And... In the early 1990s there was a proposal to close about one-third of the railroad crossings in Lakewood to reduce train noise and improve safety. The remaining crossings would all be equipped with gates, in addition to the flashers. There was a huge community uproar that killed that project too.

biker 16, I really do not see what you see in the attitudes here.  I wouldn't be surprised if, like most places, we have some of the wrong people in power.  Things are far from perfect, 117th being the prime example.  But people oppose BRT because it's BRT.  The branding on that concept is hopeless around here, perhaps permanently.  The Euclid project tarnished it more than anyone seems to want to admit. 

 

And generally no, people in Lakewood do not want to mess with Clifton or the Shoreway.  But to say that makes them anti-urban is not fair and not accurate.  If the West Shoreway plan involved putting rail down Clifton it would probably be met with open arms.  Talk to them about improving the 55 and all they want is more buses, more capacity with more consistent service.  They don't care about the landscaping or the nature of the bus stops.  That's irrelevant to how well you can get around. 

 

Again, the theme is connectivity.  It's important in any city but especially in one like ours where so much of the functional urban neighborhood stock is so far from downtown.  That's why there's little interest in cosmetic enhancements that would effectively move Lakewood further away.  Lakewood thrives off its connection to downtown, and given the crippling apartment shortage in our central city, downtown also thrives off its connection to Lakewood.  In so many ways, Gordon Square is trying to be a smaller version of Lakewood.  It's important that Gordon Square gets where it's going, development wise, but that's no reason to start treating Lakewood like it's Westlake.  It's not, and nobody wants it to be. 

 

Your negative characterization of this very emphatically urban community seems off base to me.  I really wish the Shoreway conversion had not become the wedge issue that it has.

327, I think you need to meet some of the older residents of Lakewood. When I covered the city for Sun News, I met many of them, and they have very different views. They see Lakewood in serious decline because of its increasing diversity (funny I heard the same when I first moved here in 1996 -- at this rate Lakewood should have declined into anti-matter), they want to rid the city of more apartments and density (and have succeeded along West 117th), and generally despise change (except perhaps to go back to the Lakewood they grew up in during the 1950s and 60s).

 

EDIT: oh, and some of them consider the duplex quintessential Lakewood, and view the high-rise apartment buildings of the Gold Coast not a part of Lakewood, as if somehow it shipwrecked here and the oldsters can't seem to get rid of it. I got into an argument with an old-timer once about our views of the city, and the old woman asked me where I lived. I told her "in Lakewood." She asked "what part?" I said "near the Gold Coast." She replied "Oh, that's not really Lakewood."

 

Some view the commuter rail project as not being consistent with their views of Lakewood, especially in their attempts to isolate Lakewood from problems affecting other parts of the metro area.

Those people exist everywhere.  They've done a lot more damage in Cleveland than in Lakewood.  I think that demonstrates the community's overall attitude... urban interests typically prevail, such as when the west end project was voted down.  Lakewood remains dense and urban in 2012 when what's technically the big city next door is suburbanizing itself as fast as possible.  Lakewood is practically a museum piece of what Cleveland used to look like.  The vast majority prefer that, and are glad that the anti-urban generation hasn't left much of a mark here.  Not that they haven't tried, of course.

biker 16, I really do not see what you see in the attitudes here.  I wouldn't be surprised if, like most places, we have some of the wrong people in power.  Things are far from perfect, 117th being the prime example.  But people oppose BRT because it's BRT.  The branding on that concept is hopeless around here, perhaps permanently.  The Euclid project tarnished it more than anyone seems to want to admit. 

 

And generally no, people in Lakewood do not want to mess with Clifton or the Shoreway.  But to say that makes them anti-urban is not fair and not accurate.  If the West Shoreway plan involved putting rail down Clifton it would probably be met with open arms.  Talk to them about improving the 55 and all they want is more buses, more capacity with more consistent service.  They don't care about the landscaping or the nature of the bus stops.  That's irrelevant to how well you can get around. 

 

Again, the theme is connectivity.  It's important in any city but especially in one like ours where so much of the functional urban neighborhood stock is so far from downtown.  That's why there's little interest in cosmetic enhancements that would effectively move Lakewood further away.  Lakewood thrives off its connection to downtown, and given the crippling apartment shortage in our central city, downtown also thrives off its connection to Lakewood.  In so many ways, Gordon Square is trying to be a smaller version of Lakewood.  It's important that Gordon Square gets where it's going, development wise, but that's no reason to start treating Lakewood like it's Westlake.  It's not, and nobody wants it to be. 

