http://www.cleveland.com/sun/brooklynsunjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1157647414142390.xml&coll=3

 

Decision due on transit improvements

Thursday, September 07, 2006

By Ken Prendergast

Brooklyn Sun Journal

CLEVELAND _ City and transit officials soon could decide whether proposed transit improvements along Pearl Road should also include sections of State and Broadview roads. Those and other issues will be defined by a scope of work that is to be submitted to the city by the end of this month by the Brooklyn-Brighton Community Development Corporation. 

 

 

Good article...Not to sound dumb, but what exactly does this mean. It says the 7th busiest route, yet you cannot tell, at least form the Old Brooklyn side that RTA even knows were OB is, in any case that is what I see living here.  Any other insight that didn't make it into the article that you care to share?

 

EDITED DUE TO COPYRIGHT POLICIES

Thanks. But can you explain what you mean by saying that RTA doesn't know where Old Brooklyn is?

 

And, yes, here's some insight -- the grant request to NOACA was written by the Old Brooklyn resident on behalf of Old Brooklyn Neighborhood Services (which was since merged with the Old Brooklyn Community Development Corporation) to create the Brooklyn-Brighton CDC. Even though Maribeth Feke was president of the OBCDC (and now the BBCDC) and director of planning and programming at RTA, neither she nor anyone else from RTA was consulted by OBNS before OBNS submitted the grant to NOACA. Furthermore, no one at RTA had even seen the grant request to NOACA until after NOACA approved it! That doesn't mean the newly combined CDC won't follow through on it, but if you detect a "chilly reception" coming from Feke or others at RTA and the new BBCDC about this transit study, that's why.

saddest thing is, it's not like rta would have welcomed it with open arms had they been consulted initially.

 

i don't blame them for skipping rta initially, rta would have just dismissed it out of hand or stalled it or said yeah maybe we'll put a brt bus line there someday. i may exaggerate, but that's the feeling i get coming from rta these days re rail transit.

 

what is really wacky is why is it that the neighborhoods are left to come up with these ideas while rta is silent? rta really needs to get it together and develop a forward looking comprehensive transit planning guidelines and routes for the region.

Thanks. But can you explain what you mean by saying that RTA doesn't know where Old Brooklyn is?

 

Sorry, maybe my statement sounded a little harsher than I intended it to.  Scratch what I said...

saddest thing is, it's not like rta would have welcomed it with open arms had they been consulted initially.

 

i don't blame them for skipping rta initially, rta would have just dismissed it out of hand or stalled it or said yeah maybe we'll put a brt bus line there someday. i may exaggerate, but that's the feeling i get coming from rta these days re rail transit.

 

what is really wacky is why is it that the neighborhoods are left to come up with these ideas while rta is silent? rta really needs to get it together and develop a forward looking comprehensive transit planning guidelines and routes for the region.

 

Oh come now, mrnyc!  Surely you don't expect rail-hater Joe Calabrese's RTA + the dofuses (dofi?) at NOACAction to actually come up with a comprehensive transit plan, do you? Let alone our do-nothing mayor ... Yeah, we Clevelanders who have a half a vision are going to have content ourselves with the current route-at-a-time proposal scheme hatched by, and designed to excite, grass-root folks who, in turn, motivate camera-hogging pols into, perhaps, getting off their asses to, in turn, get Calabrese interested, or at least, defensively propelled by his usual rear-guard protective mode to fend off those who may, like us, have insight into his lethargic, regressive posture towards transit and transit expansion (remember his behavior viz W. 65th EcoCity Villiage?  typical)... Remember, mrnyc, this is no normal city we live in and/or take an interest in.  Comprehensive transit planning, like cooperation regarding positive growth of any kind, are in very short supply in this town... Ugh!!

 

 

I've been meaning to post the summary of the last (Aug. 30) meeting of the stakeholders. Here it is (it's long, but check out the highlights at the start, plus Hunter Morrison's message at the end)...

