We could potentially have a commuter rail service operating in the West Shore within a year, IF the trains go no farther east than the West Boulevard rapid station. Forcing a transfer, and at that location, WILL hurt ridership. Some commuters from Westlake or Avon may not want to transfer, least of all in a neighborhood where they may not feel safe. As you know, the problem is you can't get a commuter train into downtown Cleveland from the west without spending $$$ and will take more planning/engineering/construction time to build a critical track connection at either West Boulevard/Alcott Junction or at the east end of the NS/NKP bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley.

 

Is it worth the risk to start up a "preview" commuter rail service that goes no farther east than the West Boulevard rapid station? Or, should we wait a few years (at minimum) until the planning process is complete and go for funding for the locally preferred option identified through the study process? No easy answers.

From an advocacy website in Houston, Texas, where it sounds like they are going through much the same process as the West Shore Corridor proposal.

 

8 habits of highly successful commuter rail lines

Christof Spieler / Citizens Transportation Coaltion

Houston, Texas

 

http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2007/07/25/8-habits-of-highly-successful-commuter-rail-lines/

 

20 U.S. cities have commuter rail lines. Should Houston be number 21? The best way to answer that question is to figure out what commuter rail does well. Those other cities can give us a good idea of why successful commuter rail systems are successful.

 

Here are eight criteria for the perfect commuter rail line. Only a few lines meet all of these. But nine of the top 10 commuter rail systems in the United States meet at least seven.

 

1. The ideal commuter rail line improves on current transit options.

 

This seems obvious, but it’s worth remembering that transit on steel wheels is not automatically better than transit on rubber tires. Commuter trains are big, so in order to fill them they can’t run more frequently than every half hour during rush hour and maybe every hour during midday, and they need to stop at multiple stations to fill up. Also, unless there happens to be an existing rail line right in the middle of an employment center, most riders will need to transfer to get to work. All of that is worth it it your other option is buses stuck in freeway traffic, but not if you could take a reliable non-stop bus that uses reserved lanes.

 

2. The ideal commuter rail line makes use of unused rail capacity in a corridor where highway capacity is scarce.

 

The way to implement commuter rail quickly and cheaply is to find a freight rail line that isn’t heavily used, so only relatively minor upgrades are needed to get trains running. Where freight rail lines are already busy, adding passenger trains means adding tracks, and that can get expensive, particularly when the right of way the tracks are in is narrow.

 

3. The ideal commuter rail line serves more than commuters.

 

Rush hour only service is not an effective use of equipment. On some lines, each set of locomotive and cars makes only one trip inbound in the morning and one trip outbound at night. That’s not much benefit from a $9 million piece of equipment. A route that has ridership during the day, in late evening, and on weekends will get more use out of the same equipment and infrastructure.

 

4. The ideal commuter rail line has a city at each end.

 

If there’s an employment center at each end of the line, you’re serving two rush hour commuter flows. You’re also serving a whole other kind of trip: people traveling from one city to another.

 

5. The ideal commuter rail line offers good connections to multiple employment centers.

 

Not everyone works Downtown. In Houston, we have at least four other major employment centers in the urban core: the Medical Center, Uptown, Greenway, and UH. People who work in those places should have access to good transit, too.

 

6. The ideal commuter rail line serves long trips.

 

The biggest advantage of trains over HOV or HOT lanes buses is comfort. A train has a smoother ride, wider seats, and the ability to get up during the trip. Commuter trains can also offer work tables, power outlets, wifi, restrooms, and an onboard coffee counter. These things don’t matter on a 20-minute trip. But they really make a difference on a 1-hour trip.

 

7. The ideal commuter rail line connects to local transit.

 

Commuter rail can only go where railroad lines are. That means most riders will need to connect to another mode of transit on at least one end of their trip. To For connections to major activity centers, that needs to be high quality, frequent service, not just local buses. But it’s also important to have transit service in other places, to allow those who can’t drive to get to the stations.

