^is this tied in with the Ohio Hub stuff or is it totally different?

This is separate from the Ohio Hub, but a system like this would undoubtedly serve the role as a "feeder" into the Hub system.  The Hub is designed to make seamless connections with major local airports, as well as local transit and/or commuter rail systems, bikeways and pedestrian systems.

 

I'm told this meeting went well and I think it pseaks volumes that both NOACA and Joe Calbrese attended.  They have very standoffish about commuter rail, but I think they saw that there is strong local support for this, especially where support was not evident before.

 

Congrats to KJP for pulling such a good meeting together.

Here is the PowerPoint presentation I gave today (1.9mb)....

 

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/West%20Shore%20Corridor.pdf

 

As often happens, the after-meeting discussions are more productive than the meeting itself. That was no different today. Norfolk Southern is looking at the strategic value of this rail corridor and considers regional passenger rail service as a means to enhance it. Furthermore, NS proposed a scenario whereby the rail corridor be viewed as a development zone in which each community:

 

> identifies a station location;

> designates a developer to build phase one of a TOD at each site;

> use a TIF to capture a portion of the value of future taxes paid on it

> use that to finance the development of the regional passenger rail service via a regional partnership of some form;

> build later phases of TOD at station-area development sites and TIF a portion of taxes from that to put into a passenger rail improvement fund for the corridor to further enhance service.

 

NS believes that such a scenario could fund about 60-70 percent of starting a new rail service.

 

While some rail projects have used similar procedures for relatively small-scale projects (like new stations), something on this scale hasn't been attempted before. But NS is floating this idea as a way to increase the value of their rail corridors and to add new sources of incomes. As NS officials have said numerous times in recent years, they don't care if the trains on their tracks are carrying people or products, as long as makes financial sense to the company.

Excellent presentation KJP.

If I were mayor of a a western suburb, I wold be convinced. :clap:

Calabrese said Ohio spends a lot less on transit than similar-size states. In 2004, Illinois and Pennsylvania spent more than $700 million each, while Ohio spent $18 million. This year the Buckeye State is spending $16 million.

 

How absolutely outrageous! Ohio, as a whole, is probably more urbanized than either of those states. And we spend 2% -- TWO PERCENT! -- of what they do on transit. What is wrong with us? Strickland, please save us...

I'm glad Joe Calabrese's comment about state funding made it into the PD. It's a statistic that has to be heard!

I saw Joe Calabrese give a full presentation of these figures at the All Aboard Ohio Legislative Rally day back in April and was shocked, but we have to realize this is the symptom of a greater ill: Apathy. This is what has kept what should be a great state from realizing its potential. Anywhere you look, whatever the issue, we are consistently at or near the bottom. If we are lucky, we are in the middle of the pack.

 

I think the realization is starting to creep in that we are going to have to do far more with transit than we now do. A part of this realization is showing on transit circles, where some of the brighter minds out there know we have to expand the pie and need to work together.

 

I think that once these figures get wide circulation, there will be a call to do more. Now we have to make sure decisionmakers see them and ask "What are YOU doing to give us choice so we don't have to drive when gas costs $3 a gallon?"

I was most taken by this from KJP's summary:

 

Norfolk Southern is looking at the strategic value of this rail corridor and considers regional passenger rail service as a means to enhance it. Furthermore, NS proposed a scenario whereby the rail corridor be viewed as a development zone in which each community

 

This seems to me to be critical to the development of this corridor...and the fact that they can see passenger rail and TOD as a way to enhance their business is right on!

 

I actually brought this up at the Lakefront West meeting yesterday to a look of bewilderment from an ODOT rep.  He didn't seem to think that NS was at all considering alternatives for their route on the West Side.  Then again, my comment was more along the lines of removing it altogether, so that could've been my fault!

After talking with some of the community officials and representatives of other agencies represented at the meeting yesterday, they wondered if the PD reporters attended the same meeting they had. Nothing of what was discussed during the meeting was mentioned in the article -- none of the economic development, environment and social justice arguments. The PD reporters used comments they gathered in post-meeting interviews. Joe Calabrese was very positive about this project during the meeting, but the only comment of his that made it in the paper was about traffic congestion. Traffic congestion wasn't mentioned once during the meeting. That's not why we're pursuing this service -- it's all about quality of life issues and building development around stations to create a sustainable lifestyle that can be enjoyed by all, regardless of means, for a future of increasingly constrained natural resources. Just about every one of the 40 or so officials at this meeting "got it."

 

Too bad Marty Gelfand, Kucinich's staffer, showed up after my presentation. I wished he could have heard the quality-of-life arguments for the rail service. Instead, he came and spoke about the same battle against freight train traffic. That was a victory for the corridor, but now it's time to move on to capitalize on new opportunities, like working with communities and businesses in creating jobs in his own district.

