Just wondering (and this is a big if/leap forward) but could the commuter line reach eastern areas like Euclid, Willoughyby, Mentor assuming NS agreed to use of its tracks?

^originally on its eastern swing it was supposed to head south and terminate in aurora.

 

funny you mention that tho m20 as i always thought the easiest rail to get going on first was not commuter rail, but was instead to extend the waterfront line rapid out to mentor.

 

the track is in place for either of those routes.

 

 

^originally on its eastern swing it was supposed to head south and terminate in aurora.

 

 

Dang, are you serious?! That would have been awesome.

^originally on its eastern swing it was supposed to head south and terminate in aurora.

 

 

Dang, are you serious?! That would have been awesome.

 

 

^serious as a heart attack jamiec.

 

the spineless nocoa cowardly took the links about the neorail study down a while ago, but i found an old blurb about it on ecocity. clik the link for more on old plans to expand the rapid too (from 1998):

 

"Commuter Rail— The Neorail Project

 

The final report is still pending for RTA's MPO-lead, "Neorail" 9-county commuter rail feasibility study. The study did find that a "starter network" would be feasible if funding could be secured.

 

The top two performing lines were the Lorain West Line and the Aurora Southeast Line. The study suggested these two lines be combined into a single 60-mile line, and implemented first. At $300 million in capital cost, the Lorain-Cleveland-Aurora Line would attract about 7,000 average weekday boardings.

 

Mid-term recommended projects include the Canton-Akron South Line and the Painesville-Mentor East Line. At an added $500 million in capital cost, these two lines would also attract 7,000 daily boardings.

 

Long-term projects would include the Medina and Elyria Southwest Lines, costing an added $800 million & attracting 6,000 boardings. Thus, a complete Northeast Ohio commuter rail network serving 9 counties would cost over $1.5 billion to build (year 2000 $s) and would attract about 20,000 daily boardings in year 2025.

 

These costs also include significant infrastructure improvements needed to safely accommodate the proposed increased traffic on the host CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads.

 

Once the Neorail study final report has been accepted by the MPO sometime later this year, the region will decide if and when to pursue further study. RTA will probably not pursue federal funding for commuter rail at this time. Other NOACA region entities, however, may do so in order to study the Lorain and Solon-Aurora corridors—the two top most cost-effective corridors identified in the NOACA study."

 

link:

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/rail/rta_rail_updates.html

 

 

 

Yes, mrnyc, I remember.  But as you know in this town, regardless of how logical a rail solution may seem, it's always easier to find a reason NOT to build -- and that almost always happens here which is why we're stuck in quicksand in greater Cleveland, transit-wise.

Just wondering (and this is a big if/leap forward) but could the commuter line reach eastern areas like Euclid, Willoughyby, Mentor assuming NS agreed to use of its tracks?

 

Funny you should mention that. A few months ago, when the cheapie Metra cars became a possibility, I did a guesstimate of start-up costs for such a service -- somewhere in the $35 million to $40 million.

 

NOACA's costs are higher primarily because of the higher cost of acquiring new train equipment, and because they assumed using the much busier CSX route from Collinweood east -- hence the need for adding a third main track much of the way. NOACA consultants also assumed a major station on the lakefront (which we ought to do for intercity service), but isn't needed if you don't use the CSX route.

 

My assumption was to use the NS route which offers the following benefits:

 

> Access to Tower City Center via a new track splitting off from the NS main where it veers west to cross the Cuyahoga Valley. A two-track regional station could be in the vicinity of the easternmost elevator/stairwell that descends from the Gateway walkway;

 

> Half of the 30-mile route from Cleveland to Painesville is double tracked though some of the second track in Euclid needs improvement. Other closely spaced but short sections of second track can be linked up to create more double-track segments. Up to 30 freight trains per day use this line;

 

> The NS line passes through Cuyahoga County's second-largest population center -- University Circle, which has no highway access. Many of UC's commuters come from Lake County (Laketran just started a new bus service to UC but is very slow due to the aforementioned lack of highway access). Combined with linkages to the RTA Red Line and numerous bus routes, I suspect a regional rail service into a UC transit center would do quite well.

 

> RTA built its Euclid Park & Ride adjacent to the NS line -- just in case the line ever saw commuter trains;

 

> Several other potential station sites have available land, including in downtown Willoughby (a great suburban downtown!), Mentor (off Rt.306 where there are lots of hotels and several Laketran routes converging, and the future intercity rail service route on CSX is adjacent), and in Painesville, across Rt.20 from the Lake County Fairgrounds.

 

That just about covers it. But, like with the Lorain-Cleveland route, what makes this viable is the low/no cost train equipment.