 

8. The ideal commuter rail line has stations you can walk (or bike) to.

 

Transit is inherently pedestrian-oriented: there’s no way to have a car waiting for you at both ends of your trip. Having a car waiting at one end — park-and-ride — works, but it’s inherently inefficient, not only for the transit system that needs to provide 200 square feet of pavement for each passenger but also for the passenger who still needs a car to use the system. Putting stations where people can walk to them — not just at employment centers but also in suburban communities — works better for everyone. You still provide parking lots, but you don’t need to provide them for everyone.

 

Some examples:

 

The most successful commuter rail systems in the United States — New York, Chicago, Philadephia, Boston — are over 100 years old. They meet all of these criteria. They have an unfair advantage, though, because cities and towns grew around them. The Downtown stations are really Downtown; the suburban stations are in small town downtowns; and the systems use high-quality infrastructure — often separated from freight rail — that dates to the 1920s or earlier.

 

So let’s consider more recent successes. Caltrain stands out. It’s been around for a long time, too, but it’s experienced dramatic ridership growth in recent years: 18,000 in 1985, 32,800 today. Why? It connects two major employment centers — San Francisco and Silicon Valley — so northbound and southbound passenger flows are nearly matched. It stops in lots of places where people want to go: small town downtowns with stores and housing, Stanford University, San Francisco airport. That creates all day demand, and Caltrain meets it with all day service: first train at 4:30, last train at 10:30, and trains at least every at least every 30 minutes. It connects at 5 stations to 3 different urban rail transit systems. And — last but not least — it parallels an extremely congested highway on a double- and triple- track rail line with virtually no freight traffic.

 

Another success is Virginia Railway Express, which connects Northern Virginia suburbs to Washington D.C.. It’s blessed with excellent station locations in the suburban office centers of Alexandria and Crystal City and two stations right in the Downtown core. Many of its suburban stations are in small town downtowns. It also has excellent connections to the subway system (at four stations) and comprehensive local feeder bus service.

 

The biggest commuter rail system implemented in the United States since World War II is in Los Angeles. MetroLink has seven lines, generally shared with freight rail but considerably upgraded and improved. It’s a truly regional system, with lines reaching as far as 90 miles from Downtown LA, connecting to cities like San Bernadino, Anaheim, and Oceanside. It also has local transit connections: the vast majority of MetroLink riders transfer to the Red Line subway to get from Union Station into the Downtown office core. MetroLink also connects to another commuter rail system — San Diego’s Coaster — and to frequent Amtrak service to San Diego and Santa Barbara. MetroLink’s biggest asset, though, is incredibly congested highways.

 

So how do we stack up?

 

In general, Houston is not a natural fit for commuter rail. To start with, we’ve already invested a billion dollars in an HOV lane park-and-ride bus system that is faster, more frequent, and more direct than a commuter rail system would be. We also have relatively uncongested highways (Don’t believe me? Drive the Beltway or the Caldecott or the Santa Monica Freeway during rush hour); people in DC, LA, and SF will put up with more inconvenience than Houstonians will since their other option is so much worse. Our freight rail system is congested, so there isn’t much unused capacity — to get any commuter trains inside 610 we’d need to lay more tracks. And Houston, which was built up in the 1970s rather than the 1920s or the 1860s, doesn’t have many old small town downtowns on rail lines.

 

But some corridors in Houston might make sense. The best one is probably Houston-Galveston, with employment centers on both ends and one (NASA) in the middle, local rail systems on both ends, a series of towns along the way, off-peak demand, and relatively light freight traffic outside of 610. A 290 corridor isn’t quite as compelling, but it could extend further than the current HOV service; ideally, it would continue to Prairie View and College Station.

