk from a decent-sized apartment complex. From a railroad operations perspective, it's a superior site since it's at the west end of a double track segment. So you put station platforms on each of the two tracks, and since it's at the end of the double track segment, there's little worry about a waiting freight train blocking access to one  side of the station site.

Multiple stops in Lakewood would be a good idea.  The city is populous enough to support them.  One station would be Belle Avenue, obviously, but another location that I think would be great is the area around Sloane and West Clifton, where the Nature's Bin grocery store is.  Although it would be a bit close to the Rocky River stop, commuters won't need to cross any bridges to get to it.  Parking might be an issue, but the station could be instead marketed as a neighborhood-oriented stop, serving residents in the West End/Clifton Park areas.

 

Maybe while they're at it they could kill two birds with one stone and get rid of that old retail strip and the McDonald's, and redevelop the land for some mixed-use TOD. But that's just me. :)

mrnyc - from santa fe station to the eastern end of the convention center is just under a mile, but at 6:30 am, i'll take the trolley every time...  :oops:

 

kjp and mrnyc - I hadn't even thought about the Root Rd area, but there are apartment complexes (market rate on the north, section 8 on the south) on both sides of the tracks there, and room for parking, so it would be a good location.

We'll see how it shakes out.  I'm not sure multiple stops in Lakewood, for a 25 mile (maybe much more if Vermilion and Sandusky are included) makes sense.  I know coverage is important, but a stop 'n start line ultimately could render the line so slow it loses it's competitive edge (vs. the auto).  I'd only advocate that if the line had the facilities for local and express service which is doubtful, as only 1 track is active now (and max, there's only room for one more track)...

 

... That said, I think a commuter line must stop at W. 117 street.  It's the core restaurant, entertainment and residential drag for the immediate area and sits right on the Lakewood-Cleveland line.  I know the West Blvd RTA stop is less than a mile away, but it's hard to justify having trains roll thru such an area as W.117 without stopping.

 

So I think the smartest approach is 2 Lakewood stops: downtown and W. 117...

The West Boulevard site is extremely attractive as I see it, because of the Red Line connection, which translates to an airport connection.

Here's another thing that was kicked around at the last stakeholders meeting, based on our speaker from Arlington County, VA. ...

 

A commuter rail service with limited stops on the existing NS line, with a parallel streetcar line added on Detroit Avenue through Lakewood. With traffic signal preemption, a streetcar could make it through Lakewood much more quickly than existing bus service (although a bus could similarly be equipped for signal preemption). Anyway, I thought you all should know that a streetcar was brought up, and Lakewood city officials were the ones who suggested the idea.

To some slaving away in the paragraph factories, they don't understand the differences in the types of vehicles that ride on rails. That can be a problem or that can be a benefit. The outcome of the 1982 statewide vote on high-speed rail was a definite problem for the conventional speed proposals which followed. But the latest developments can be used to show the emergence of grassroots support for all things rail.

 

One stat I didn't like in Ewinger's column (not an op-ed piece) is that the Cleveland Rapid system has only 15 percent of RTA's ridership. Um, considering that RTA has more than 45 transit lines and only two of them are rail rapid transit, I'd say that 15 percent is disproportionately large.

 

Interesting.  I did a quick and dirty calculation.  In 2000 RTA buses had ~1,606 route miles and carried ~51 million rides.  RTA trains had 34 route miles and ~9 million rides.  Rides per route mile on bus:  ~31,755.  Rides per route mile on rail: ~264,706.  So per route mile, RTA rail is over 8X more productive than bus.  Rail productivity in terms of passengers carried per vehicle mile and vehicle hour would probably be much higher too.  But the most telling statistic is number of passengers carried per operator paid hour.  RTA doesn't keep those stats any more but again, rail will be higher because more folks can fit on a rapid train than a bus.  E.g. how many buses would it take to carry even 10% of a Browns home game crowd, each requiring an operator.  Contrast that with 2 or three car trains that each only need 2-person crews.

 

BAH!!

^ and the sheer fact that people are more opt to ride rail over bus anyday of the week!  I wish RTA would do a public survey as to what the people would prefer.  Fact is...biggest advantages for rail:  Obvious route destinations, NOT sitting in traffic like buses, and rail is more efficient in inclimate weather...whether it be Clev-Lor rail or extention/addition to the rapid...rail has it ALL OVER buses!

The West Boulevard site is extremely attractive as I see it, because of the Red Line connection, which translates to an airport connection.