 

Your negative characterization of this very emphatically urban community seems off base to me.  I really wish the Shoreway conversion had not become the wedge issue that it has.

 

I think the term urban is seen as a bad word.  i feel people are not educated on the aspects of "urban" life they really love, they hold on to misconceptions about ghettos and that like and their initial reaction wants nothing to do with it.  they ask why Lakewood is not westlake, and why things are they way they are.  they do not understand the importance of medians on wide streets or traffic lights in a business district, they like to drive places and while they will embrace the idea of shopping local, do most of their shopping elsewhere.  they ask why is the movie theater closing, when they have never seen a movie there before.  they complain about things without understanding the process.

 

I pose a riddle to you, if the city turns over 25-50% of it population every 5 years, how can we develop a knowledgeable populace that can move things forward?  In the end you have a small group of active people with their own short sighted goals, that abhor change that does not fit their vision for the city.  this isn't just Lakewood this is everywhere in the US.  you want to know why no one in Portland complains about the urban growth boundary?  because it has been there for so long that people no longer fight it, progressive people enacted it before opposition could be raised against it.  In my opinion big change either happens very fast or it never happens.  If Cleveland could have finished the Shoreway within 5 years of it's proposal people would not have cared, it is allowing time for opposition to form that dooms transformational projects and thinking. 

 

lakewood has wonaderful youthfull population, but is it reflected in it government? councilman, public works, mayor?

 

 

Part politics, but, with the creation of the Ohio 9th Congressional District along the lake, could we get more of a unified vision to push the Westshore commuter rail through?

It could, depending on who wins the 9th District. But federal funding requires a local funding match. For new-start rail projects, the federal-nonfederal split is usually 50/50. And Lorain County is the most populous county in Northeast Ohio without a dedicated funding source for public transit. Until that's rectified, it may not matter who wins the 9th District.

Another blurb about the proposed West Side Transit mixed-used Center:

 

But perhaps one of the most exciting developments is the hope of a West Side Transit Center to mirror the East Side’s Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center. RTA’s plan to build atop one of the Warehouse District’s barren surface lots recently was approved by the neighborhood board and will soon seek potential developers with the help of the Downtown Cleveland Alliance. The plan calls for 39,500 square feet of ground floor retail, 183,600 square feet of mid- to low-rise housing, a garage for 540 cars, and just 4,800 square feet needed for transit center operations.

 

http://freshwatercleveland.com/features/allaboardtherta041912.aspx

 

Interesting. That square footage for housing suggests nearly 200 apartments. Compare that to the 17-story, 208-unit Crittenden Court Apartment tower in the Flats. And Crittenden isn't sitting atop a 2- to 4-story transit center.

 

I suspect the total height of the transit center/apartment tower will be up to 20 stories tall. That's more than a low/mid-rise housing structure -- thankfully!

Footprints of the sites are very different. They are even calling it mid to low rise... My guess is you'll see something that varies btw 4-8 stories

Footprints of the sites are very different. They are even calling it mid to low rise... My guess is you'll see something that varies btw 4-8 stories

 

The housing component is actually two-fold: a strip of 3-story housing above retail along Frankfort; and 12-15 stories of housing atop the transit center and/or a band of retail at the corner of Superior and West 6th....

 

http://www.riderta.com/usercontent/file/WSTC_PublicMeeting_11.pdf

 

 

And I have no idea why this image looks like crap. It looks fine in my computer and I've tried to save and process it in different ways...

KJP, do you have any inside information as to how actively (diligently) this project is being pursued by RTA?  They seem to have a good amount on their plate construction wise with the UC and Mayfield redline stations and other smaller construction projects which have been planned for a while.

 

Is somebody regularly discussing this with Forest City and/or is somebody pursuing federal funding (I would imagine this is in its infancy if they are).  I don't even see it listed as a project on the website while many projects which have been in planning for a long time and have not even start are.  In other words, is this still just in the "we wish something like this could happen some day phase"?