While the concept of using TOD to fund the development of Lorain-Cleveland regional rail service would be quite innovative for this region, it's nothing new. In reality, it's a sound and proven way to develop rail transit service from private investments. Local and/or regional governments serve as the financing mechanism. Ultimately what happens is the compounding of an initial private investment to create a transportation service that, in turn, further encourages more private investment.

 

Here are some articles to consider following the July 19 Lorain-Cleveland rail meeting in Westlake. In several articles, note the reliance on local rather than federal funding. Note also that TTA in North Carolina is taking the approach urged by the same railroad executive who attended the Westlake meeting.

 

That is, similar to First Interstate's investments in Steelyard Commons that will benefit the public sector (e.g. TIF funding to support the Towpath Trail), one or several progressive developers would be engaged by westshore communities to scope out the potential for development around proposed station locations. Development commitments, in tandem with supportive land use and zoning changes, would ideally precede any large scale efforts to build the rail line, ensuring that private sector funds would support the project before the public sector's investment.

 

This is a lot to plow through so take your time. Maybe print out the ones that seem interesting to read later.

 

******************************************************

 

North Carolina's Triangle Transit Authority Close To Development Deal

Updated: July 27th, 2006 12:02 PM PDT

 

NBC17 has learned the Triangle Transit Authority is close to signing a

partnership deal with a developer to oversee commercial and residential

projects at its 12 rail stops. The deal could provide enough funding to

get the rail line rolling. Full story:

http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/article.jsp?id=1264&siteSection=3

 

*************************************************************

 

Austin's Commuter Rail Project Taking Shape

Updated: July 19th, 2006 12:09 PM PDT

 

Capital Metro's commuter rail project in Austin, just lines on a map

when voters approved it 20 months ago, soon will take tangible form with

broken ground in Central Texas and metal molded in Switzerland.

http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/article.jsp?id=1207&siteSection=3

 

*************************************************************

 

Salt Lake Commuter Rail Line Drives Development

Updated: July 24th, 2006 12:03 PM PDT

 

Communities along the route of FrontRunner commuter rail - particularly

the seven in Davis and Weber counties where the train has stations - are

preparing for a load of new real-estate development.

http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/article.jsp?id=1238&siteSection=3

 

*************************************************************

 

New Jersey's River Line May Help Yield Funds for Rail Tunnel

Updated: July 26th, 2006 11:32 AM PDT

 

Fifty-three words nestled in last year's $286 billion federal

transportation bill require the government to consider the cash spent on

the River Line when negotiating the state's contribution to a project

many believe more essential: a second rail tunnel under the Hudson

River.

http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/article.jsp?id=1254&siteSection=3

 

*************************************************************

On Track for Commuter Rail in Central Florida

Updated: July 19th, 2006 12:16 PM PDT

 

How would you like to walk a few minutes to a train station and zip to

work in an air-conditioned rail car -- and then return the same way?

Once back in the neighborhood, you could walk to grocery stores,

restaurants and businesses to run errands.

http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/article.jsp?id=1196&siteSection=3

 

 

*************************************************************

(This is a lengthy article but one that is really worth reading.)

 

Developing Transit

Transit-Oriented Development, Joint Development and Housing

Updated: July 20th, 2006 04:21 PM PDT

 

The general perception, even among most transit agencies, is that

transit's role in land use is limited. What role there seems to be

results most directly from joint development opportunities on land

surrounding transit stations. But is that the whole story?

http://www.masstransitmag.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=1219

 

*************************************************************

(As some of you know the NJ Transit's $1 billion River Line project was

built without any federal funding.  It uses modern diesel self-propelled

railcars (diesel light rail vehicles) operating on an active Conrail

freight line.  Freights run at night, DLRVs run during the day.  San

Diego & Salt Lake City are just two of a number of other cities where

local transit trains share freight railroad tracks.)

 

Officials focus on impact of NJ Transit River Line

October 22, 2004 7:22 AM

BURLINGTON CITY - More than 50 municipal, county and state officials

attended a symposium at City Hall last night to focus on the economic

impact of the NJ Transit River Line in the communities along the nearly

36 mile transit line.  And the news was good.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-10222004-387515.html

 

*************************************************************

 

(This is from a United Transportation Union e-publication!)

 

Residents appreciate River Line after one year

TRENTON, N.J. - Arlene Bice knows when the River Line has brought

customers into her community, according to the Trenton Times.  "It's out

there and it's obvious," said Bice, owner of the By the Book @ U&I Gift

Shop off Farnsworth Avenue in Bordentown City.

http://www.utu.org/worksite/print_news.cfm?ArticleID=20148

 

*************************************************************

 

(Now THIS is quite interesting!)