 

Commuter rail gets sold as a cheap form of transit. It’s not. In Houston, any commuter rail line will require significant infrastructure upgrades. Beyond that, though, you get what you pay for. LA’s Metrolink, for example, cost 1.9 billion for 388 miles. That sounds cheap compared to light rail, but consider this: Metrolink carries 39,500 trips a day. Our little 7.5 mile light rail line cost 1/6th as much, and it carries 40,000. And Los Angeles is more congested and denser then we are, and has higher transit usage.

 

We don’t have unlimited transportation funding; we can’t build commuter rail just because it sounds like a good idea. If we’re going to build commuter rail, it needs to be the right kind of service in the right place.

 

is there any reason that the initial trial commuter rail service couldn't have it's end in university circle - instead of west blvd or eventually downtown? 

 

i know that the tracks are busier, but the commuter rail could make it to university circle,  it would provide very good connectivity to 1 major employment area with no stops, and offer at least 2 intersections with red line connections to other areas.

 

is this the same ROW?  is it too busy?

That rendering for Forest City brings back some memories.  For better or worse I had a hand in Photoshopping those damn renderings.

is there any reason that the initial trial commuter rail service couldn't have it's end in university circle - instead of west blvd or eventually downtown? 

 

That's an option that's been discussed and may be part of the alternatives analysis.

 

i know that the tracks are busier, but the commuter rail could make it to university circle,  it would provide very good connectivity to 1 major employment area with no stops, and offer at least 2 intersections with red line connections to other areas.

 

is this the same ROW?  is it too busy?

 

It's the same right of way - the former Nickel Plate RR now Norfolk Southern (not to be confused with CSX through University Circle which has 60 trains a day on it). The NS line east of the Cloggsville Connection (near West 25th) has roughly 30 trains a day on a double-tracked, signaled line. That's moderately busy, but maybe not enough to require passing sidings, more crossovers, etc. It will depend on what NS freight schedules are. Capacity enhancements may be required if they have lots of trains scheduled during rush hours from the Cloggsville through the east side. By the way, west of the Cloggsville through Lakewood NS has less than 10 daily trains.

 

Having a downtown Cleveland station on NS (ex-NKP) won't offer a convenient location for commuters (the track is in a desolate area south of the Inner Belt and would require a transfer to a connecting bus, or a new rapid station). Absent track construction to provide a downtown Cleveland station, commuters would have to transfer to the Red Line at West Boulevard. And if they have to transfer there, they may as well as transfer to University Circle as well.

 

Another factor is what will the ridership/revenue vs. operating cost/subsidy be by adding the extra miles eastward to University Circle? Could that service be provided more cost effectively by transfer to the Red Line? How much ridership would you lose in the transfer? If there's enough funding provided to do a more complete alternatives analysis, operation through to University Circle will likely be considered -- either via bus, by diesel-powered trains on NS, or by DPMUs operating on the Red Line.

 

I hope we'll have enough funding to be able to look at all of these options and get answers to all of these questions.

This could go in the "What other states are doing..." thread. But this lesson from Denver has applications to the West Shore Corridor....

 

RTD: Electric rail to DIA, Arvada

 

By Jeffrey Leib Denver Post Staff Writer

 

Article Last Updated: 07/25/2007 01:33:39 AM MDT

 

...........

^Impressive.  Denver would, I think, create the 1st all-new railroad electrification in this country since the Depression era... Logically, Cleveland should use electric EMU service over the West Shore commuter line.  I mean, electrified entrance facilities into downtown, over the Red Line, as well as station/terminal facilities downtown and University Circle exist -- including a center storage track after U. Circle station...

 

... then again, you'd better not hint this too loud lest you want to send Joe Calabrese into a raging fit.

Consider that a CEI power line runs the entire length of the West Shore Corridor -- perhaps First Energy can help finance electrification paid by revenues from the purchase of electricity??

 

Also, I think Caltrain in the Bay Area will beat Denver to building the first post-war railroad electrification in the U.S. See the following document....