So any eastern commuter line would have to go through the city and Univercity circle or could they use the tracks along I-90? I would like to see some sort of rail that goes out to the Northeastern Suburbs and some rail or streetcar along St. Clair Avenue.

Either route would work, but I personally prefer the NS line through University Circle for the reasons I stated two messages ago.

^ I'd prefer the Tower City/UC route, also.  The dual hub aspect would be great, not to mention turning Tower City back into a passenger rail station.  But in the end, it would probably be best to have all routes centralized in one station, and that would best probably be N. Coast as it is.  The dream, though, would be to have the Tower City/UC route meet in Euclid with the extended RTA Waterfront Line along the lakeshore @ a transfer station in Euclid, that way the entire NE corridor of the City and burbs would be covered.

Some visitors to this site will be looking for a download of the PowerPoint presentation and the smaller report on a proposed demonstration service. They should be in the same place for convenience sake...

 

The PowerPoint presentation....

http://members.cox.net/neotrans2/WestShoreGreenway.pdf (3MB download)

 

The smaller report....

http://members.cox.net/neotrans2/WestShoreGreenwayReport1.pdf

 

For media, please contact me before quoting either report. Some information in these requires context, which I provide verbally at public presentations. Thanks!

 

 

I thought some of you would find these renderings from Bay Village/CUDC of interest. They're of the Dover Junction area along Dover Center Road next to the NS tracks -- and the concept looks an awful lot like a TOD! One building is already under construction at Oviatt and Dover Center.

 

Yet, lo and behold, there's a potential train station shown in these! (Though, I added the Greenway regional rail line in the first image for reference -- the rest is untouched by me and Mr. Photoshop)...

 

 

 

 

 

How 'bout that!

I very much dislike the current Dover Junction Center. The site certainly has a lot of potential, and a transit station + redevelopment makes a lot of sense.

That is VERY interesting. Exactly where is this? Is it near Clague Rd?

How likely is this rail project to happen?

That is VERY interesting. Exactly where is this? Is it near Clague Rd?

 

It is actually along Dover Center Road between Clague and Crocker/Basset Roads. Dover Center is the north-south running road that runs through the center of both Bay Village and Westlake. This development is halfway between Detroit Road and Lake Road. The NS Railroad line provides the border of Bay and Westlake, so this proposed development is pretty much the exact center of the area encompassing Bay and Westlake, which was historically known as Dover. Right now there is a pretty decrepid strip mall called Dover Junction on the site, but the area has a lot of potential- especially for a TOD.

How likely is this rail project to happen?

 

There's no way to know. The only way it will happen is if the people who are supporting and promoting it are tenacious enough to build the energy and keep it going. That lack of enduring energy has killed many a good idea.

 

And, although I'm not an oddsmaker, I will say I'm very encouraged by the outpouring of support for the idea. Even those who were opposed or even lukewarm to the idea are now supporting, or at least willing to support the regional rail service once a full description of the proposal is presented to them. There literally is something for everybody in this cornucopia basket -- increased safety, quiet zones, enhanced property values near the rail line (more $ for schools), bike paths, transit oriented development, reduced demand for surface parking lot in commercial and downtown areas and, oh by the way, the rising cost of driving that second or third car that sits idle for 90-95 percent of the day.

 

With the gas prices, the availability of low-cost rail cars and locomotives, plus a rail line that's lightly used through some of the densely populated neighborhoods between New York and Chicago -- the timing couldn't be much better.

How come there seems to be more support West of the Cuyahoga County border and more opposition East of it?

I don't think that's the case anymore, and where it still is, the opposition is dramatically lessening. There's an increasingly larger cadre of pro-rail folks working to address concerns and to learn what people want so we can turn this rail line into a community asset.

 

On my scorecard, I count only two mayoral opponents -- one of them just resigned after being indicted and I just met with the other who may be willing to support commuter rail if it won't break the deal with NS that limits the freight train traffic. Of the Cleveland councilmen, I have found no opposition and, in the case of Jay Westbrook (Cudell neighborhood), outright support. Ditto from Cudell Improvement Inc.'s Executive Director Anita Brindza. Catholic Community Action, based in Cudell and one of Kucinich's prime constituencies, contacted me to find out how they can help the cause.

 

We're not quite there yet, but we're getting there. There's no question that the energy for this is coming from Lorain County, but there are others who are pushing hard, including a few of us here in Lakewood (one of them is Lakewood Mayor Tom George's right-hand man). And, there are some events being planned for later this summer that, if they happen, are going to wake up some people as to how much support there really is -- on both sides of the county line (and even into Erie County).

^well those sparks of hope sure made my uo fix day. thx for the news and thx for all your advocacy!