Scope and Request for Proposals 2007 Program Project 2007-04

,Transit-Oriented Development Benefits of New Transit Service:  River

Line

http://www.utrc2.org/research/assets/rfps/2007-04.doc

 

 

*************************************************************

 

(This is about a trolley project.  I'm personally acquainted with the

person interviewed and recall hearing about the project six years ago

from him first hand, and hearing the progress over time.  This is a

wonderful and inspiring story.  If Little Rock can launch a major rail

project, so can NE Ohio!)

 

Making More With Less

A Small Agency with Little Funding has had Some Big Success

Updated: July 20th, 2006 03:23 PM PDT

 

What a way to start the year. A phone call on New Year's Day from

your biggest political transit supporter breaking the news to you that

they have other issues to focus on and that they cannot do anything

transit-related for the year ahead. That may instill consternation in

others but not Keith Jones, executive director and general manager of

the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CAT).

http://www.masstransitmag.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=1217

Since you brought this back into the fold KJP....any new news with this part of the corridor. It could be a boost for the West Side of Cleveland and help Parma's half-assed attempt to build a 'center' of the city with all the new Parma Hospital extentions and civic buildings being built east of Parmatown.

Not a bad op-ed piece.  It muddies the water somewhat between local transit and what is being planned under the Ohio Hub, but this piece does strike a very positive tone.  Good quotes from Rich Enty and Cong. LaTourette.

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

 

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

PD "It is a small example but a potent one. Of the 57 million who rode some form of RTA last year, only 15 percent used the rapid. Yet those self-propelled rail cars are the one RTA mode that is least affected by weather and least vulnerable to traffic snarls."

 

The bolded fact, you would think, would garner more love from local officials here, starting with the friggin' mayor (Frank the Invisible).  We won't even get into the rail-hating transit chief...

 

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

 

Good point.

^I agree that this was a shortsighted comment, but also that the article was positive and pro-rail and that the average reader would likely come away with much less speculation...this is what we do here on Urban Ohio.  Of course we're more nit-picky!

I did not know where to post this and tdid not think it warranted its own thread.

I also am not sure I buy into it, but thought it might spur some conversation.

 

 

 

 

HindustanTimes.com

Long rail trip to work may add to your office woes

 

Asian News International

 

Washington, August 7, 2006

 

Researchers studying commuters travelling by train have reaffirmed the common known fact that the longer a commuter has to travel to reach his office, the more he feels frustrated, irritated and experiences physiological stress.

 

Travelling by car has previously been linked to high blood pressure, tension, reduced performance in specific tasks and bad moods after the working day has finished. However a Cornell researcher and his colleague have found that the same holds true for rail commuters, based on biological evidence.

 

Environmental psychologists Gary Evans of Cornell and Richard Wener of Polytechnic University studied 208 commuters, taking trains from New Jersey to Manhattan.

 

The researchers came to the conclusions after measuring commuters' saliva for the stress hormone cortisol, analysing questionnaires filled out by the commuters and their spouses and asking each participant to proofread a document at the end of the commute.

 

"Commuting is a ubiquitous stressor for more than 100 million Americans who commute to work every weekday. Yet, little is known about how this aspect of work, which may indeed be the most stressful aspect of the job for some, affects human health and well-being. Commuting stress is an important and largely overlooked aspect of environmental health," said Evans, professor of design and environmental analysis.

 

 

 

 

Meeting of West Shore Corridor Stakeholders

 

9:30-11 a.m., Wed. Aug. 30, 2006

Cleveland City Hall

601 Lakeside Ave., Room 217

Host: Hon. Councilman Kevin Kelley,

Chairman, Aviation & Transportation Committee

 

 

Purpose:

Fact finding & stakeholder discussion on rail transit's potential to improve regional access, and boost economic development and mobility within the West Shore Corridor.

 

Agenda:

 

Welcome

Cleveland Councilman Kevin Kelley

 

Self-Introduction of Stakeholders/Attendees

 

Overview of July 19 Westlake Meeting

Ken Prendergast, All Aboard Ohio

 

U.S. Major Transportation Project Development: "Traditional" & "Creative" Funding approaches

Guest Speaker - David Vozzolo, HDR-S. R. Beard & Associates, and former deputy associate administrator, Federal Transit Administration, office of planning and environment 

 

City of Cleveland Staff Update: Status of Norfolk Southern negotiated agreement with communities

Councilman Kelley

 

Future Meetings/Proposed Topics:

* Stakeholder Consensus on NS Agreement Interpretation: Hunter Morrison, suburban law directors;

* Case Study of Economic Gains from Successful Rail Station Area Development (invited speaker);

* NOACA NEORAIL Study Route 1 Lake West Corridor Station Locations;

* Other Topics? (Attendee suggestions).

 

Next Meeting Location & Adjourn

 

###

^ awesome. go pack the house and rock the boat people!

 

ps -- kjp i emailed that to the lorain journal.