 

I agree with you.  I'm saying that both locations (W. 117 and West Blvd) are both indispensable imho, even though it's awkward b/c they are so close (btw, I'm for extensive TOD work at both locations, apparently prop'd for W.117; West Blvd, where the current Red Line station is, has much potential and is woefully underdeveloped).  Lakewood, b/c of its density and importance, would have more than one station, too.  But every other burb would have about 1 per burb, including long/stretched out Westlake/Bay.  This would interpret to about a station every 3 to 5 miles, which is pretty standard for commuter systems beyond core city/inner-ring burb limits which generally maintains the balance between coverage and train speed, esp given that most commuter systems are rather slow boarding, limited-door trains.

 

... add to that, the fact diesel trains have slower acceleration than do electric.  It's with that advantage, electric trains - - commuter rail, rapid transit systems -- can have much more frequent, close-spaced station-stops with less loss of time than do diesel operations.

I still think if one really had to pick between West Boulevard and W.117th for the commuter line station because of funding - I'd still pick West Boulevard. It would allow passengers to transfer to W.117th via rapid (although the W.117th St. station at Madison is still a good deal north of the hub you are referring to at W. 117th and Detroit.) Plus I think even if there was no W.117th station a potential Detroit Avenue streetcar would eliminate the need for W.117th's own commuter rail station.

 

A BRT or streetcar line down Detroit with more frequent stops would make a lot sense to do in conjunction with the West Side Commuter Rail line.

 

I still think if one really had to pick between West Boulevard and W.117th for the commuter line station because of funding - I'd still pick West Boulevard. It would allow passengers to transfer to W.117th via rapid (although the W.117th St. station at Madison is still a good deal north of the hub you are referring to at W. 117th and Detroit.) Plus I think even if there was no W.117th station a potential Detroit Avenue streetcar would eliminate the need for W.117th's own commuter rail station.

 

A BRT or streetcar line down Detroit with more frequent stops would make a lot sense to do in conjunction with the West Side Commuter Rail line.

 

Streetcar?  Maybe.  I'd have to see how it's developed.  Streetcars are nice for nostalgia, but unless executed properly -- adequate space and significant private rights of way, they're not effective public transportation besides the obvious positive of using electricity rather than fuel.  I lived in Mt. Airy-Chestnut Hill Philly when trolleys up narrow Germantown Ave, while quaint and historic, really slowed down traffic and couldn't move around cars.

 

And please, not BRT!  BRT's just transit-funded street landscaping.  I'm glad there's some development associated with ECP on the East Side, but the only real hope I have is that someday, ECP can be converted to Light Rail and, hopefully, dropped into a subway through downtown, perhaps connecting with the current Rapid as it should, or connecting thru the Det-Superior bridge subway...

 

Detroit Rd through Edgewater and Lakewood is, already, substantially built up, esp in Lakewood.  Streetcars and BRT can't substitute for commuter rail and/or real rapid transit along the NS ROW in terms of speed and efficiency.  I think a commuter rail stop at W.117, and/or a short Red Line spur to that spot, is the only real way to effectively handle traffic in that high-density area.

... Any buzz in Columbus as to momentum for state funding for the Lorain-Cleveland commuter rail demo?  Any news whatsoever?

Why, yes we do have news to report! First, here's the summary of the most recent meeting, held May 4....

__________________________

 

All:

 

A brief summary follows of the May 4, 2007 West Shore Corridor Stakeholders meeting, held in conjunction with the Lorain County Community Alliance's annual Transportation Day. Thanks for the accommodation! At the bottom of this summary is a report by the Local Contributions Strategy Subcommittee, which was the principal topic discussed at the full stakeholders meeting. They are scheduled to meet again May 9.

 

I gave the following presentation (a 1.5mb download), a first-year progress report on the WSC stakeholders process:

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/West%20Shore%20Corridor-YEARONE.pdf

 

Lorain County Commissioner Betty Blair noted that Congresswoman Betty Sutton has requested federal funding for the West Shore Corridor Alternatives Analysis from the House Appropriations Committee. Commissioner Blair asked that all of us send letters or other expressions of support to Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and Congressman Tim Ryan, both members of the appropriations committee. Please see separate e-mail for sample wording and contact information.

 

The following report (see below) by the Local Contributions Strategy Subcommittee generated the most discussion, including ideas of additional sources to reach out to for potential support. Note that the subcommittee is scheduled to meet again May 9th.