______________________________

 

MEETING SUMMARY

 

West Shore Corridor Regional Rail Stakeholders

August 30, 2006

Cleveland City Hall

 

 

Selected Highlights (Full Summary follows attendees list):

 

Dave Vozzolo, of HDR Inc. and was recently a Federal Transit Administration official, said federal funds are difficult to get for any transportation project. Even if they aren’t, a potentially quicker, less costly, and more beneficial (in terms of expanding a ridership base) way to fund a transit project is to use private financing via station-area real-estate developments.

 

A station-area development subcommittee was suggested by Westlake Planning Director Bob Parry who agreed to lead it. Planning and development officials in communities along the route would identify potential station sites having development and redevelopment opportunities.

 

Another subcommittee, comprised of West Shore law directors and led by Bay Village Law Director Gary Ebert, would meet with Norfolk Southern Corp. officials to review and discuss their agreements reached in the late-1990s addressing train traffic levels.

 

NOTE: The next full meeting of the West Shore Corridor stakeholders will be held at 9 a.m. Oct. 20 at the Spitzer Conference Center at Lorain County Community College.

 

__________________________

 

 

At the Aug. 30th meeting, there were 39 attendees (listed alphabetically by last name):

 

Rob Berner, Mayor, City of Avon Lake

Betty Blair, Lorain County Commissioner

Tony Brancatelli, Ward 12 City Council, City of Cleveland

Sean Brennan, Chairman of the Board, Lakewood Chamber of Commerce

Angie Byington, Steering Committee, Elyria Plan 2015

 

Joe Calabrese, General Manager, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA)

Len Calabrese, Director, Commission on Catholic Community Action

Dennis Clough, Mayor, City of Westlake

Michael Dever, Councilman At-large, City of Lakewood

Gary Ebert, Director of Law, City of Bay Village

 

Jon Eckerle, Senior Regional Realtor, Century 21 Commercial/HomeStar

Rich Enty, Planning Team Leader, GCRTA

Edward Favre, Office of Lakewood Mayor Tom George

Maribeth Feke, Director, Programming & Planning, GCRTA

Tom Ferguson, General Manager, Lorain County Transit

 

Scott Frantz, Transportation planner, Cleveland City Planning Commission

Grace Gallucci, Executive Director, Office of Management & Budget, GCRTA

Bill Gardner, Service Director, City of Sheffield Lake

Kate Giammarise, Staff Writer, Lorain Morning Journal

Jack Hall, Senior Transportation Planner, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency

 

David Hartman, Director of Business Development, RE Warner & Associates, Westlake

Jennifer Hooper, Executive Director, Lakewood Community Progress Inc.

Bonnie Ivancic, Ward 4 City Council, City of Elyria

Kevin Kelley, Ward 16 City Council, City of Cleveland

Dennis Lamont, Lorain Street Railway

 

Howard Maier, Executive Director, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency

Will McCracken, Oberlin

Joe Medici, Staff Writer, Elyria Chronicle-Telegram

Stu Nicholson, Public Information Officer, Ohio Rail Development Commission

Rick Novak, Executive Director, Lorain Port Authority

 

Joyce Parks, assistant to Lorain County Commissioner Blair

Bob Parry, Director of Planning, City of Westlake

Andrea Paspek, Law Department, City of Cleveland

Ken Prendergast, Director of Research & Communications, All Aboard Ohio

Ken Sislak, Board Member/Northeast Ohio, All Aboard Ohio

 

Michael Skindell, District 13, Ohio House of Representatives

Vince Urbin, Development Department, Lorain County

David Vozzolo, Senior Associate, HDR Inc.

Jay Westbrook, Ward 18 City Council, City of Cleveland

 

 

FULL SUMMARY

 

Councilman Kelley called the meeting to order. The gathering was a special meeting of Cleveland City Council's Aviation and Transportation Committee, chaired by Councilman Kelley. Principle issues to discuss, per the meeting's agenda, are funding and the late-1990s agreements between local communities and Norfolk Southern, resulting from the breakup of Conrail Corp.