KJP, how realistic is this project.

I've never liked questions like that. I've often been asked the same thing about other projects I've been involved in because they wanted to know whether they should invest their time in supporting the project. If someone is going to make their decision whether to support a project on that measurement, then I don't want their skittish backing until they've bought in.

 

To me, a better question is, is this project doable? In that respect, this is a very doable project. It addresses public policy issues, has great route demographics, infrastructure quality, and there are available funding options (especially using private sector station-area developments as a primary funding mechanism). It is a comparitively easy and inexpensive project to do compared to others that have been built throughout the nation in recent years.

I was just thinking (Run!) .... Consider the Steelyard Commons development and its TIF, which is to be used by the city to help extend the Towpath Trail northward and for neighborhood redevelopment projects. Steelyard Commons is a roughly $100 million project, which netted $17 million in TIF funding.

 

Now, consider the first phase of Stark's Pesht project, which he estimates would cost about $1 billion. If the Steelyard Commons TIF is any indication, and if a Pesht TIF were sought for developing regional rail, it could net $170 million for rail development costs. That should be sufficient for paying the entire tab of the West Shore Corridor project.

 

That doesn't include any additional Station-Area Redevelopments along the route from Cleveland into Erie County. If such STARs would built and TIFs resulted from them, an even better rail transit service might result, and some of the funding could be used to pay the operating costs of the service. The operating costs could range from roughly $6 million-8 million per year for eight round-trip trains daily, to perhaps $20 million annually for a diesel/electric light-rail service offering a train every 15 minutes during rush hours and half-hourly off-peak.

 

How's that for doable?

Interesting strategy.  Automatically makes developers major stakeholders in the transportation infrastructure.  What about getting the developers on board?

doable indeed!  but I would be suprised to see a Pesht TIF that went solely towards this rail line.  That's not to say that a huge chunk of it couldn't be used as matching dollars for Federal or State funding, but I would assume that a lot of the $$$ would be directed towards improvements Downtown...or more likely, towards relocating the Port.  Am I off track here?  (can I compliment myself on that pun?  :-P)

No, you're not off track (and yes, smack yourself for the bad pun!).

 

I called Bob Stark to see if he could tell me what was happening with his project. I'll get into more of that in the Pesht thread. But when I updated him on the West Shore transit project, and asked him if a TIF were possible on Pesht to pay for the rail line, he said no. The reason, like you suspected MGD, is that he is trying to develop a political consensus for using a TIF on Pesht to pay for infrastructure work downtown to make Pesht possible. That includes extending the street grid northward to the lake. He didn't say anything about the port island however. And the TIF would not only include things like property and incomes taxes, but county sales taxes, as well. I will reiterate this in the Pesht thread, so if you have comments on this aspect, it might be best to make them there so we can keep this thread on track (see, I can do bad puns too!).

 

But he said it before I could: use station-area developments and TIFs at locations elsewhere along the West Shore route to help finance the project. In North Carolina, they are using this approach to pay the ENTIRE cost of a $800 million commuter rail line between Charlotte and Raleigh. I hope he (or someone from Stark Enterprises) can attend the West Shore stakeholders meeting coming up on Aug. 30!

 

 

Well, the best news coming out of that conversation appears to be that a private businessman with as much clout as Stark is down with rail development and has ideas about how to make it work fiscally.  Money talks and if a group of progressive entrepreneurs can add it all up and make cents (I'm really on today!) of the finances, that's probably our best bet for bringing this to reality.

I was looking into Cherokee and, just the screenshows on their various project websites are worth a "wow" ...

 

http://www.cherokeedenver.com/

 

http://www.meadowlandsmiracle.com/

 

http://www.cherokeeporete.com/

 

This is Cherokee's home page:

 

http://www.cherokeefund.com/index.html

Some interesting video simulations of diesel light rail, electric light rail and busway proposals in Spokane, Wash. ...

 

http://www.spokanelightrail.com/spokanelightrail/sub.aspx?id=2915#

 

 

And here's an excellent description of the relationship between commuter rail and regional planning....

 

Commuter rail is most effective when large numbers of people can walk to the stations. The stations provide a natural focal point to existing and new communities, which can evolve from park-and-ride lots into "village centres" offering convenience shopping, daycare, community recreation facilities, townhousing and other compact residential uses within a convenient walking distance. This "transit village" concept can provide a framework for encouraging cost-effective regional growth while recognizing the continued demand for conventional rural estate lots in areas beyond. Transit villages cater to a potentially underserviced sector of the housing market, enabling some residents to choose a lifestyle which does not require multiple car ownership, thus helping to mitigate suburban traffic growth. The availability of more compact development also helps to reduce development pressure on outlying areas with their associated municipal servicing costs. Commuter rail could be seen as a highly visible commitment to ordered regional growth.