 

http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/Electrification/Summary.pdf

N.M. Railrunner: Progress `pretty good' on expansion

 

By Julie Ann Grimm | The New Mexican

11/28/2006

Consider that a CEI power line runs the entire length of the West Shore Corridor -- perhaps First Energy can help finance electrification paid by revenues from the purchase of electricity??

 

Also, I think Caltrain in the Bay Area will beat Denver to building the first post-war railroad electrification in the U.S. See the following document....

 

http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/Electrification/Summary.pdf

 

Given these facts, I certainly hope electrified rail would be a component of the alternative analysis.  People should be trained not to be bummed out by the higher capital costs to the long term inflation-proof nature of electric rail, particularly since the technology already exists in the region.  For once, we need to plan a key transit link without the guiding facet being how cheap it is.

If we get near the $3 million figure over the two-year analysis, this is exactly the kind of thing that I will advocate for including in the analysis.

Got some nice new PR from the Voices & Choices folks. Right on their home page...

 

http://www.advancenortheastohio.org/

 

Rails to Regionalism?

Fri, 08/17/2007 - 08:30 — cthompson

 

During Voices & Choices, many people throughout Northeast Ohio said we needed better connections between our communities. Many residents believe the price of sprawl -- more roads and highways, fewer green spaces -- is too high. Instead of using transportation to enable people to flee our central cities, couldn't we develop a transportation infrastructure that connects our central cities?

 

Commuter rail advocates, like All Aboard Ohio,  believe the answer to that question is yes. And one of the local projects being pursued, called the West Shore Corridor, would connect Cleveland and Lorain via existing rail lines.  Rep. Betty Sutton is working to get  $350,000 of federal money for a rail/bus alternatives study in the West Shore. While that legislation is pending, stakeholders in the West Shore Corridor  will  meet on August 29 from 9 to 11 a.m. at the Avon Lake Library.

It's always nice to be noticed.   :clap:

Feel free to chime in on this discussion about the commuter rail project at:

 

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4594

It would appear from some of the responses on the Lakewood Observer that there's some educating yet to be done on the economic, social and mobility impacts that the West Shore Corridor project would have.  Keep at 'em KJP.

OH, I'm too stupid to see that KJP posted this link directly above. Well, all I wanted to say was those Lakewood Observers need to do some research!

Wow!  This commuter rail line is going to open up 50,000 acres to development!  That's 78+ square miles!  And the plan is to bring 40,000!!! people there, for the spectacularly urban density of 1 person per 1.25 acres.  Certainly that will be the new economic center of the region, as that genious poster predicts.

I have an update presentation on the West Shoe Corridor project (2.2mb download), posted at the following location....

 

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/West%20Shore%20Corridor-Aug2007.pdf

 

I wish I could participate in the discussion at the Lakewood Observer site. However if my employer learns of my participation at a competitor's Web site, it may cause some problems. I would encourage Lakewood residents to speak up at the Observer site, and even post the link (above) to the presentation.

There are a couple of really intellectually challenged people on that lakewood observer site.  I registered to try to post your links and one that lists the economic development that has occurred because of the DART system, but for some reason, my account is still inactive.

I just read the Lakewood Observer site and as Gildone says,a couple of these people are "intellectually challenged." Aside from that, there are a lot of misconceptions out there, even from those who support the commuter train idea. It'll take a lot of work to overcome that and that should fall to the supporters of the project in the area (other than KJP). I'm a bit reluctant to say too much on the Lakewood observer site since I'm an outsider.

Rail group pushes western suburb commuter train

 

Sunday, August 26, 2007

 

Michael Sangiacomo

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Kenneth Prendergast hopes that high gasoline prices, traffic woes and environmental concerns will pique interest in a proposed rail line that would stretch from Cleveland as far west as Lorain or even Sandusky.

 

The public is invited to attend a meeting at 9 a.m. Wednesday at the Avon Lake Public Library for an update on the proposal for the commuter service.