 

One last note: I will be on vacation May 11-27. Our next stakeholders meeting will likely be in mid-June. I hope to be able to pass along a date/location for the meeting before I leave.

 

___________________________

 

 

  MEETING SUMMARY 

 

West Shore Corridor Stakeholders

 

Local Contributions Strategy Subcommittee

3:00 p.m. Thurs. April 12, 2007

 

Cleveland City Councilman Brian Cummins’ Ward 15 Office

 

Present:  Subcommittee Co-Chairs Hon. Brian Cummins, Rick Novak/Lorain Port Authority, Will McCracken/Consultant, Maribeth Feke/GCRTA and Richard Enty/GCRTA

 

The group reviewed and affirmed the subcommittee’s purpose from the West Shore Corridor Stakeholders Feb. 23rd meeting notes:

 

1)      Develop a strategy for local share contributions for the proposed Alternatives Analysis;

2)      Develop a scope of work for the alternatives analysis

3)      Examine oversight structure(s) for a demonstration commuter rail or express bus service.

 

The group discussed the earmark request amount of $3 million earmark request and considered the timing of its availability within FFY 2008.  At the earliest, a decision would be made by Congress in late Fall 2008 with funds becoming available most likely in early 2009.  This would also likely mean only $1.5 total available for the first year of the study, which should be designated into a Phase I effort and a Phase II effort, each costing $1.5 million.

 

The minimum local share percentage required would be 20% and it was pointed out that the Federal government welcomed an overmatch of local share dollars; some cities have contributed up to 50%.

 

Agreeing that entities that would directly benefit should be among those asked to contribute to the local share, the group brainstormed the following list of beneficiaries with existing resolutions in support of the Alternatives Analysis:

 

Cities of Cleveland, Lakewood, Lorain, Vermillion, Westlake, Greater Cleveland RTA

 

Lorain Port Authority, Lorain County Commissioners, Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC Executive Director & Chairman letters of support)

 

Other potential beneficiaries either considering a support resolution or that perhaps should consider adopting one include:  City of Avon Lake, City of Bay Village, City of Rocky River, City of Sheffield Lake, Cleveland- Cuyahoga Port Authority, Cuyahoga County Commissioners, NOACA, ODOT, ORDC, Sandusky, and Sheffield Village.

 

The group then identified other potential stakeholders whose support would help advance the study including foundations in Lorain and Cleveland, NE Ohio mayors and city managers, major employers (e.g. Cleveland Clinic) and large corporations, Fund for Economic Future, Greater Cleveland Partnership (in a subsequent conversation, Ken Prendergast suggested including  W. Shore Corridor track owner Norfolk Southern.

 

West Shore Corridor Stakeholders

Local Contributions Strategy Subcommittee

Meeting Notes

 

Page 2

 

 

 

Following discussion of beneficiaries and stakeholders, the group discussed the enormous challenge of simultaneously conducting the alternatives analysis and commuter rail demonstration, agreeing that each would be costly and require significant resources.  All agreed that it was too early to decide on conducting a demonstration.  The perception is there isn’t enough buy-in across the region for commuter rail, making it difficult to fund a demonstration without federal dollars, let alone find local share dollars for a demonstration. 

 

The group decided it would recommend to the full West Shore Corridor Stakeholders group convening a meeting with key civic leaders not already involved in the process.  To seek their buy-in on the concept, a commuter rail briefing session would be held, featuring a guest speaker from one of the new commuter rail services (e.g. Nashville).  This would help the region decide whether to fund the study, the demonstration, or both.

 

There was brief discussion on the AA study itself, including cost, timing and what options were there should the $1.5 million federal earmark request be denied.  The decision on earmark would not likely occur until Fall and funds would not become available until early 2008, the group expressed interest in exploring an option to fund the study with state, local and private sector dollars.  It was agreed this option could be discussed as part of the key leader briefing, where support could be gauged for pursue the AA with or without federal dollars, and for simultaneously pursuing the demonstration.

 

The group decided to meet again on Wed. May 9th at the same location and agreed on the following.

 

ACTION ITEMS

 

Cummins – Contact Cuyahoga County planning and development officials (Alsenas, Oyaski); contact Dave Abbott strategize on involving corporate leaders and foundations.

 

McCracken – Follow-up with Fund for Economic Future/Voices and Choices.