 

The above is from ... http://www.elements.nb.ca/theme/fuels/light/rail.htm

 

Check out:  http://www.gcbl.org  They updated info on the West Shore Corridor proposal, including using a write-up of mine for a project description.

Thought you all might enjoy this ....

 

http://members.cox.net/peepersken/Piechartcompare.pdf (just a 6K download)

 

Which was based on this ....

 

We had a good meeting today of the West Shore Corridor stakeholders, with about 40 persons in attendance at Cleveland City Hall.

 

Among the highlights:

 

We had an excellent speaker, David Vozzolo, senior associate of HDR, a large engineering/planning firm. Vozzolo was recently an associate administrator at the Federal Transit Administration and spoke about federal funding challenges. He basically said avoid federal funding if you can and consider private sources of funding through station-area development as a piece of the funding puzzle.

 

Westlake Planning Director Bob Parry came up with a great idea for the West Shore stakeholders group: a subcommittee of planners and others from the enroute communities to identify station-area development opportunities. Parry agreed to lead the subcommittee and identify persons to serve on it.

 

Bay Village Law Director Gary Ebert agreed to join with law directors from Rocky River and Lakewood, plus former Cleveland Planning Director Hunter Morrison to communicate with Norfolk Southern. The goal is to determine the impacts of commuter rail on two late-1990s agreements with Norfolk Southern, which addressed freight train traffic, and identify solutions for adding commuter trains while protecting communities from the negative aspects of train traffic.

 

I will write up a meeting summary, as I did for the July meeting in Westlake. And the stakeholders group will meet again, probably in early October in Lorain County, so we can report back on progress on those efforts and any other issues that may arise.

 

The outcome of this effort appears to be the pursuit of federal funding for a transportation alternatives analysis of the West Shore Corridor.

nice!  great stuff KJP!

It seems like funding is the obstacle to overcome now, whereas a while ago support from public officials was the obstacle. Is this an accurate statement?

There's still a lot of obstacles to overcome -- too many to list right now. I may have time later. The main point at this stage of the process is to show that there are potential solutions to overcome them. But, funding is always the ultimate obstacle.

A former U.S. transit administrator had bad news for local officials yesterday -- don't expect much federal money.

 

*   *   *

The push for a commuter line is alive and well, according to those who attended the meeting, but it could still be more than a decade before the rail line is established.

 

Whoa!  Time out.  I'm I confused, here?  Fed money?  Decade to start?

Wasn't the whole purpose of the Project Greenway Lorain-to-Cleve commuter rail to be able to implement the project quickly & cheaply ($13M) with hand-me-down commuter & Amtrak equipment on the existing line while serving as a demo to allow pols along the line to buy in w/ TOD-type devel to both protect the environment while promoting SmartGrowth?  So what's all the above talk?

 

Sounds to me like another Cleveland political mess a-brewing -- this region is hideous with major public works projects (witness county building, Interbelt reconstruction and convention center, to name a few-- and let's not even delve into history, w/ the infamous subway that was scuttled ).  I thought the idea of limiting the feds and pol planners was what made this attractive.  It seems the coalition of like-minded West Burb and other officials makes this attractive; esp from the standpoint of having them get out of the way ! ... esp Kucinich.  One official who will be good in your corner is Hunter Morrison, smart, effective -- probably the most single individual directly responsible for the physical Renaissance downtown experienced in the 80s & 90s.  The others?  Good luck; Esp JoeC.

 

As hoped, these meetings are beginning to frame how this project might proceed, how it should/shouldn't be funded and what options should be considered. In short, some local officials are learning the facts of life when it comes to transportation investments. Others are well-schooled in those facts.

 

The fact is, the traditional model for a project to proceed is:

 

> for an alternatives analysis to be conducted to see what type of transportation investment is desired,

> to undertake an environmental impact analysis to measure the desired investment's impact on the natural and built environment,

> to undertake preliminary engineering to get a better handle on start-up costs,

> and then see if the Federal Transit Administration will award funds that used to comprised 80 percent of a project's cost but will now represent only 50 percent of the total cost.

 

That process, required by National Environmental Protection Act if federal funds are desired, took 10 years even for the simple Nashville commuter rail service which is starting this month. And they used hand-me down trains and locomotives, simple stations and modest trackwork to keep the cost to a very modest $40 million. The $13 million I estimated did not include adding Quiet Zones, which would probably double the price of the project. And the $13 million base figure was probably too low anyway.

 

What is now coming into better focus for the West Shore Corridor project is that we should avoid this federal process because it takes a long time, costs a lot of money and, more often than not, the chances are not good of winning the federal funding sweepstakes -- and for a measely 50 percent or less of the total price tag.