 

..........

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/118811902985000.xml&coll=2

***  cross posted in All Aboard Ohio thread  ***

I'm not exactly crazy about the article, especially since he started it with my name. I wish he would have interviewed others.

I was planning on attending the meeting, but I can't make it. I wanted to share my thoughts as a young (but lifelong) Avon Lake resident. Who should I send an email to in order to express support? Berner?

 

I might be able to make the second half of the meeting. Would that be worth it or even appropriate?

Thank you for your support. Mayor Berner would be a good person to contact. So would your state legislators:

Rep. Matt Lundy -- http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/Representatives.jsp

Senator Sue Morano -- http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/

 

And, yes, please feel free to stop by the meeting, even if late.

Sorry I couldn't get these committee meeting summaries to all of you farther in advance of the Avon Lake stakeholders meeting. Please find links below to summaries of two recent meetings of West Shore Corridor Stakeholders committees. I didn't post the whole summaries because they are too long.

 

Here are the links...

 

Joint Strategy-Station Area Development committees meeting summary - Aug. 23, 2007

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/Station-Strategy%20Cmte%20Summary-082307.doc

 

Publicity Committee meeting summary - Aug. 17, 2007

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/Publicity_Cmte-081707.doc

 

If you have any questions, please contact me or the committee chairs.

Not an accurate report (nothing was to be unveiled) but the PR is nice. This is from Metro Networks which provides rip-and-read news copy to area radio stations....

______________

 

West Side Commuter Train Plan Returns 

08-29-2007 6:45 AM

 

(Avon Lake, OH) -- Plans to run a commuter train from Lorain to Cleveland are back on the drawing board. A passenger rail advocacy group will unveil an updated plan to provide the service today. The line would stretch through Lorain and western Cuyahoga counties, with several stops to move suburban workers to jobs in the city and back. Officials with All Aboard Ohio say the commuter rail line could be built for 13-million-dollars.

So here's the big highlight of this morning's meeting in Avon Lake....

 

A decision was made without objection, to develop a scope of work for a feasibility study of rail alternatives in the West Shore Corridor (Cleveland to Sandusky). If the feasibility study shows at least one rail alternative will meet FTA's cost-effectiveness criteria, then a full alternatives analysis will be pursued to weigh the rail alternative(s) against non-rail alternatives. Furthermore, a rail preview will be sought in some form for purposes of publicity, ridership estimation and, potentially, for data collection for a future environmental impact analysis. If no rail alternative will meet the FTA's cost effectiveness criteria, then stakeholders will need to decide will whether to proceed with a non-federally funded rail project.

^Calabrese's cold water is no surprise; continue to expect understated RTA resistance thru him.  I'm a little disappointed in the Avon mayor's comments: a freeway interchange over speedy, economic rail transit? ... maybe he's just venting and/or posturing for the interchange $$.   Regional cooperation seems in such short supply in this metro area, though, esp regards transit. 

 

Sounds like you're leaning back towards funding some sort of demonstration, which I think is a good idea.  People around here don't think outside the box so, really, the best bet is to show them.  I hope you can raise enough $$ to run it at least for several weeks; maybe months.  I know the limited run, before, ran to the North Coast Amtrak station.  Would that be feasible, now, or would going to the Red Line West Blvd station? -- yeah, I know it's an old question, but for a demo, the budget will no doubt be more shoestring... I do think, as you mentioned before, you may lose people if they have to transfer to the Rapid as opposed to the one seat ride into downtown but, I'm sure, given the business of that main Lakefront line, extended Demo use of that 3-mile route may be tricky.

 

There is no way, at present, to get a commuter train (either a preview service or a permanent one) from the West Shore Corridor tracks to downtown without building a track connection somewhere. So the preview service will have to terminate at the West Boulevard Rapid station and require a cross-platform connection to a Red Line train. The basic rule of thumb is that we'll probably lose one-third of the potential ridership by forcing a transfer on them.