I don't think that's the case anymore, and where it still is, the opposition is dramatically lessening. There's an increasingly larger cadre of pro-rail folks working to address concerns and to learn what people want so we can turn this rail line into a community asset.

 

On my scorecard, I count only two mayoral opponents -- one of them just resigned after being indicted and I just met with the other who may be willing to support commuter rail if it won't break the deal with NS that limits the freight train traffic. Of the Cleveland councilmen, I have found no opposition and, in the case of Jay Westbrook (Cudell neighborhood), outright support. Ditto from Cudell Improvement Inc.'s Executive Director Anita Brindza. Catholic Community Action, based in Cudell and one of Kucinich's prime constituencies, contacted me to find out how they can help the cause.

 

We're not quite there yet, but we're getting there. There's no question that the energy for this is coming from Lorain County, but there are others who are pushing hard, including a few of us here in Lakewood (one of them is Lakewood Mayor Tom George's right-hand man). And, there are some events being planned for later this summer that, if they happen, are going to wake up some people as to how much support there really is -- on both sides of the county line (and even into Erie County).

 

What can I, a resident of Lakewood, do to encourage this idea? Should I send a letter to the mayor of Lakewood or is there  a better way to reach the right people?

I was more talking about the Western Cuyahoga burbs as opposed to the city – I’ve always thought of Jay Westbrook as a standup guy, so I’m not surprised by his support. I’m assuming you’re going to talking about that Bay mayor who last seemed so intransigent.  Good to hear she may be coming around; that the tide is turning in favor of the project.  Hopefully the combination of people like Westbrook, the Lorain/Vermillion enthusiasm and the media will stoke the fires.  As I’ve long said, when it comes to worthwhile projects like transit, it’s all about presenting the facts and allowing pols to ‘buy in’ to the idea, because the downside is miniscule compared to the upside.  (as I see it, it’s how EcoCity Cleveland got Calabrese to buy into the Eco-Village/W. 65 Rapid rehab when his people wanted to close the station.  And if you’re talking about potential high-density residential TOD development around the potential West Blvd. Rapid/commuter train transfer station, why shouldn’t , say, Frank Jackson not be 4-square behind this project … as should the aforementioned Calabrese.

 

 

What can I, a resident of Lakewood, do to encourage this idea? Should I send a letter to the mayor of Lakewood or is there a better way to reach the right people?

 

It wouldn't hurt to write to Mayor George, but I would certainly find out who your councilperson is and write to them. Emphasize that this project will allow the West Shore communities to tap into more pots of federal funding to add even better safety devices at road crossings and to create quiet zones to limit train horns. It's time to turn the rail line from a local liability into a community asset. Remind him/her that Lakewood is a streetcar suburb, and that commuter rail can be its 21st-century transportation lifeblood to pump new life into the city's central business district along Detroit Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods.

 

For my own personal tale, I don't usually ride the 3/26 or the circulator west on Detroit Avenue (instead I use those routes to head to the rapid stations at West Boulevard or West 117th). But recently I used both buses to head west, and my God those things are SLOW. I watched with amazement as a cyclist outdistanced us along Detroit Avenue. That cannot continue to be the only transit resource for Lakewood's principal business district. It may make for a nice feeder to something faster, like the rail service, but the buses can't be the best we can do for our high-density suburb and for the city's largest employers (Lakewood Hospital, UTU, Kaiser Permanente and others in Lakewood's CBD).

Glad to hear the Vermilion officials are on board with a Sandusky extension, as I mentioned.  Of course, there's a little matter of self interest involved, no doubt, since current plans call for a Lorain terminus.  On thing's almost for certain, a Sandusky expansion could get the whole metro area behind this otherwise very worthwhile extension and could be a boon to RTA ridership, esp throughout the Rapid and esp on the Red Line.

Actually, the regional rail service could operate through to Vermilion from the outset, without incurring any part of the huge costs of extending the line to Sandusky. Looks like I need to do some more maps.

 

Plus, I think I have a way for the communities to pay a share of the costs without negatively impacting their budgets. It's called offsets, and I'll work up some numbers later this evening....

^One downside you note in your power point is the potential to overwhelm the West Blvd Station and Rapid cars with Lorain/West suburban passengers transfering from commuter trains, which seems logical.  Have you thought about ways around this (ie, a separate transfer platform slightly west of the current station) esp given that this Rapid Station is so new?

The platform is less of a problem than the size of the rapid transit trains. If RTA is willing to run dedicated rapid trains to connect with the commuter trains, or if they're willing to go to three cars trains in the general times when the commuter trains would run.... But both are wishful thinking on my part.