 

Novak – Speak with Commissioner Betty Blair about asking Lorain County Foundations to invite participation by Cuyahoga County Foundations.

 

Feke & Enty – Get copies of AA work scopes for similar commuter rail projects; prepare meeting minutes.

 

NOTE:  Re: the subcommittee’s task on researching institutional arrangements, NOACA’s Neorail Study provides information on this.  See attached Neorail report.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Richard M. Enty

And then there's this....

_________________

 

All:

 

Lorain County Commissioner Betty Blair reports that Congresswoman Betty Sutton has forwarded a request for federal funding for the West Shore Corridor Alternatives Analysis to the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. The request is for $1.5 million in each of the next two federal fiscal years, or $3 million total.

 

Hearings will be held by the Appropriations Committee starting within the next two weeks and are expected to be done by July 4th.

 

Please contact these two members of the House Appropriations Committee to express your support for the funding request (consider fax or e-mail given the time-sensitive nature of this request):

 

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur

2186 Rayburn Building

Washington, DC 20515

Tel: (202) 225-4146

Fax: (202) 225-7711

 

Congressman Tim Ryan

1421 Longworth House Office Bldg

Washington, DC 20515

Tel: (202) 225-5261

Fax: (202) 225-3719

e-mail: [email protected]

 

TALKING POINTS:

 

Use any of these, or some of your own....

 

Procedural Points:

 

- There is federal funding authority for this request. A federal appropriation was authorized, but no dollar amount specified, by the most recent six-year federal surface transportation program reauthorization under the title "Lorain-Cleveland Commuter Rail."

 

- The same surface transportation program authorizes a discretionary Alternative Analysis Program (49 U.S.C. 5339), for which $6,100,000 remains unallocated for the last two years of the program (Fiscal Years 2008-09).

 

- Lorain County has agreed to be the project sponsor, with the non-federal funding share pledged by a mix of public and private sources. The Strategy Subcommittee of the West Shore Corridor Stakeholders is identifying specific dollar amounts totaling $600,000 over two years.

 

Qualitative Points:

 

* Enhanced transit service is all about increasing access to jobs, be they in downtown Cleveland, in Lorain or in the suburbs. For many work trips, not enough alternatives to driving are available. That's especially true for reaching available jobs in outer suburbs, where few or no reasonable alternatives to driving exist.

 

* For motorists, commuter rail or express bus options would provide a fast, no-stress trip in all types of weather, meanwhile commuters can work or rest while they travel. These will enhance the region's marketability.

 

* Improved regional transit would reduce the region's transportation costs, which are higher in Greater Cleveland than they are in much larger cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles. Reducing those costs will allow Northeast Ohioans to spend more of their money on housing and the local economy, rather than on the rising cost of foreign oil.

 

* Quiet zones will be an essential part of a commuter rail option, as will carefully planned station-area redevelopments. Both will increase the tax bases of cities along the route without increasing taxes. And the grade-crossing improvements associated with quiet zones will also increase safety for pedestrians, motorists and the railroad.

 

If federal funding is approved in full, the alternatives analysis will --

 

+ Provide extensive information to regional decision makers so they can choose a preferred alternative of route alignment and transportation mode (commuter rail, express bus, or transportation system management, possibly with optional local feeder/complementary services like bus rapid transit, streetcar, bike paths, etc);

 

+ Measure the impacts on natural and built environments and identify potential mitigation;

 

+ Determine whether a public investment is justified based on the locally preferred alternative's potential to address economic, social, environmental and other quality-of-life needs.

 

Those are just a few talking points to consider including in your communications to Reps. Kaptur and Ryan. They're probably more than can be included in a concise letter, fax, e-mail or phone call. But my modus operandi is it's better to have the information and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

The most important thing is to contact Reps. Kaptur and Ryan as soon as possible. Write a letter in crayon if you have to!

 

Thanks so much for your help and support.

Thanks for the info.  You guys really have your act together... Organization and aggressiveness and lining up the key players.  It seems you have the right strategy...

 

This quote disappointed me somewhat: "The perception is there isn’t enough buy-in across the region for commuter rail, making it difficult to fund a demonstration without federal dollars, let alone find local share dollars for a demonstration."

 

Oh well, bunk the demo, though it was a nice idea... I'm a little put off that this project won't even be looked at until fall 2008, but a realist.  Next year is a presidential election year and Bush (& maybe the Republicans in the WH) is/are out.   The Republicans will be battling to regain at least a house of Congress and I'm sure, Lorain commuter rail will be looked at as a pork-barrell, home/pet project, no doubt for Kucinich... So realistically, it may be early 2009 when the new presidential admin is seated.