 

Still, the basic features of this federal process will likely be pursued, just not to the extent and involvement that we would if we wanted to win some federal funds. The next step is to undertake an alternatives analysis with an environmental impact component. The alternatives to be evaluated could include "do nothing" (to get a baseline of information), road improvements, high-capacity bus service, a regional rail service using locomotive-hauled trains (Cleveland terminus at West Boulevard or North Coast Harbor), or self-propelled diesel/electric light-rail vehicles (Cleveland terminus at Tower City Center or possibly University Circle).

 

So, what we're doing right now is to evaluate the trouble spots to see if there are any fatal flaws to this endeavor and to improve the comfort level among grassroots officials so they can intellectually and emotionally buy into this project. The NS agreement is one thing that local officials will evaluate, as are station-area development opportunities. The latter is equally important because, if there aren't opportunities to do station-area developments, then we won't have the ability to avoid federal funding. That doesn't mean the project would have to die, because that would leave as our primary options a high-capacity bus service or a basic train service (a few trains a day) using recycled equipment that could be funded by a special request to the state or for local communities to share in the modest costs. But a more elaborate diesel-electric light-rail service would be more capable of making station-area development a viable investment for the private sector, but would also increase start-up costs.

 

None of this is out of the ordinary elsewhere or new to us. Every major transit investment in the U.S. goes through this process to varying degrees. If we can get a modest amount ($500,000 to $1 million) of federal funding for an alternatives analysis/environmental impact analysis, through an existing federal funding authorization for the West Shore Corridor in the federal SAFETEA-LU surface transportation program, then this idea will become a bondafide project. It's too late to get federal funds for the AA/EIA in the FY2007 budget (starts Oct. 1), so we'll have to shoot for FY2008. The AA/EIA will probably take about a year to conduct. Subseqent engineering on the preferred alternative will take at least another year. And, if everything goes as planned (which it never does in any city), it will still be sometime after 2010 before we see any construction happening.

 

And those are the facts of life when it comes to new transportation service investments, regardless of where one lives in the U.S.

I thought you all might find this of interest. It's from the early stages of Bay Village's redevelopment masterplan, from 1999 (just two years after citizens raised their ire toward a proposed major increase in freight train traffic)....

 

From the Bay Village masterplan, June 1999:

 

In addition, RTA has been studying the feasibility

of commuter rail along existing rail

lines. One corridor which is being considered

is the western lakeshore route which is made

up of the Norfolk and Southern rail line which

forms the southern border of the City of Bay

Village. When asked in the quality of life survey

which (transit) service would encourage residents

to use RTA more frequently, the highest response

was to the provision of rail service to

Downtown Cleveland. If such a line is established,

a stop at Dover Center Road, the City’s

Town Center, should be included.

 

Cited from page 5.105 at the following link:

http://cpc.cuyahogacounty.us/docs/masterplans/bayvillage.pdf

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

As part of the Master Plan process, a quality of

life survey was mailed to 500 households

within the City of Bay Village. An even

number of surveys were mailed to addresses in

each of the City’s four wards. The addresses

were picked at random. The survey contained

22 questions in which residents were asked to

rank services, shopping, their home and neighborhood,

public facilities and public transportation.

 

They were also asked to comment on

the City’s strengths and weaknesses and their

views on housing options in the City. The last

question was a place for residents to express

general comments or concerns about the City.

The purpose of the survey was to gain input

from citizens early in the process as the goals

and objectives for the plan were formulated.

 

Out of the 500 surveys mailed, 247 (49%)

were returned. Because not all the questions,

or items asked to be ranked, were applicable to

all respondents, the number of answers to each

question varies. Below is an executive summary

of the responses to the questions in the

survey followed by a summary of each question

(except for the last question). Where appropriate

the number of survey responses to a

particular item is listed. Percentages are based

upon the number of people responding to that

particular item. A short narrative, table and

graphic illustrating the responses is provided.

 

...

 

 

Question 7. For those items purchased

outside of Bay Village, in which

communities do you shop?

 

[excerpt] An overwhelming large amount of respondents

indicated that they go to the doctor in

Westlake. The Gemini Towers at Crocker and

Detroit contain a large concentration of medical

offices. Lakewood, where Lakewood Hospital

is located, was cited the second most

number of times.

 

 

 

Question 10. In which city do you work?

192 households answered question 10. The

largest number listed the City of Cleveland as

their locality of employment, followed by the

City of Bay Village. Cleveland was listed on

76, or 44%, of the surveys while 36, or 19%

identified Bay Village as their place of work.

The western suburbs of Westlake, Lakewood

and Rocky River were the next most likely

places of employment.

 

Question 11. How often do you use RTA

buses or rapid transit?

Very few of the respondents indicated that

they use public transportation on a regular basis.

Over 50% never use it and 38% use it only

infrequently. Only nine respondents, or 4%,

use public transit on a daily basis. In a previous

question almost 90% thought access to

public transit was excellent or good.