 

I've wanted to pursue this project in a way that won't cost RTA much if anything. I don't want to rely on them to bring this project off. I think the most we should ask of RTA is access to the Westlake Park-n-Ride, the West Boulevard Rapid station, and an agreement for free (or at least discounted transfers to/from RTA buses and trains). Other than that, I don't want anything from RTA that might turn them into an opponent.

This appears to be a sound approach and one that is hard to argue with.  I know your presentation mentioned seed money from a Sherrod Brown Fed program, but who will run this demonstration?  RTA?  If it is not RTA, are you saying that RTA will get zero financial windfall from this demonstration despite obviously incurring costs to facilitate it?

 

As for capacity, it doesn't seem like car space should (I stress, should) be a problem as  crossover/turnback facilities exist at W.117/Madison.  Also, Red Line cars can be run by one man/woman, so it seems the only cost they'd incur for 3 or 4 car operations is in electric.

 

 

Lorain County commissioners are entertaining the idea of having Lorain County Transit be the administrator of it, who would then contract out to someone to actually run the trains (Amtrak, Norfolk Southern, Herzog, whatever).

KJP, here’s a minor, but important (in my mind, anyway) alteration in the Project Greeway proposal, assuming the demonstration can be pulled off as planned:  RTA extend a short, 2-track, at-grade (junction), fully-electrified branch off the Red Line at West Blvd.  This branch -- let’s call it the Yellow Line – would extend along the roughly NS ROW/track .7 miles to just short of W. 117 Street where a projected Yellow Line/Greenway commuter joint terminal. 

 

The Upside:

 

- you now have a 2-track, island-station terminal for both the Rapid and the Lorain commuter rail line allowing for a much easier (than at West Blvd) cross-platform transfer between Rapid and commuter rail as trains from both can access the station from opposite directions;

- (probably most importantly) as a destination point, you finally bring Rapid Transit to w/in easy walking distance of the most densely populated, most desirable apartment/condo district in all of Ohio, which also happens to be between 2 popular, high-trafficked retail districts on Clifton/W.117 & Detroit/W.117;

- you also terminate the commuter line in an area w/ the same advantages;

- you can develop a major bus-transfer terminal at this station, too--in addition to the busy Circulator and W. 117 local buses, RTA also can divert/terminate half or more downtown-bound buses (the 326s and 55s) off of Detroit and Clifton, respectively;

- no need to alter the recently-built West Blvd RTA station;

- this new joint terminal station would be built just inside the Cleveland line, thus negating any potential NIMBY squawking from Lakewood completely;  and

- even if/when the commuter trains are eventually extended over the main NY/Chicago NS mainline into downtown – the most desirable outcome-- this W. 117 transfer station/terminal would remain a viable station stop, unlike the proposed West Blvd transfer station, where commuter trains would, no doubt, bypass completely.

 

The Downside:

 

- extending the Rapid (tracks, electric, signaling) would constitute an expense, although all told, it would be a RELATIVELY MINOR EXPENSE compared to most extensions (it would feature: a short distance, cheaper-grade level junction, an all at-surface extension (as in no grade separation of any kind needed), leading to, of course, an at-grade terminal/transfer station;

- Lorain Commuters would now have to make 2 transfers to reach Hopkins rather than the one at West Blvd under the current scenario.  (of course once trains bypass the West Blvd transfer point headed into downtown, these airport commuters would face even tougher obstacles – chances are, eliminating far West Side airport commutation via rail all together).

 

Obviously, my proposal makes a number of assumptions: that the Project Greenway both gets off the ground and is successful (which I believe it would be IF it gets off the ground); that, even if both these occur, you would still have to move staunchly pro-bus (BRT)/anti-rail Joe Calabrese – and that’s a HUGE assumption.  Assuming all this happens, however, I can see no real downside to such an altered proposal to an already extremely worthwhile project.

 

... thoughts?

^ one more advantage to my proposal: this proposed Yellow Line Rapid would enjoy preexisting terminal facilities in Tower City where the Brookpark rush-hour shuttle terminate in the stub/dead-head track.  Of course, some Yellow Line cars could also extend further east to the busy U. Circle stop (perhaps during rush hour) where a currently unused, middle-track, turnback facility exists just east of the U. Circle station.

Save The Date!

 

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

9:30 a.m. - 11 a.m.

No RSVP is required - Please share info with others

 

In the interest of advancing a proposal for

 

Regional/Commuter Rail Service

 

All Aboard Ohio and Westlake Mayor Dennis Clough

invite you to attend a meeting of coordination of

stakeholders along the Norfolk Southern railroad

from Cleveland west into the West Shore communities

of Cuyahoga, Lorain and Erie counties. This is first

step toward realizing a long-sought economic

development asset for the region. We're tentatively

calling this the Regional Rail Stakeholders Meeting.