 

Prendergast, of All Aboard Ohio, gave a summary of the last meeting, held July 19, 2006 at Westlake City Hall (copy of that meeting's summary is available upon request). Prendergast also provided an overview of possible transit options for the West Shore Corridor between Cuyahoga, Lorain and Erie counties which could include:

 

+ Locomotive-hauled commuter trains

- using second-hand train equipment, basic stations spaced several miles apart

- existing all-Norfolk Southern tracks, terminating in Cleveland at either the West Boulevard Rapid station or at North Coast Harbor/Amtrak station area (latter requires more track work)

- Nashville is using a similar model, which cost $40 million for their 33-mile line

 

+ Diesel/electric light-rail trains

- new train equipment, more elaborate stations spaced a mile or two apart

- mix of existing NS/GCRTA tracks, terminating in Cleveland at Tower City Center

- New Jersey RiverLINE, Oceanside-Escondido (Calif.) are using similar models, use station-area development to help finance rail construction

 

+ High-capacity buses

- bus-rapid transit/express buses

- utilize existing street or freeway rights of way

- Euclid Corridor is using a similar model

 

+ Transportation System Management – more efficient use of existing roads/highways

 

+ No build/do nothing – provides a baseline of information

 

 

Funding issues

 

David Vozzolo of HDR and former deputy associate administrator of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) gave some facts of life when it comes to transit funding. Federal funding for building transit, such as in the West Shore Corridor, would come from the FTA's New Starts program, funded at $1.5 billion. The amount keeps increasing each year, yet demand far exceeds that amount. Decision-making over the total funding amount is in the hands of Congress. Cost-sharing for transit projects was 80 percent federal, 20 percent local, but demand has forced down the federal share to about 50 percent and may go even lower.

 

Federal funding has gotten more complicated, as the FTA's level of scrutiny of proposed projects has increased. More project applicants are taking a step back to see whether federal funds are desirable.

 

Avoiding the planning process required to receive federal funds typically saves 1-2 years and 20-30 percent of project cost. People want to see projects happen in their commuting lifetime and elected officials want to see them happen in their political lifetime.

 

On the positive side when it comes to federal funding, the West Shore Corridor could build on the momentum of the Euclid Corridor project. A successful transit precedent raises confidence from the FTA, Congress and others that additional funding for more transit improvements will be well-spent.

 

Also, complications involving federal funding have led more communities to look at private financing for transit projects. Bonding retired by revenues from station-area real-estate developments or pure private financing from a long-term revenue stream can fund anywhere from 30-50 percent of a project's start-up costs. Large investment firms are looking at those options and may be the future of transit funding. The same thing is happening on the highway side as well. It is not too early to think about how the West Shore Corridor could be funded as those ideas will steer the project in the right direction, Vozzolo concluded.

 

Sislak, of All Aboard Ohio, gave examples of the complications involved in securing funding for transit projects. The Euclid Corridor project took 20 years to progress through the federally required planning process. In Nashville, planning for their first commuter rail line took 10 years, despite being exempt from the federal New Starts project rating and evaluation process and having a low start-up cost ($40 million). Nashville's new commuter rail service will begin operations in September 2006. By comparison, GCRTA's $77 million Waterfront Line used no federal funds and it was completed in just two years.

 

 

NS agreements

 

Sislak of All Aboard Ohio, read into the record an e-mailed statement from former Cleveland Planning Director Hunter Morrison who was unable to attend. A copy of the e-mail follows this summary. A brief of his letter notes that Cleveland's agreement with NS has these features:

 

+ Cleveland's main concern was freight trains blocking crossings which would cut communities in half (at the meeting, All Aboard Ohio provided two graphics which can also be e-mailed upon request; one is a bar-chart that shows a freight train blocks a crossing for an average of 220 seconds while a commuter train blocks a crossing for just 40 seconds; the other graphic shows a pie chart has to how many commuter trains per day [77] it takes to block a crossing for as many seconds as do 14 daily freight trains).

 

+ Commuter rail was never discussed in negotiations with Norfolk Southern. The agreements were silent on commuter or other passenger rail.

 

+ Local communities cannot limit freight train traffic, which is interstate commerce. The agreement only provides communities with compensation if train traffic exceeds certain levels.

 

+ NS provided $10 million to be deposited into a city fund for mitigating noise impacts on neighborhoods from increased freight train traffic.