 

Just keep up the good work getting our local act together.  Getting CPC on board is a very good move.  We need to get Frank on board, too. (is CPC under Frank's control?)

 

Let's see what happens.

 

btw, I doubt very few, if any, Metra engines or bi-level cars will be junked, cause every midsized market looking at a cheap start up wants some... Metra's got to be the most popular transit agency in the country for that reason...

 

Also, what about this Richard Enty -- is this guy cloned?  he seems everywhere... Isn't he heading CVSR and their effort to extend into Tower City???  Maybe he's RTA's version of a baseball team's utility player ... Sounds like he has a lot of energy and enthusiasm for all things Cleveland transit -- the type of person RTA needs more of, as opposed to, well, ... you know who...

Rich recently retired from GCRTA, but rest assured he is not fading away as far as being involved in advocacy for rail and transit.  You're right, we need to clone him.

 

 

Rich recently retired from GCRTA, but rest assured he is not fading away as far as being involved in advocacy for rail and transit.  You're right, we need to clone him.

 

Funny, I just saw retired Rich watering his lawn this morning. He lives one block away from the Cleveland Clinic.

 

KJP -

 

I have heard from a local official that the agreement between NS and the local communities to limit train traffic through Lakewood, Rocky River, and Bay Village expires sometime in 2008 - can you verify this?  If so, wouldn't that improve the prospects of commuter rail service on this line?

 

The West Shore communities' agreement with NS has no expiration. The agreement is also silent on commuter rail, and therefore has no affect on limiting commuter train traffic. That scares a number of city officials in Rocky River and Bay Village who want the agreement amended so that it will include commuter rail in some way. I don't have a problem as long as it recognizes that not all trains have the same impacts, both positive and negative, on their built and natural surroundings.

 

Anyway, I need to get back to my European vacation. Talk later.

Anyway, I need to get back to my European vacation. Talk later.

 

You're not in Europe yet.  You're still in the UK.  Don't let anyone there hear you refer to the UK as Europe.  :wink:

All:

 

Please note that the date of the next West Shore Corridor stakeholders meeting has changed. The new date/time is 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. June 27 at the Bay Village Police Department's community meeting room, 28000 Wolf Road (a half-mile west of Dover Center Road).

 

+ From Cleveland, Lakewood and points east, exit I-90 at Columbia and go north across the tracks to Wolf Road and turn left (west). Continue west 1.5 miles on Wolf to police station.

+ From Lorain County points, exit I-90 at Crocker Road and turn right. Next light south is Detroit Road, turn left (east). Continue on Detroit one mile to Cahoon Road and turn left (north). Stay on Cahoon for one mile to Wolf. Turn left, and go west a quarter-mile on Wolf to police station.

 

Agenda topics include reports/updates from the three stakeholder committees:

> Strategy - update on strategy/efforts to secure funding for the Alternatives Analysis;

> Legal - report from West Shore law directors on discussions with Norfolk Southern;

> Station-area development - update on community planning efforts at potential station sites.

 

Also, if you haven't already done so, please contact one or both of Ohio's representatives on the U.S. House Appropriations committee to ask for their active support of the $3 million ($1.5 million in each of the next two federal fiscal years) request for the West Shore Corridor Alternatives Analysis. This request was submitted by the Lorain Port Authority and the Lorain County Commissioners to Rep. Betty Sutton, who delivered the request to the appropriations committee. Federal funding for advancing planning on this critical transportation corridor was authorized by the most recent federal surface transportation law, passed in 2005. Then-Rep. Sherrod Brown got the funding authorization included. Please state personal/organizational reasons why you want planning for this corridor advanced.

 

As soon as possible, please contact:

 

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur

      Tel: (202) 225-4146

      Fax: (202) 225-7711

      www.kaptur.house.gov

 

Congressman Tim Ryan

      Tel: (202) 225-5261

      Fax: (202) 225-3719

      http://timryan.house.gov

 

 

Thank you. I look forward to seeing you on June 27!

 

 

Kenneth Prendergast

Director, Research & Communications

All Aboard Ohio!