 

WHERE?

 

Westlake City Hall

Council Chambers

27700 Hilliard Boulevard

Westlake, OH

(440) 871-3300

 

DIRECTIONS: Exit I-90 at either Crocker or Columbia and turn south. From Crocker, turn left on Hilliard. From Columbia, turn right on Hilliard. City Hall is between the high school and Dover Center Road.

 

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

 

Dominic Liberatore, All Aboard Ohio, (614) 204-4628 or (614) 228-6005

Ken Prendergast, NEOtrans, (216) 288-4883 or (216) 986-6064

clvlndr, Here's my vision, which has some of the same features as yours...  Use a dual-mode light-rail vehicle (diesel engine with a cutoff switch to directly supply its electricity via overhead catenary wires). It could operate under diesel power from Lorain County into Cleveland, and when it gets under RTA's wires, it can switch over to electricity and take the Red Line to Tower City Center.

 

I would have an adjacent passenger platform at the West Boulevard Station. But just east of the station (about West 90th Street), where the Red Line rises up and over a long-gone freight siding, use that to build a double-track connection to the Red Line. That way, commuter trains don't have to cross both RTA tracks at-grade and force Red Line trains in both directions to wait for the traffic to clear. I have some maps/graphics of this concept, and when I get done playing reporter this evening, I'll post them here.

nice, the heat is being turned up on this project and what's this about a new demo? -- wow, that's all great news.

 

a nit: i prefer the moniker neorail to neotrans, but what the hey.

 

let's make the dream a reality -- if you can go help pack the house in westlake folks!

 

Neotrans isn't just about rail, which is why we chose it.

ok i'll bite -- what else is it about?

great news!  I may just be able to venture out to westlake for the cause of promoting rail transit!

ok i'll bite -- what else is it about?

 

NEOtrans is about transportation, transformation, transit -- all the "trans" that fit appropriately with NEO (er, North East Ohio, or neo meaning new). NEOtrans is basically just me right now, and I've composed a number of reports that wear the NEOtrans moniker. Though they haven't been officially released for public consumption yet.

Problem with dual-powered cars is, as I understand, they're often too heavy.  Logic would dictate that, if trains are going into Tower City, the wires should be extended.  The ROW is there, the track is there, why not?  St. Louis has extended Rapid Transit into the cornfields of Southern Illinois, yet we have to whisper around corners about extending wires a few miles to/through our most densly populated hood to connect with our 90+year old transit system lest our transit chief and the powers that be get upset.  Why must we always do things on the cheap? (not you, KJP, of course; you're only trying to succeed in this mental box called "The Cleveland Mindset").

 

Boston has BRT, but they're using conventional, electric trolley buses so as to allow their BRT to have fancy, smoke-less underground stations.  Imagine that?

 

I wish you the best of luck with this endeavor, but sometimes you've got to just step back and shake your head at how progress-resistant Cleveland can be.

^ it's funny to talk about a 90+yr old transit system and progress in the same discussion. it's the truth tho, just goes to show how car crazy the usa became.

 

cleveland is so much luckier than most cities to still have the ready or nearly ready infrastructure like that available around tc to improve it's rail transit.

 

KJP - thanks for all your extra efforts re: the subject.  It's the most interesting transit proposal since the RTA/ODOT/Laketran 1985 Cleveland-Euclid-Mentor Railbus Demonstration and I'm very encouraged to hear about the 7/19 meeting!

 

You and other readers here might find the following news item interesting.  It suggests several things for the Lorain-Cleveland project, including:

 

1) Transit capital improvement projects, both maintenance and expansion, mean JOBS.  This is too often downplayed or forgotten.  This article highlights the economic benefits of Denver's transit investment very, very well.

 

2) A very modest sales tax increase can fund a lot of transportation improvements (not just rail!).  The Denver tax is miniscule & painless compared to gas price increases.  Thinking long-term (50+ years and more) the resultant reduced gasoline and automobile dependency will make that region even more economically competitive. 

 

3) In addition to providing jobs, rail transit projects improve regional mobility.  Job access for people of all income groups will be greatly improved, especially the transit dependent who either can't reach outlying jobs or must commute by bus 2 and 3 hours each way.  BTW, I don't need to tell you that express buses confined to highways are very poor at linking residents with jobs compared with trains operating on rail lines that have coexisted nicely with neighborhoods (e.g. the westshore's former Nickel Plate line) and are less subject to weather and not subject to traffic tie ups.