 

Here are the options for taking a commuter train downtown....

 

1. North Coast Harbor (Amtrak) station -- Projected option-specific costs: $11 million-$15 million.

TRAIN EQUIPMENT PERMITTED: must meet FRA-buffer strength standards due to mixed traffic operation (with freight trains).

ADVANTAGES: any investment here may also permit expansion of Amtrak service, existing Amtrak/Waterfront Line station facilities, accessible to lakefront tourist/sports attractions, potential convention center may improve pedestrian access to central business district.

DISADVANTAGES: poor pedestrian access, heavy freight train traffic in area, employment within 1,000-foot radius is less than at the other options.

 

Overview Map:

 

The connecting track that needs to be built for this option:

 

2. Tower City/Gateway Station -- Projected option-specific costs: $8 million-$12 million;

TRAIN EQUIPMENT PERMITTED: must meet FRA-buffer strength standards due to mixed traffic operation (with freight trains).

ADVANTAGES: easy access to existing Gateway Walkway infrastructure, excellent pedestrian access, Tower City/Public Square is hub of RTA system, access to employement within 1,000 feet is high, connection to Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, limited freight train interference, station could be incorporated into potential conventional center, accessible to Gateway where more frequent sporting/other events are held.

DISADVANTAGES: limited ability to expand station facility depending on convention center design, site is not as centrally located or as climate-protected as the next option.

 

Overview Map (white line is proposed route, most of which over existing NS Lake West Division tracks):

 

The connecting track that needs to be built for this option:

 

Connecting track detail:

 

Connecting track detail with ODOT-proposed East 9th extension included:

 

Station detail:

 

 

3. Tower City/GCRTA Station -- Projected option-specific costs: $3 million-$7 million;

TRAIN EQUIPMENT PERMITTED: if time-of-day separation from Norfolk Southern freight traffic is available, then any type of rail transit vehicle might operate;

ADVANTAGES: potentially has the lowest construction cost, excellent pedestrian access, Tower City/Public Square is hub of RTA system, access to employement within 1,000 feet is high, connection to Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, no freight train interference, potential conventional center site, accessible to Gateway where more frequent sporting/other events are held, allows through operation to other Rapid lines, allows potential use of existing RTA Central Rail Facility for maintenance/servicing.

DISADVANTAGES: requires a hybrid or dual propulsion train that isn't yet readily available in the U.S., time-of-day separation with NS freight traffic may require additional capacity enhancements on parallel NS route via Berea and Elyria.

 

Overview Map:

 

The connecting tracks needed to be built for this option:

 

From the Morning Journal 8/31/2007

(any typos are mine as this article was not on-line)

 

Progress Continues on Tri-County Commuter Rail

 

By Scot Allyn, Morning Journal Writer

 

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

Thanks for typing that up and posting it! They didn't give the reporter much room for that article, it seems. There were lots of oversimplifications, maybe due to the small news hole, and pieces of info that were connected that shouldn't have been (ie: the $350,000 budgeted by the U.S. House for an alternatives analysis has nothing to do with the $500,000 operating cost estimate for a 3-month preview service). The reporter appeared genuinely interested, however.

Question KJP...

 

Forgive me if this has already been stated but what kind of hourly frequency can we expect?  With 3 or so stops in Lakewood, it'd be nice if service was similar RTA so that people would have at least 4 trains an hour.  Also,  will this commuter rail project make it easier for Lake/Clifton/West Shoreway to be reduced allowing Edgewater to expand?  I know there has been opposition to reducing lanes in that area b/c it would increase "traffic" in those neighborhoods... :roll:

That's the tough question. The answer depends on the type of train equipment, potential ridership, operating funding acquired, service levels and, ultimately, the will of the on-line communities.