 

Question 12. If you use RTA buses or

rapid transit, what type of trips do you

use RTA service for?

117 surveys responded to this question. By far

the largest use of RTA was for recreation and

sports events. The 74 which responded were

65% of those that answered the question and

30% of all the surveys. Thirty surveys indicated

they used RTA to get to work. Nobody

indicated that they used it for medical appointments.

Of those that indicated they used the

trips for other purposes, most indicated they

used it for trips to Downtown Cleveland. Two

respondents had children which used it for

school.

 

Question 13. Please indicate which of the

following would encourage you to use

RTA’s services more frequently. Mark all

that apply.

Rail service to Downtown Cleveland was chosen

on 40% of the surveys making it the most

selected improvement. This selection is consistent

with the answers to the above question

which indicated that most people that used

RTA did so for sporting events. Improving the

availability of information on routes within

Bay Village was also selected by over a quarter

of the respondents. A West Shore Circulator

bus was selected by more people than a Bay

Village Circulator bus. A bus which served a

larger area would probably be more useful for

those that wanted to use public transit for

shopping. The least support was shown for

buses to other locations and the provision of

bike racks on buses.

 

Cited from various pages in the Appendix at:

http://cpc.cuyahogacounty.us/docs/masterplans/bayvillage.pdf

What is now coming into better focus for the West Shore Corridor project is that we should avoid this federal process because it takes a long time, costs a lot of money and, more often than not, the chances are not good of winning the federal funding sweepstakes -- and for a measly 50 percent or less of the total price tag.

 

Absolutely.  Some may not like the RTA Waterfront Line, but it was executed and built in less than 2 years time, if I recall, because the City/State kept the Feds out.   That seems to be the ticket, esp in a Bush Admin that can't see beyond highways and planes -- yes, there have been a number of transit new starts and projects during his tenure (many, though, in the can before he was elected in 2000), but my understanding is that cities had to jump through some unbelievable hoops that didn't exist under Clinton or Carter; and this, w/ limited/expensive oil and the Middle East in its worst crisis in my lifetime, certainly..  It sounds like you're on track esp in getting some of the hard-core intransigent west burb pols on board (what are giving them, Kool Aid?).  Seriously though, it sounds like you've got a good handle on this and that some have been backed into a corner -- the logic corner -- and are giving in to this great idea that probably should have been built long ago.

 

One other thing -- you mention the time lag.  Well, what about the extent of study and even test runs that have been undertaking viz this corridor over the last decade?  Doesn't that count for something?

Here's a story as to why Joe C is starting to warm up to this idea...

 

On Wednesday morning, the day of the commuter rail meeting, Joe goes to the Westlake park and ride to catch an express bus to downtown. While there, one of the three connecting Lorain County Transit buses arrives from Lorain with 12 people on board. Joe considers (as do I) that to be a large number considering that bus takes 45 minutes to get from Lorain to Westlake. Joe ended up standing on the RTA express to downtown.

 

That same morning, I boarded a #55 bus on Clifton, and one that arrives downtown after 9 a.m. By the time we got on the Shoreway, there were 10-15 standees on the bus.

 

So maybe we don't need commuter rail to relieve congestion on I-90 (although two sections of I-90 were recently named by NOACA as being safety Hot Spots for a large number of crashes). But maybe we do need it to relieve congestion on existing bus transit services!

 

As a result, Joe C suggested an interim commuter bus service be started between Lorain and Cleveland to test the market. I have mixed feelings on this, as some local officials may say this is "good enough." But I want to make sure that everyone understands that "good enough" is seldom good enough.

Here's a story as to why Joe C is starting to warm up to this idea...

 

JoeC, poss on board w/ rail!?  Break out the champagne!

 

Joe goes to the Westlake park and ride to catch an express bus to downtown.

 

I'm shocked.  I'll have to climb off the guy's back... for a month or so, anyway, LOL.

KJP, can you explain why Quiet Zones would be necessary for commuter rail?  As someone who used to live almost next to tracks with heavy Amtrak, commuter, and freight rail traffic, it was the freights that were a pain in the ass.  The commuter trains were never more than 8 cars, and were inaudible inside the house (save for the horn on the locomotive).  Even the long-distance Amtrak trains with coaches, sleepers, lounges, baggage cars, and dinettes didn't make much noise.

 

Basically, I'm concerned that the Quiet Zones would be an extra cost for a problem that doesn't really exist, and potentially jeopardize the project.

He takes transit downtown virtually every day, and usually varies his routing from day to day. And, yes, he takes the Red Line from Triskett... sometimes driving there, sometimes taking the new #49/49F route from Westlake. I may not always agree with the guy, but he's a lot better than the executive staff at CTA in Chicago who have often admitted publicly that they won't take transit because it's dirty or unreliable. Hello? Who's in charge of that??