GCRTA was pushing this once upon a time but dropped it after some pushback from the neighborhood. They began to reconsider it after The Historic Warehouse District Inc. asked them to. One source said FCE asked HWD to seek it but that came from only one source. But one must ask why the CDC for a neighborhood would ask for the revival of a project when its grassroots stakholders essentially stopped the project several years earlier. Reactivating a project would probably require someone with some clout. Was it FCE? Maybe. Interestingly, the head of the consulting team (PB) hired by GCRTA did not even know that FCE had acquired the property at Superior and West 6th, let alone have any insight as to whether FCE was asking HWD to ask GCRTA to ask PB to conduct the planning. Considering that four degrees of separation, perhaps no one should be surprised!

 

And if that isn't enough acronyms for you for one day, then you probably love your government job too much!

Why would Warehouse District push against this? I get nobody wants to have the busy bus station on their doorstep, but this is a couple blocks removed, and would still be a sort of island surrounded by roads/parking lots, so what's the problem? Population would go up, foot traffic would go up, and RTA would surely like to have this facility. Is it really just the biased perception that buses = poor people and oh my god we can't have the poor in our warehouse district, or is there some other development concern?

The previous location was opposed by residents/retailers/restauratuers , etc. apparently because it was closer to the residential/retail/restaurant area. I don't think they complained about having poor people around, but probably more about having a concentration of bus traffic with noise and fumes close to residential areas, outdoor dining, etc. I doubt think this has anything to do with having so-called "undesirable" people nearby. Why? Because they already live near the county jail, city/county courts, bail bonds offices, public defenders' offices etc.

 

Historic Warehouse District does not oppose the WSTC. In fact, I don't think HWD has taken an official position on it one way or another. But it has asked GCRTA to reconsider it at a new location farther from the above-mentioned opponents. There are HWD staff who visit this site, so perhaps they can provide more information.

:wtf:

 

Couldn't duel-mode trolleybuses help with the noise and pollution?

Why would Warehouse District push against this? I get nobody wants to have the busy bus station on their doorstep, but this is a couple blocks removed, and would still be a sort of island surrounded by roads/parking lots, so what's the problem? Population would go up, foot traffic would go up, and RTA would surely like to have this facility. Is it really just the biased perception that buses = poor people and oh my god we can't have the poor in our warehouse district, or is there some other development concern?

 

I believe the way it was originally pitched sounded pretty bad for the neighborhood.

 

Plus, RTA was under strict scrutiny because a) the WH Dist and its walkability is such a tremendous commodity and b) some of the past RTA developments being accused of having poor urban design.

Quick question -- who owns that parking lot?  Forest City Enterprise, Asher, or the Casino??

:wtf:

 

Couldn't duel-mode trolleybuses help with the noise and pollution?

 

Those would be kinda cool.

Quick question -- who owns that parking lot?  Forest City Enterprise, Asher, or the Casino??

 

I'm pretty sure the Casino does not own any of it.  They apparently entered into some sort of lease agreement with the owner.

 

As far as I can piece together from KJP posts in different threads, Asher owns part of the block and FCE owns a portion of it (maybe a smaller portion than Asher)....the area where the demolished parking garage was.

Correct. FCE owns a very small portion -- basically the footprint of the old parking garage. Weston owns everything else in that block and many properties in surrounding blocks.

I remember feeling good vibes about this project because it included a hi-rise apartment tower.  Now we're talking "mid-to-low" and said vibes aren't quite as positive, at least for me.  The STJ facility does seem to exude poor urban design, and bus hubs aren't generally conducive to walkability or real estate value.  I think an ambitious housing component is necessary to make this desirable.   

^Well I can't believe YOU feel that way. :-D

Correct. FCE owns a very small portion -- basically the footprint of the old parking garage. Weston owns everything else in that block and many properties in surrounding blocks.

 

Here is what I found on the the planning commission GIS map.

 

Zoom in once to get the 45 degree angle which makes it clearer.

http://g.co/maps/w9z5d

Here is what I found on the the planning commission GIS map.

 

Zoom in once to get the 45 degree angle which makes it clearer.

http://g.co/maps/w9z5d

 

Good map. BTW, these two companies are Weston/Tony Asher companies......

 

WEST 3RD & SUPERIOR LTD

WEST 6TH ST & ST, CLAIR LTD

Here is what I found on the the planning commission GIS map.

 

Zoom in once to get the 45 degree angle which makes it clearer.

http://g.co/maps/w9z5d

 

Good map. BTW, these two companies are Weston/Tony Asher companies......