 

If the ridership is there and we run too many trains, even with Quiet Zones, you run the risk of creating opposition among people living along the rail line. However, if you don't run enough trains, then how usuable will the train service be to people living in the communities? You need a frequent enough train service so that if someone misses one train, they don't have to wait an hour for the next one. You need to run enough trains so that so many unsightly and taxbase-draining surface parking lots property are no longer needed in business districts. And you need enough trains so that commercial property owners and developers will want to invest in renovating existing buildings and construct new ones within a short walk of stations.

 

Any service will likely start out small, with just a few trains during rush hours. If the ridership warrants further expansion, then it should be pursued. Many commuter rail lines don't expand much beyond their rush-hour services, however. Others do. We'll see what happens.

Nice editorial in the Lorain Morning Journal:

 

Plan for commuter rail preview trips by 2009 good way to sell idea

09/01/2007

 

Nothing heats up new-car fever as much as a test drive. Similarly, backers of commuter rail here hope that offering test train rides by early 2009 will sell their plan.

 

..........

 

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18772920&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46368&rfi=6

I'm proposing this thread to discuss truly regional transit services -- those in counties surrounding Cuyahoga County. This thread may be the place to discuss what's going on with transit systems within those counties and to debate what we think should/could happen to make them better. That could include ways to link up the transit systems, be it inter-county services, joint services, better linkages and maybe even mergers among transit agencies.

 

Residents in other parts Ohio may be surprised at how extensive some of these systems are, and how Cleveland-oriented they are. These transit systems typically began to serve their historic core cities (Akron, Canton, Elyria, Kent, Lorain, Painesville, Ravenna, etc.) and other intra-county routes. But many have evolved into serving more exurban areas of Cleveland, as well as suburban areas around each county's core cities.

 

Here's a map I created to show just the inter-county transit routes in Northeast Ohio. While most offer only rush-hour schedules, an increasing number offer services throughout the day.....

 

 

Let the discussions begin......

I did not know there was a Portage County RTA. Interesting.

PARTA has a number of routes (see http://www.partaonline.org/ - and don't forget to look at Campus Bus Service for the Cleveland service), including fairly frequent service (every 30 minutes) from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. between Ravenna, Kent and Stow. PARTA also includes Kent's Campus Bus Service, which has seven routes with buses operating as frequently as every 6 minutes.

 

It is possible to live without a car in Kent -- I sort-of did it for two years when I shared a car with my sister while going to school there. But she had the car most of the time because her classes were on the other side of campus (and had a parking permit for it). I got my own car in 1987, but couldn't use it much because it was faster and cheaper to walk to most of my classes and nights out than search for parking. Plus Kent has a walkable campus and town. But the bus service was very helpful for longer trips.

I figures it was used for students. KSU had a large satellite base in other parts of NEO. Why not create some sort of bus/shuttle service with those campuses?

They used to link KSU with the satellite campuses. I specifically recall bus services from KSU-Kent to/from their Warren and East Liverpool satellites. But I believe those fell victim to the massive cuts in state funding for transit operating grants.

Has it been mentioned what kind of trains the route will use?  Will it be something similar to the Red Line trains? 

I'll post some pictures later of some sample train equipment and where/how it is legally and physically allowed to operate.

The map of intercounty service looks an awful lot like the commuter rail lines that were suggested for study a few years back.

Nice editorial.  It seems Lorain County gets it more than Cuyahoga County (and certainly more than the Plain Dealer, ... so what else is new?...).  The idea of a demo done cheaply is intriguing, even more so with CVSR possibly lending equipment locally ... Perhaps there could be some quid pro quo -- you lend us the equipment, we'll help you extend into Tower City...

 

Also, it would be great if the West Shore demo could work on weekends or holidays for big events -- like Browns Games or the Air Show or 4th of July with 1 or 2 round trips which could attract big (and influential) crowds...