12029 Clifton Blvd., Suite 505

Lakewood, OH 44107-2189

(216) 288-4883 cell

(216) 986-6064 office

[email protected]

www.allaboardohio.org

See http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=6079.msg190867#msg190867 for an interesting suburb-to-suburb commuter rail service under construction in Portland, Oregon

 

Here's some pictures of the Portland project:

 

Concept drawing of self-propelled commuter passenger rail cars to be built by Colorado Rail Car.

 

Crossing reconstruction underway at SW 95th Ave in Tualatin, Feb. 3, 2007

 

After breaking up the roadway with backhoes and jackhammers, crews replace the existing rails, place new concrete panels, weld rail, and replace asphalt surfacing.

 

A P811 crew member takes a slow ride near where the wheels meet the steel.

 

The P811 gradually makes its way north.

 

In the wake of the P811: fresh ballast, new long-life concrete ties and new rail.

 

 

Anyone catch Gary Seman's diatribe against the Lorain-Cleveland Commuter rail project on WRUW 91.1 FM this past tuesday? 

 

It starts at the beginning of the second hour:

http://www.wruw.org/guide/show.php?show_id=144

 

Gary does a show called Music for Psychedelic Submariners (currently on Tuesdays from 11am-1pm).  From what I understand, he's a reasonable guy who is willing to listen and learn, however, got quite a few things wrong.  Not to mention, he said that if there is a need for commuter rail, then there should be people from the private sector clamoring to build it...

I've sent him an e-mail with an offer to appear on his show. Hopefully he'll come to realize that the railroad industry is the last transportation sector where government has taken a direct role in providing a transportation service.

All Aboard Ohio

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

Director, Research & Communications

 

July 25, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

U.S. appropriations bill funds West Shore Corridor study

Only Ohio rail/transit project to receive federal planning funds

 

Thanks to the efforts of Rep. Betty Sutton (D-13), the West Shore Corridor has become a bonafide transportation project in the eyes of federal, state and regional transportation planning agencies. Rep. Sutton successfully secured $350,000 for a West Shore Corridor rail/bus transit alternatives analysis as part of the House of Representatives' Fiscal Year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. The project’s sponsor, and thus the recipient of funds, is the Lorain County Board of Commissioners.

 

More funding for the alternatives analysis will be sought. The funding will allow a consultant to be hired to seek public input to develop a range of proposed rail and bus transit options, then determine potential ridership and revenues, capital and operating costs, station-area land uses, train horn Quiet Zones, safety enhancements and other impacts of those options. Local public officials would then be in a position to select a preferred option and pursue funding for implementation.

 

Ultimately, West Shore commuter rail/enhanced bus services could connect neighborhoods and employment districts in Cleveland, Lakewood, Rocky River, Westlake, Bay Village, Avon, Avon Lake, Sheffield Village, Sheffield Lake, Lorain and Vermilion. West Shore Corridor rail/bus services would provide a leading, close-to-home for other key transportation corridors in Northeast Ohio. It might also pay economic dividends in addressing serious, transportation-based problems in Northeast Ohio by:

 

§  Reducing Greater Cleveland’s transportation costs (fifth-highest in the nation – ULI, 2003; CNT, 2004), which cause working-class households to devote more of their budgets to transportation than housing, limiting their ability to build wealth;

 

§  Increasing access to jobs, education and health care that have sprawled beyond the traditional service areas of local transit systems (only 8-15 percent of available jobs in the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area are within a 40-minute transit ride – Census, 2000);

 

§  Encouraging compact development patterns in a pedestrian-friendly setting at transit stations (“Commuter rail might also focus land development around stations, slowing urban sprawl and would provide an example of inter-regional cooperation.” – Parsons Brinckerhoff, NEORail Feasibility Study, 2001);

 

§  Reducing vehicular emissions that cause Greater Cleveland to fall into EPA air quality non-attainment, compromising human and economic health. Ironically, Honda refused to consider non-attainment areas for its newest U.S. assembly plant. In Cuyahoga County, mobile sources (ie: vehicles) accounted for 86-95% of ozone precursors, or 16-36 percentage points higher than the typical U.S. urban area (USEPA & EDF, 1996);

 

§  Provide a fast, more reliable option to driving in and out of downtown Cleveland which will only become more stressful as several major road projects (Inner Belt, West Shoreway, Clifton) get underway within the next several years.

 

Since July 2006, citizens, business people, city and county officials, state and federal legislators, transportation and planning agency representatives, plus many others have been working together via a series of stakeholders meetings to determine whether there is a public interest in advancing planning for enhanced West Shore Corridor transit. The next stakeholders meeting will be from 9-11 a.m. Aug. 29, in the Gallery Room at the Avon Lake Public Library, 32649 Electric Blvd.