 

4) Development in and around NE Ohio will continue to happen no matter what decisions are made on this or any transit project.  ODOT predicts general and freight traffic will increase by 47%+, far outpacing highway capacity additions.  Thus, vehicle miles traveled, gas consumption, highway wrecks and air pollution will continue to grow while mobility and access is unchanged or gets worse.  We can either expand this transit system to truly serve the region as in Denver and elsewhere or we can continue pretending that rail transit doesn't make a difference. 

 

Regional Transportation District

1600 Blake Street

Denver, Colorado 80202-1399

303/628-9000

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Exclusively for Passenger Transport

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

CONTACT: SCOTT REED

(303) 299-2137 (Office)

(303) 461-2015 (Pager)

 

Denver: Economy Alive and Thriving with T-REX Project

 

By Georgann Fisher and Allison Hodge, Regional Transportation District

 

Denver, Colorado –The Regional Transportation District (RTD), in partnership with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), will soon complete the largest multi-modal, design-build project in the United States. On November 17, 2006, the metro Denver area will celebrate the grand opening of the Southeast Light Rail and seventeen miles of major highway improvements.

 

Construction for the Transportation Expansion (T-REX) Project began in 2001. The Southeast Light Rail will add an additional 19 miles of double track light rail and will connect with the existing light rail lines The light rail will connect the two largest business districts of the entire metro Denver area.  Thirteen new stations are being constructed as part of the T-REX Project. Twelve stations have parking facilities, while one is a neighborhood station with no additional parking. Thirty-four new

light rail vehicles will have been added to RTD’s existing fleet with the completion of the Southeast Light Rail.

 

With more light rail cars means more maintenance, therefore the innovative and awardwinning Elati Light Rail Maintenance facility was constructed as part of the T-REX Project.  In addition to light rail, 17 miles of highway improvements are being made as part of the project.  These improvements include additional lanes on I-25 and I-225, replacement or major improvements to area bridges and interchanges, inside and outside shoulder improvements, and drainage.

 

The partnership between the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), RTD and CDOT is unprecedented. Together these four agencies agreed to work together in a similar manner that embodies the “One DOT” approach. RTD, CDOT and the federal management team coordinated all efforts on T-REX. All four agencies agreed to the project goals which are: minimize inconvenience to the public, provide for a quality project, meet or beat the total program budget, and meet or beat the schedule to be fully operational by June 30,

2008. Indeed the project is well on its way to achieving each of these goals. The project remains within budget and will be complete twenty months earlier than originally anticipated.

 

Construction is scheduled to be complete September 1 and the new Southeast Light Rail will open November 17. It is the first time a project combining highway and light rail elements into one single project in the same corridor has been accomplished in the United States.  The total project budget is $1.67 billion with approximately $879 million dedicated to the light rail component and $795 million for the highway. No increases to existing or new taxes were implemented due to T-REX. Forty percent of the light rail is funded by RTD and local match funds from various municipalities and jurisdictions. The rest of the light rail is funded through a FTA $525 million Full Funding Grant Agreement. The highway elements are funded through bonding future

federal gas tax allocations.

 

The T-REX Project has already been greatly beneficial to the metro Denver economy and will continue to foster its growth and vitality for decades to come. Once complete, the T-REX corridor will connect two of Denver’s largest employment centers. The light rail will provide passengers with an affordable transportation option, making it easier for businesses to recruit and retain employees. The T-REX design-build contractor, Southeast Corridor Constructors (SECC), is a major employer in Denver. During T-REX, SECC, along with RTD and CDOT, has provided employment to over 1,300 project employees including jobs in construction, engineering, planning, and community relations. More than 70 percent of these employees were hired locally. T-REX has contributed approximately $980 million to the Denver economy. Through April 2006, $182 million has been paid in SECC wages, $288 million has been spent on services and supplies, and $565 million has been spent on subcontractors. Currently, SECC is conducting business with over 250

companies, 79% of which are with established Colorado offices.

 

Once the project is complete, RTD will recruit for additional jobs for continued operations including bus and light rail operators, service and cleaning crews, fare inspectors, and maintenance staff.

 

Several Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) are in progress or being planned for the Southeast region. TODs are compact, mixed-use developments situated at or around transit stops that are planned in conjunction with local municipalities. Comprised of housing, office, neighborhood retail, and civic uses, these transit villages are jointly developed with the private sector and are carefully designed to be pedestrian-friendly, human-scale communities. This type of development is

planned in many areas along the T-REX corridor and will contribute even further to the economy by creating more jobs, increasing property values, and increasing tax revenues for local municipalities and governments.

 

Transit has a very bright future in Colorado. In November 2004, Denver metro voters passed four-tenths of a percent sales tax increase to fund a massive transit build-out through a ballot initiative called FasTracks. FasTracks is a 12-year plan to dramatically expand RTD’s high quality transit system and facilities in the region. The plan calls for 137 additional miles of rapid transit, 57 additional transit stations, 21,213 additional parking spaces at transit park-n-Rides, and enhanced bus service throughout the region. It will contribute to economic growth through business and job attraction and expansion.