The Huron County Transit System routinely runs to Oberlin, I believe, to coordinate with Lorain County Transit for runs to Hopkins International.  Actually, looking at the website, I was surprised to see that HCT makes out of county runs to Cleveland, Akron, Mansfield, and Toledo.  It also makes runs to the Route 250 strip (big-box retail land, south of Sandusky)

 

Not too shabby for a county that has a total population less than the city of Lorain!

http://www.huroncountytransit.net/index.html

I see HCT is an on-demand service. The map I prepared above is for fixed route, scheduled services.

OK, here's some options for the types of trains that could operate on the West Shore Corridor and what their limitations are....

 

This may be the cheapest way to get trains operating -- second-hand, refurbished commuter coaches pulled by second-hand locomotives. This is Nashville's Music City Star service, which acquired rail cars for $1 each from Chicago and locomotives for $22,000 each from Amtrak. Refurbishment costs were $300,000 total. These can operate in mixed traffic with freight trains, but cannot operate over RTA's Red Line into Tower City. Unless a "back-door" route with new trackage can be built on the old Cleveland Union Terminal's eastern approach right of way, the only downtown station these trains could serve is one on the lakefront...

 

 

 

These are new commuter rail coaches pulled by new locomotives, for Seattle's Sounder commuter service. They're quieter, ride more smoothly and they even cup holders at each seat for coffee (hey, it's Seattle!). New locomotives cost about $3 million to $5 million each, and these double-decker commuter rail coaches cost $2 million to $3 million each. But manufacturers also have leasing options, with escape clauses and options to buy. These can be used in mixed traffic with freight trains but not on the Red Line, same as the second-hand trains...

 

 

 

This is called a Diesel Multiple-Unit (DMU) train, basically a self-propelled train with no locomotive. The one below is about to start service near San Diego, Calif. called the Sprinter. There also is a similar service in Ottawa, Canada and between Camden and Trenton in New Jersey. They are also called "diesel light rail" because they are lighter-weight equipment that do not meet Federal Railroad Administration buffer-strength standards. That means they can't operate in mixed traffic with freight trains, but they can operate on freight tracks as long as they operate within a restricted time frame, and the freight trains operate in another time frame (called time-of-day separation). Freight trains can operate from, say, midnight to 6 a.m. and DMUs from 6 a.m. to midnight. DMUs, if designed properly, could operate on the Red Line into Tower City Center but since they emit diesel exhaust, they might not be welcome in the subterranean station...

 

 

 

Here's another possibility. This is called a Dual Propulsion Multiple Unit (DPMU) train. It is a diesel hybrid, with the braking systems providing regenerative electrical power stored in on-board fuel cell batteries. The batteries provide propulsion to the train's electrical motors (all diesel locomotives are actually diesel-electrics with the diesel generator providing power to the eletrical motors. With the DPMU Hybrid, the fuel cell provides the juice directly to the motors which accelerate the train with the diesel generator taking over at 20 mph. The fuel cell also provides electrical service for lights, climate control, etc. while the train is in the station. This is ideal for service to Tower City Center over the existing Red Line since it will not foul the station with diesel exhaust. But, like the DMU, they cannot be run in mixed traffic with freight trains and will require a time-of-day separation west of West Bouelvard.  DPMUs can be coupled together to create a longer train. This one operates in Japan, and will require some modifications to operate on the Red Line...

 

^Right......the population wouldn't be able to support fixed daily routes :)

 

It's a start though!

Reminder:  Here is the link to an updated presentation on the West Shoe Corridor project (2.2mb download)....

 

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/West%20Shore%20Corridor-Aug2007.pdf

 

what train was used on the previous lorain-cleveland commuter train demo run years ago? i think it was a borrowed amtrak train, not sure.

There were two new double-decker commuter rail cars from the Bay Area's CalTrain service pulled (and pushed) by an Amtrak F40 locomotive. This is the train after it returned from a snowy ride through Lake County on Nov. 10, 1997....