 

WEST 3RD & SUPERIOR LTD

WEST 6TH ST & ST, CLAIR LTD

 

Thanks, I knew they were under several names but weren't sure which ones. I updated the maps color coordination.

why the hell would they build another transportation in the warehouse district? the stephanie tubbs jones one was a dumb idea and so is this

 

and "mid to low rise housing" ? what are we trying to emulate bainbridge in the middle of the CBD? why does the people calling the shots in this town keep suburbanizing the core? its not going to make the city come back, its going to drive me away. i'm really getting tired of this mindset.......is it that difficult to actually build URBAN in an URBAN AREA?

 

 

RTA really doesnt seem to get it.......just like every other faction in this city

why the hell would they build another transportation in the warehouse district? the stephanie tubbs jones one was a dumb idea and so is this

 

and "mid to low rise housing" ? what are we trying to emulate bainbridge in the middle of the CBD? why does the people calling the shots in this town keep suburbanizing the core? its not going to make the city come back, its going to drive me away. i'm really getting tired of this mindset.......is it that difficult to actually build URBAN in an URBAN AREA?

 

 

RTA really doesnt seem to get it.......just like every other faction in this city

 

 

A mixed-use development on top of a transportation hub? Doesn't sound suburban to me at all. Does it have to be tall to be 'urban'?

 

BTW, I believe one of the reasons (I am sure there are many) this project was being considered was so that they could move the buses off of Public Square and have it redeveloped into something people actually want to come to.

Ctown, I encourage you to read the planning documents before commenting further. And if you have, I don't know where you got "suburban" from those. Maybe you do have the answers as commissioner, president, chairman, executive director or whatever position of responsibility you hold in regards to urban planning here. After all, since "every other faction in this city" doesn't get it, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us who muddle in the dark?

Here's a few I pulled off the hard drive, in response to our discussion in the GCRTA thread......

 

 

 

Zooming in a little closer.....

 

 

 

There would be only one downtown subway station, between Euclid and Prospect just west of East 9th. This was its mezzanine floor plan....

 

This is a great thread, agree with the comments about the research becoming a book someday.  Interesting also is the historic events and external influences that affected the development, like the war's cost on materials, labor shortages, etc.

 

I understand that Detroit's PeopleMover has been nothing but a money pit and has performed well below expectations, but I love the thing. Anytime I am in Detroit it is a must ride. I love that form of rail. In my mind all rail should be elevated, winding its way through and around buildings as it fly's overhead. Detroit's system is 2.9 miles long.

 

Detroit's people mover is barely a step above a carnival ride.  I lived/worked in downtown Detroit and could watch that thing roll by totally empty for hours a day.  I think it's a 12 minute walk between any two farthest points on the loop.  Add up the cost to acquire land for the track locations & stops(even if elevated), the cars, the initial construction and ongoing maintenance and you could have given lifetime bus passes to a good number of Detroiters....

Thank you for continuing to enlighten us, Dr. KJP

I wish I could find the graphics on my hard drive which I hot-linked in the first thread. The host web site I used for those photos is kaput.

Guess I didn't pay close attn to the earlier maps.  The last 2 make little sense.  Why would the line dip to Huron, using the existing tunnels, the swing north under a block of buildings (and not the street) just to get to E. 9th & Euclid, when an easier (engineering-wise) stop at E. 9th would serve the purpose?  Also why, at U. Circle, would trains dip south to serve an out-of-the-way connection south of Cedar Glen just so trains could serve the Blue-Green Lines (which wasn't part of the original plan, anyway) -- a straight-line connection at Euclid- E. 120 would make more sense.... It doesn't seem the final plan wasn't well thought out.

I have read up on a lot of Cleveland's history, but I can't believe I missed this bit on the subway. Very fascinating, thanks!

Guess I didn't pay close attn to the earlier maps.  The last 2 make little sense.  Why would the line dip to Huron, using the existing tunnels, the swing north under a block of buildings (and not the street) just to get to E. 9th & Euclid, when an easier (engineering-wise) stop at E. 9th would serve the purpose?

 

I don't remember why.

 

Also why, at U. Circle, would trains dip south to serve an out-of-the-way connection south of Cedar Glen just so trains could serve the Blue-Green Lines (which wasn't part of the original plan, anyway) -- a straight-line connection at Euclid- E. 120 would make more sense.... It doesn't seem the final plan wasn't well thought out.