 

Denver continues to receive recognition for being one of the most livable cities in America. With the population expected to increase by nearly one million in the next twenty years, it is important to provide a transit system that contributes positively to a growing area and thriving economy. RTD is playing an important role by providing an efficient system that carries people where they need to go, encourages business expansion and relocation, contributes to greater wealth by attracting new

business enterprises, increases tax revenues, and creates new employment opportunities for people of the Denver metro region

# # #

 

Here's a link to the Fastracks graphic, an 8mb file.  Very detailed, it even provides where the funds are proposed to come from to pay for the plan.

 

http://www.rtd-denver.com/Projects/Fact_Sheets/FastracksFacts.pdf

 

This Denver-area commuter rail study (366k file) illustrates how citizens participating in a study process are planning to focus future development around rail transit and combat sprawl.

 

http://www.rtd-denver.com/Projects/LongmontStudy/pdfDocs/Final_Report_Executive_Summary.pdf

 

Hope to see many of you at the July 19 meeting.

BTW, the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to expand Cleveland Hopkins runways and upgrade terminals was not predicated on anticipated travel or population growth.  (Both Newark and LaGuardia airports each have less runway capacity than CLE but handle 3x the traffic).  The Cleveland business community decided it was important to do to RETAIN jobs.  I contend that investing in Lorain Cleveland regional rail (and later add Aurora, Akron & Ashtabula as per NOACA Neorail plan) should be similarly justified.  It's needed to improve the quality of life and economic well-being of the region's existing residents and to retain those residents.  A future Northcoast Railway Express regional rail network will absolutely help attract new residents from places like Portland and Denver where world class public transportation already exists or is being established.  The airport investment wasn't about accomodating new growth, it was about making NE Ohio a better place for us to live and do business in.  Use this same argument for regional rail.  Besides, plans to downgrade the Shoreway and a decade of Innerbelt work make this a very smart call.  (And unlike the airport expansion, regional rail will directly benefit far more residents.) 

 

time for a look back to 1997:

 

 

Ohio

 

Commuter rail trials in Ohio, from Madison and Lorain to Cleveland, were judged successes this November.

 

According to the Akron Beacon-Journal, "more than 500 people took advantage of the one-day [Madison] demonstration... filling most seats. Laketran General Manager Frank Polivka said it was fitting that the long-anticipated commuter rail demonstration Wednesday between Cleveland and Madison came on a day when heavy snow and icy roads snarled car and truck traffic: "...Never in our wildest dreams did we think there would be this kind of interest in this."

 

Similar crowds greeted the run between Cleveland and Lorain, says RTA General Manager Ron Tober: "There's tremendous interest in commuter rail."

 

The Beacon-Journal reports, "The suburban commuter rail experiment, which is expected to cost about $65,000, was held to show federal officials that it's possible to establish such service on existing Conrail tracks... With the anticipated breakup of Conrail, Tober said, RTA and Laketran want to ensure that federal officials reviewing the future of area rail lines are aware of the region's desire to establish commuter rail service."

 

Ken Prendergast of Ohio ARP recorded these comments from riders:

 

"The movement of people into the city, and from the city out to outlying communities is vitally important. (But) it makes no sense to put more money into roads that bring more congestion and pollution when there are tracks already available." – Jay Westbrook, President, Cleveland City Council

 

"Transit was an afterthought when it comes to development. There is a growing awareness that we should use rail to get people to where the jobs are." – Thomas Coyne, Mayor, Brook Park

 

"It's a quick, efficient way of moving people. We should pursue it." – Dennis Clough, Mayor, Westlake

 

"This is really thrilling. The opportunities that go through your mind in terms of economic development are really exciting." – Vince Urbin, Mayor, Avon Lake

 

Other officials, like Bay Village Mayor Tom Jelepis and Lakewood Mayor Madeline Cain, were overheard as saying that the commuter demonstration whetted their appetites for seeking a permanent service.

 

Mr. Prendergast notes an interesting point from the above quotes: Unlike many highway widenings, which tend to occur in developing areas, a new commuter rail service, such as these, represents a simultaneous investment in both established and developing communities.

 

^ I remember that. Where'd that blast from the past come from?

^arpa update, december 1997:

 

http://www.azrail.org/news/update/9712.htm

 

my point being that we've had these trial commuter rail runs before and they were sucessful. certainly today there is momentum and the timing is perfect for another publicity generating trial run this summer!