 

But back to the issue at hand...

Basically, I'm concerned that the Quiet Zones would be an extra cost for a problem that doesn't really exist, and potentially jeopardize the project.

 

I live in a mid-rise building within 400 feet of the tracks in Lakewood, and even I complain about noise from locomotive horns. I cannot hear my television sometimes. Lakewood officials say that the project won't happen without the Quiet Zones. Thus the regional rail project is jeopardized more without them. I'm pretty sure that Rocky River and Lakewood officials feel the same way.

 

The costs of adding Quiet Zones aren't out of reach and, of all the features of the West Shore Corridor regional rail project, that is one aspect for which funding is available through PUCO/ODOT. I would welcome them, especially if their omission would otherwise jeopardize the project.

I think we can agree, though, that the Quiet Zones would be more for mitigating noise from freight trains than passenger trains, which are extremely quiet by comparison.  Why attribute this cost to the commuter rail project unless you're looking to kill it, or at the least, tie it up in red tape?  It just seems like another obstacle to me, that should be considered independent of the commuter rail project.

I do think that Quiet Zones should be added no matter what. But you may be forgetting that Lakewood has 27 crossings in four miles and Cleveland's Cudell Neighborhood has six crossings within 2,000 feet.

 

It is not comparable to even Rocky River, Bay Village or Lorain County communities where you hear a soft, distant train horn for a crossing a mile down the track. Then there's a long period of quiet before you hear the loud, required four horns (two longs, a short and a long) for the next crossing right by your home. Then there's another long period of quiet before you hear the locomotive engineer blow the horn for the next crossing. In Lakewood and Cleveland's Cudell neighborhood, the engineer must use a procedure called "WMX" or Whistle Multiple Crossing -- using multiple long horns (often several per crossing and sometimes the engineer lays on the horn constantly) until the last crossing in the series has been passed. It didn't use to be as bad until the past decade, as nearly all locomotives had five-chime horns installed, and the decibel levels went up.

 

Quiet Zones deal only with locomotive horns, and on that score, the type of train doesn't make one quieter than the other. It is true that if you run 77 commuter trains a day versus 14 freight trains a day, the amount of blocked crossing time stays roughly the same while the amount of vibration goes down. But the frequency of train horns goes up equally with the number of trains. And only Quiet Zones can address that. Even I will not want more trains (regardless of how long or heavy they are) running past my home without them.

It would be interesting to think about this potential commuter line had Crocker Park been constructed adjacent to the current rail lines.  Would there be more support?

There might. But I think Crocker Park had to be built somewhere in the West Shore to give an example of at least the genre of development needed to be built trackside. Westlake officials said Crocker Park has attracted transferees from places like New York and Chicago, and said having that kind of development tied in with a commuter rail service would be an even better draw. When they said that, I joked "maybe we can call this the anti-brain drain train."

 

It would have been ideal if Crocker Park was built trackside, but on second thought, if Crocker Park had been built trackside before this latest commuter rail proposal were conjured, we would have been unable to use future taxes from it for a TIF to build the rail service. Now, Westlake has come to expect the taxes from Crocker Park for existing needs.

 

Like Bob Stark said, Crocker Park is a lab experiment. Now it seems the lessons from that experiment have more applications than just for downtown Cleveland.

What everyone seems to forget here is that "quiet zone" refers to trains not having to blow their horns at crossings.  It has nothing to do with the noise a train makes in any other way.  So it doesn't matter if it's a freight or passenger train.  The effect is the same: quiet zones mean the locomotive horns are quieted.

 

 

Thanks, Noozer, for stating it more succinctly.

 

Any thoughts on Wednesday's meeting?

Judging by the turnout, the idea is generating some very positive "buzz".  I like the fact that the meeting was generated by the Cleveland City Council members, as that says a lot about the appeal of the proposal.  It was also encouraging to see a lot of represenation from the Lake shore communities and a stated willingness to work together on making sure the commuter rail proposal works for every community along the line and addresses concerns about train traffic, noise, etc.  That's half the battle is getting everyone to the tabel and in a spirit of cooperation.

 

It was also good to see both NOACA and GCRTA represented by their chief executives.  That speaks volumes to the members of the City Council to see Howard Maier and Joe Calabrese in the audience and making positive comments.  David Vozzolo's presentation brought a dose of reality, but I don't think it dashed anyone's hopes.  I thiink he was just trying to get everyone to realize that taking this proposal from a concept to a real project is not an easy process, but also not insurmountable.  I think Ken Sislak's comments to that regard were also good, especially his point that some aspects of this, if not the whole project, can be done quicker if it's done entirely on the local "dime"..... providing a way could be found to pull that off from a funding standpoint.

 

Overall.... great meeting and very productive.