 

Stakeholders responded positively to the House of Representatives’ vote.

 

“Thanks to Congresswoman Sutton and an outpouring of local support, developing West Shore Corridor rail and bus transit has grown from a good idea to a real project,” said Ken Prendergast, director of research and communication at All Aboard Ohio. “That support is why the West Shore Corridor was the only Ohio rail or transit project approved by Congress to receive federal planning funds.”

 

“Special thanks to first-term Congresswoman, Betty Sutton, who has seen the value of this project to our West Shore and Northeast Ohio areas and gone to bat for our collective communities,” said Lorain County Commissioner Betty Blair.

 

“I think that this shows great commitment from federal leaders for commuter rail and great cooperation on the municipal, county and federal level,” said Kevin Kelley, chair of Cleveland City Council’s Aviation and Transportation Committee. “Transit has been embraced by communities around the nation and this community should study transit development as an economic development tool. I am absolutely thrilled about this important first step. This is a nice solid gain.”

 

“We’re excited about the possibility of commuter rail and this is another step in that direction,” Lakewood Mayor Tom George said. “Commuter rail is an excellent fit for Lakewood, the western communities and the region. At this time of high energy prices, alternative forms of transportation are on the cutting edge of our community discussions."

 

“I think this is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the importance of alternative transportation throughout this western region and it demonstrates that the cooperation between counties and statekholders can affect the distribution of federal funds for needy projects such as this,” said Westlake Mayor Dennis Clough. “And I hope this is just a beginning step toward ultimate completion of a commuter rail system for the region.”

 

Although $1.5 million in FY2008 federal funds was sought for the alternatives analysis, the funding appropriated was in line with awards to similar transportation projects around the country. The West Shore Corridor was one of 25 projects nationwide identified by the House of Representatives to receive a total of $9.8 million in U.S. Department of Transportation Alternatives Analysis Program funds. The House also increased the funding ceiling for the Alternative Analysis program from $18 million to $25 million, of which roughly $3.3 million remains uncommitted. West Shore stakeholders will seek additional funds in the coming months from a variety of sources to expand the scope of planning elements.

 

###

 

All Aboard Ohio! is a statewide nonprofit organization based in Columbus that advocates for improved public transit and passenger train services in Ohio. More information can be found at www.allaboardohio.org. The Stocker Foundation in Lorain is a generous supporter of All Aboard Ohio’s West Shore Corridor educational efforts.

Congratulations KJP! 

:clap: I know it's not the dollars that were originally sought, but this is very good news and a credit to the hard work of KJP and all of the local officials and community leaders who see the wisdom of commuter rail in this corridor and got behind the effort.

 

KJP... let us know if the Plain Dealer picks up on this story.

I've been exchanging e-mails with a PD reporter this morning, but I get the impression that they may wait to report on the news until both houses of Congress pass the funding. The funding is a good start and a number of stakeholders, including me, are going after more bits and pieces of potential funding to raise the total amount for the requisite planning.

Way to go!!! :clap:

Great job, KJP... this is grass-roots mass transit.  When your leaders twiddle their thumbs, the public must step to the plate.

That's great news!  Another step closer to bringing commuter rail to NEO!

^or ... bringing it back.

{carrying this over from the Medical Merch mart threat to here where it's more appropriate}

 

KJP, the CVSR and West Shore extension into MM/TC would be an excellent idea... I know we've discussed it before, but do you have any current thoughts on what technology, and routing would be best for West Shore (OK, I'm putting the cart before the (iron) horse, as it will, as I'm admittedly a bit giddy about Congress' alternative-analysis study approval -- though reduced -- for West Shore last week)... Diesel light rail (or heavy rail) converting to Red Line electric at West Blvd?  or conventional passenger rail, preferably bi-level push-pull trains into a new station at North Coast?  Obviously, as you seem to note, if we can land the MM at Tower City, that will make the former more attractive, although it wouldn't tie into a commuter rail network spawned by Ohio Hub going into North Coast.

 

I guess, though, in the shorter term (pre-Ohio Hub) going into Tower City over the Rapid would be more attractive and, yes, if we could get CVSR, Tower City would become the NEO regional rail hub once again... can't sneeze at that.