By the way, some have asked what it would take to extend service from Lorain to Vermilion, or beyond Vermilion to Sandusky. Here's a couple of maps to give the lay of the land....

 

 

I guess I would add a word of caution here to not get too far ahead of ourselves. My impression is that Lorain-Cleveland is a "do-able" part of what is obviously a larger potential project.  If this segment can be "sold" politically to the governmental entities along the line, the railroad (NS) and other business interests, this project can get done.

 

If it does, there will be little problem selling the idea of expanding it.

Here's why it makes sense to start off with the train service having a western terminus in Vermilion...

 

First, it's a growing area, so there's some ridership to be had there.

 

Second, it's in Erie County, the planning commission for which recently became an MPO (a critical asset especially if NOACA doesn't want to play).

 

Third, it's in the district of Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (a pro-rail legislator).

 

Fourth, the added costs of starting the service in Vermilion are minimal, and may potentially be limited to the cost of adding the station facility there.

 

Fifth, use of an existing rail yard is desireable as the overnight layover for the trains. My original thought was to use the NS yard at the Avon-Sheffield Lake border, but inspection has revealed it is still too heavily used by NS for the Avon Ford Plant to encroach upon their operations. However, the closure of the Lorain Ford Plant has availed a multi-track yard for storing and servicing of commuter trains that's closer to Vermilion than it is to Lorain (4.5 miles from Vermilion; 6 miles from Lorain).

 

And, lastly, there is a lot of local support for the rail service from Vermilion city officials, from Mayor Jean Anderson to the new economic development commission. Ironically, their service director is James Pressler, who was recently director of Cleveland's Flats Oxbow Association and still lives near the West Boulevard Rapid Station, which gives him some access to other officials at both ends of the line.

 

If the ridership numbers aren't there, fine. But I think they will be. Consider that while a large number of Erie County residents may not commute to downtown Cleveland, how many commute to Lakewood, Rocky River, Westlake and want to go Hopkins Airport (yet not leave a car parked there for days)? I suspect some analysis will bear out that the riders are there. Consider also the impact of feeder bus service from Sandusky Transit System (for work-bound trips and reverse trips to Cedar Point/Islands). I think if it can be shown that an average of 20-50 people will board each train at Vermilion, it will be worth doing.

 

Edit: BTW, the capital costs of continuing west of Vermilion to Sandusky will be significant -- probably in excess of $30 million. This part ought to be left to a future phase. About $20 million to $25 million of the expense may be needed for adding a third main track on 20 miles of the busy NS mainline. Yet that's an investment that will also be needed for the Ohio Hub System, benefitting fast passenger trains to Chicago and Detroit. And, as we all know, since there are no federal capital funds for intercity rail expansion but there are for commuter rail, a future expansion of commuter service can remove barriers to starting the intercity service. But I'd like to get to the front door of this railway segment by starting commuter service from Vermilion right off the bat, if a ridership analysis shows it's worth doing.

I kind of think having the terminus in Vermilion would be a really nice idea and perhaps gather some more support from people living in Bay, River, and Westlake. Vermilion makes for a really nice day trip, and I know a lot of people who drive out there from Cuyahoga County. It is a little touristy, but still has a lot of character. Quite a few people from Cuyahoga have boats or maybe cottages there. Vermilion is the just the next city west of Lorain. I don't think extending the proposed line to Vermilion is "getting ahead of ourselves". It is actually quite sensible in my opinion.

well another positive, if you can call it that, is that the rail on the lorain to vermilion leg is not clogged with all those trains carrying all those ford cars anymore. 

West Shore Regional Rail Stakeholders Meeting

 

 

9:30-11 a.m., July 19, 2006

Westlake City Hall

Council Chambers

27700 Hilliard Road

(440) 871-3300

 

 

 

9:30 a.m.  Welcome, Purpose and intros (all in room) – Dennis Clough, Mayor of Westlake

 

 

9:40 a.m.   PowerPoint on need for regional travel alternatives - Ken Prendergast, NEOtrans

 

·              Costs to region from not having Regional Rail

·              FRA Quiet Zone standards issued

·              NEORAIL Study Phase I – Lorain-Cleveland

·              Low-cost train equipment available now

·              Regional rail demo & study of permanent rail service w/ possible Vermilion and Sandusky extensions

 

 

10:00 a.m.  Group discussion of transport, access, development, environmental and funding challenges & choices facing region

 

                   Moderator:  Betty Blair, Lorain County Commissioner

 

 

10:30 a.m.  Next steps and adjourn

 

·      Stakeholders' task force

·      Possible tasks

·      Members

·      Additional stakeholders

·      Funding

 

 

11:00 a.m.    After the meeting - 1997 Commuter Rail Preview video