 

That one I do remember. Inclusion of the Blue/Green lines was part of the Dual Hub options. Since they proposed to build tracks for routing the Blue/Green lines down East 116th, Fairhill/MLK, Stearns and then to Euclid, planners did not see the need for spending more to build an extra set of tracks east from Stearns on Euclid to the East 120th-area to reconnect with the Red Line there.

^Yeah, I always thought inclusion of the Blue/Green Lines was a bad idea.  I really don't think the number of commuters from the Shaker/Hts/Beachwood area going to the Clinic or University Circle institution justified the tremendous cost -- and the out-of-the-way Dual Hub routing.  Again, I tend to think our transit ideas sometiems fail because we get distracted from the main purpose of the project to begin with: connecting downtown to Univ. Circle by rail, not connecting Shaker Heights to Univ Circle... It was Dual Hub, not Triple Hub.

I'll respond in the Ideas for the Future thread. As you will see, my response is more appropriate there.

I just wish the HL only had 9 stops between public square and UC like the Dual Hub had. It would be a lot faster.

I like the convenient stops it provides downtown. My problem is that it has sort of become a direct route shuttle from East Cleveland to Public Square. Going westbound, most seats are taken by the time you reach UC. And most people dont get off till Public Square. Its too overcrowded, and too slow.

I just wish the HL only had 9 stops between public square and UC like the Dual Hub had. It would be a lot faster.

 

Even though called a "Rapid Transit" the HL is much more bus than (rail) rapid transit.  If the rail line had actually been built, parallel-running buses would probably have been run to supplement the gaps between train stops -- similar to how the C bus supplements the Broad Street Subway in Philadelphia.

I like the convenient stops it provides downtown. My problem is that it has sort of become a direct route shuttle from East Cleveland to Public Square. Going westbound, most seats are taken by the time you reach UC. And most people dont get off till Public Square. Its too overcrowded, and too slow.

Is there even a bus that could run with an additional section added on to it? If so (which I doubt) the RTA should buy it.

Report

on

A Rapid Transit System

FOR THE CITY OF CLEVELAND

MADE TO THE

Cleveland Rapid Transit Commission

 

by

 

Parsons, Barclay & Klapp

 

1919

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=2o8jAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA10-IA3&lpg=PA10-IA3&dq=cleveland+%22rapid+transit+construction%22&source=bl&ots=c7JDrBFvct&sig=LT-c45I22uPw2l9PBc9kYzIcWQc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WOnLT4SWLKXq0gGurexk&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=cleveland%20%22rapid%20transit%20construction%22&f=false

So I wonder how much this would cost to reopen. After I first found out about that subway I thought it should have never closed but it is what it is I guess, hopefully RTA and the city can salvage this hidden gem.

So I wonder how much this would cost to reopen. After I first found out about that subway I thought it should have never closed but it is what it is I guess, hopefully RTA and the city can salvage this hidden gem.

 

For what purpose? If it is to serve as a unique pedestrian/bike crossing of the valley, that might be worth something. But if it is serve as a transit alignment, then where would the transit go? What kind of transit? If the transit represents new service (in terms of added vehicle-hours in service), then were does the operating funding come from?

I found the 1919 report most fascinating in glancing through it; not only about the specific rapid transit recommendations, but also regarding the snapshot of greater Cleveland of the time, among them:

 

- the best, perhaps the only, route to justify subway/rapid transit spending (beyond the recommended Public Sq trolley/subway loops): an east-west line along Detroit (to the Lakewood border) and out Euclid Ave (to some unspecified point).  Why?  Because traffic from both ends traveled the longest -- from the outer ends to Public Sq (and the narrow downtown corridor from PS east to E. 14 ... and even beyond to E. 22 where tiny Fenn College/future CSU existed... streetcar traffic from Detroit & Clifton, more than any west side routes, transferred to cars out Euclid...