OK, first here's my concept for getting West Shore Corridor commuter trains into Tower City, the convention center, Gateway, Merchandise Mart and more employment within 750 feet than is within 1000 feet of the lakefront station option.

 

First, an overview (sorry for using different colored lines in these, as yellow lines show up better but they're used for interstates in this first image. So the white line is the West Shore Corridor route into Tower City Center in this image):

 

 

 

From this image on, the West Shore route is in yellow. This image shows how to get into Tower City from the west. The excavation should cost only about $1 million, since the earth to be moved probably won't have to be moved far:

 

 

 

This shows the midsection of the Tower City access track, between Tower City and the tight turn near the NS (former NKP line):

 

 

 

And, finally, pulling into Tower City Center. Note how aligning the tracks in this manner utilizes the access point/stairwell into the Gateway Walkway. And one of the platforms even uses the Gateway Walkway as an overhead canopy to keep the raindrops off the heads of rested and relaxed rail commuters:

 

 

Estimated cost for all of this is about $8 million. I wonder if the county folks could allocate $8 million from their convention center budget to have this feature included? Would be a great way to expand the number of hotels linked into the convention center, including several within a short walk of a potential station site in Westlake. Plus, it would link the West Shore Corridor in with the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad merely by taking an escalator/elevator down to the CVSR station.

 

My ideal, however, is to use a Dual Propulsion Multiple Unit train (or, for those not familiar with railway terminology - a self-propelled rail car that uses its diesel engine one part of its trip and its electric engine for another). Thus, a DPMU could depart Tower City westbound on the Red Line. When it approaches the West 85th Street underpass, the train's operator would click over to diesel propulsion as it transfers over to Norfolk Southern on a new double-track connection with one connecting track using an old industrial siding underpass below the Red Line.

 

 

This double-track track connection might cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million to $6 million. The only reason why it might not cost more is the existence of the Red Line's flyover of the industrial track.

 

The reason why I wouldn't do this first is that there are no DPMUs to be had. There are some in service in Japan, and New Jersey Transit is going to be placing an order with the manufacturer in a few years. Once they get them on the property and work the bugs out, then it would be a good time for Northeast Ohio to place its own order, in conjunction with a replacement of RTA's entire rail fleet in about 10-15 years. These cars will save RTA $$ in the long run in standardized maintenance costs, reduced depreciation, and will allow Northeast Ohio to vastly expand its rail transit system using existing rights of way/tracks (assumes use of lightly used freight lines where a time-of-day separation from freight traffic may be possible). But DPMUs are not cheap to buy. Expect to pay $3 million to $5 million per car.

 

You can get good, second-hand commuter rail equipment today for pennies on the dollar (but they can't go on the Red Line due to lateral clearance). They will probably require some refurbishment, but experience by other transit/commuter rail authorities shows this can be done for as little as $300,000 total for as many 9-12 coaches. But most of these agencies didn't replace seats (gotta have cup holders these days to compete with the car!!) or do as much interior work as I would like, so I'd up the amount to $500,000.

 

So go with the affordable start-up now, get into Tower City Center and, after DPMUs are acquired, you may find another use for the commuter rail station shown earlier -- like a freight congestion-free station for regional passenger trains. Or, it could still be used for locomotive-hauled commuter rail trains on routes where DPMUs can't be run (where a time of day separation with freight trains isn't possible, such as on NS to Lake County via University Circle).

 

See, I told you I could be as long-winded as you, Clvlndr!

Note this conceptual site plan for the convention center (from among a half-dozen elevation views at http://www.conventioncleveland.com/river2.html) -- scroll right to see proposed location of Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad station and potential connection with West Shore Commuter rail station:

 

Wow.  Ask, and you shall receive... 'preciate it. ... I agree with the cheap startup option.  Let's get the thing up on its feet & running, first, then we can dream.  As you note (and have noted): the cheapest option is your original one: use 2nd-hand commuter equip for rush-hour runs from Lorain terminating at a transfer station at the Red Line's West Blvd. for the downtown or airport transfer -- works for me.

^^ as to the MM/CC website proposal... I guess I missed it.  Glad to see the CVSR terminal has been incorporated into the plans (along with the prominence transit is playing in the proposal).  I sure hope CVSR remains a key element.  As to any possible future dual-propulsion commuter car, I guess the assumption is the current Red Line facilities would suffice -- assuming your innovative cross-Cuyahoga/connect from the east -- connection proposal isn't chosen.