 

- Cuy County had just under 1M residents with Cleveland at about 850K... only 2 or 3 burbs had over 10,000 people: Lakewood: 42,000 and East Cleveland: 15,000 [forgot the Cleve. Hts total for the time] --- the East Side population had exploded to 1919 since 1900... Cleveland’s near 1M population was the typical population in which other major cities considered and built rapid transit lines (only 4 had RT at this time: NYC, Chicago, Boston and Philly)

 

BTW: The Report believed that Cleveland would top 2M people by the next couple decades – we wish; then there was this little thing the reporters didn’t foresee at the time: The Depression!!  Cleveland really took a hard fall (geez, seems that was also the case in 2008… hmmm) 

 

-  Cleveland’s main population growth was near the City borders and out into the “new” suburbs (no doubt, places like Shaker Heights (only 3,000 residents).

 

- Cleveland's pop. density per acre (high around 50 people) was lighter than other cities like Detroit, Chicago and NYC (topping out IIRC at around 225-250).

 

-- factories followed the steam RRs along corridors along the lake and encircling much of the East Side -- less on the West Side.  (and many people, esp on the East Side, chose to live within walking distance of factories, or relied on very short trolley commutes)

[NOTE: these last 3 bullets highlight growth patterns that led to decay issues (like the Lakefront, East Side] we’re still dealing with nearly a century later!!]

 

- Cleveland's main avenue corridor, Euclid, saw much less streetcar ridership than main corridors in Detroit (Woodward) and Chicago (Halsted St.)  - but the Report noted that Cleveland's radial street pattern made for diffuse travel habits and cut down on Euclid's streetcar travel density.

 

 

 

 

 

So I wonder how much this would cost to reopen. After I first found out about that subway I thought it should have never closed but it is what it is I guess, hopefully RTA and the city can salvage this hidden gem.

 

For what purpose? If it is to serve as a unique pedestrian/bike crossing of the valley, that might be worth something. But if it is serve as a transit alignment, then where would the transit go? What kind of transit? If the transit represents new service (in terms of added vehicle-hours in service), then were does the operating funding come from?

There are no track that connects to Tower City or at least runs to a track that eventually run to TC? Also I was thinking light rail (blue/green) and MAYBE red line if the structure allows it ... The question about for what purpose I have no answer for yet but to serve pedestrians/bikers crossing the valley could work. The operating funding could stay the say just redirect the trains direction.

There are no track that connects to Tower City or at least runs to a track that eventually run to TC? Also I was thinking light rail (blue/green) and MAYBE red line if the structure allows it ...

 

There never were any tracks nor any infrastructure to permit it, but the Van Swerigens planned it as the means to route the Interurbans into Cleveland Union Terminal's traction station. Interurbans were the electric railways that traveled to other cities like Akron, Toledo, Ashtabula, etc and used the city's streetcar tracks, including Detroit-Superior's subway deck, to reach downtown. "Traction" was a term that described electric railways back in the day. It became a formal term, and many cities has Traction Commissioners to over see operations, award bids, regulate fares, etc. Anyhoo.... Here are some graphics showing how the tracks were routed from the subway deck to the street level, and how they could be reinstated and routed into RTA's existing and/or former Tower City Station....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2768.msg622178.html#msg622178

If capital and operating funding is found, this type of vehicle might be perfect for the West Shore Corridor and other potential routes in Ohio....

 

6/5/2012 11:30:00 AM   

 

FRA issues alternative-design vehicle waiver to Denton County Transportation Authority

 

Yesterday, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announced it approved the Denton County Transportation Authority’s (DCTA) request to operate Stadler GTW vehicles concurrent with traditional, federally compliant equipment. The waiver means that for the first time, lightweight low-floor vehicles will be permitted to operate in rail corridors concurrently with traditional vehicles, helping to expand commuter-rail options for U.S. transportation authorities, DCTA officials said in a prepared statement.

 

In 2009, the FRA’s Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) prepared a set of technical criteria and procedures for evaluating passenger train-sets built to alternative designs that enable lighter, more fuel-efficient rail vehicles equipped with a crash energy management system to commingle with traditional equipment. The DCTA/Stadler U.S. Inc. alternative design waiver is the first comprehensive submittal that follows the RSAC Engineering Task Force procedures for Tier I equipment, DCTA officials said.

 

The waiver request “demonstrates that the enhanced crashworthiness and passenger protection systems inherent to DCTA’s new rail vehicles meet the latest and most stringent safety standards in the U.S.,” they said.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/FRA-issues-alternativedesign-vehicle-waiver-to-Denton-County-Transportation-Authority--31230

 

 

They can be operated as diesel-electric (as they do in Austin, TX) or pure electrics (as they do in Europe)....