 

+ If, within eight years, freight traffic exceeded 26 trains per day, NS would contribute $2.6 million for additional mitigation.

 

+ NS would pay to grade-separate West 117th Street if rail traffic increased above stated levels.

 

Ebert of Bay Village noted that Cleveland's agreement with NS is separate and different from that of the West Shore suburbs (Bay, Rocky River & Lakewood). Some issues in the West Shore agreement are germane to commuter rail and some are not. West Shore communities' were concerned with the number of trains and blocked crossing, and how it would impact response times of emergency vehicles, as well as noise, vibration and dust. Mitigation from NS for communities kicks in if traffic levels exceed 14 trains per day. How would commuter rail impact the agreement? Our concern is that commuter rail would cause NS to void the agreement.

 

Prendergast said that, after the July 19 stakeholders meeting in Westlake, NS Vice President Craig Lewis said to him, RTA's Enty and Ohio Rail Development Commission's Don Damron that NS would be willing to discuss amending the agreement to add commuter rail to it while keeping freight train traffic at existing levels. Since no NS representative was present at today's meeting, Prendergast suggested that law directors from the West Shore communities, Hunter Morrison and other affected parties meet with NS to discuss the matter.

 

Ebert agreed to head up a group of West Shore law directors to meet with NS, as he is the remaining West Shore law director who was present during the negotiations with NS in the late-1990s.

 

 

Other issues

 

Nicholson of the ORDC said NS has told his agency "don't count us out of running passenger trains." He also gave information about how communities can seek funding for implementing Quiet Zones so that locomotive horns can be safely silenced at road-rail crossings. The application process starts at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to access state/federal funds for adding four-quadrant gates, cameras (may depend on pending court cases), median barriers and grade separations (overpasses or underpasses). North Carolina is implementing what it calls a "sealed corridor" to seal off passenger and freight trains from other vehicular and pedestrian traffic as the trains pass through communities.

 

Calabrese of GCRTA asked what the demand was for regional rail. He noted an example of potential demand, which he witnessed that morning at the Westlake Park-and-Ride. A full Lorain County Transit bus arrived and its passengers transferred from there to an RTA express bus for downtown Cleveland. (NOTE: the travel time from Lorain to Cleveland by bus is 77 minutes, and yet the buses were full). He said consideration should be given to a direct Lorain-Cleveland commuter bus service to test the market.

 

Eckerle of Century 21/HomeStar said Transit Oriented Development should be a key issue for the West Shore Corridor. NS has a large amount of property in Avon, which could be developed with TOD and tax-increment financing from it used to help pay for commuter rail. The stakeholders should identify developable land.

 

Maier of NOACA said a key issue in the 2001 NEORail study was development around stations.

 

Prendergast said that, unlike development along I-90, transit-oriented development is more compact, and would lock up some aspects of the real estate market, including demand and financing, for smart-growth rather than for sprawl. Redevelopment of existing communities should be a priority.

 

Parry of Westlake suggested setting up subcommittee of the stakeholders group, have it be comprised of planners in each community, and identify sites for stations/station-area development. He agreed to head up the subcommittee and to contact persons to serve on it. Prendergast provided to Parry the stakeholders e-mail database.

 

Calabrese also noted the need for stakeholders to contact their state elected officials to seek a boost in state funding for transit. Ohio has cut transit funding by 60 percent since 2001 while neighboring states like Michigan and Pennsylvania have boosted transit funding.

 

Sislak agreed, noting that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provides more transit funding for Pittsburgh than the state of Ohio provides for the entire state.

 

 

Next meetings

 

Commissioner Blair arranged the next stakeholders meeting in conjunction with the Lorain County Community Alliance at 9 a.m. Friday Oct. 20 at the Spitzer Conference Center at Lorain County Community College, 1005 North Abbe Road.

 

Directions: Exit I-90 at Detroit Road, turn east on Detroit. The next light east of I-90 is Abbe Road. Turn right (south) on North Abbe. The driveway to the Spitzer Conference Center is on the south side of the LCCC campus. An agenda for the stakeholders meeting will be sent in the coming weeks. In the meantime, please mark your calendars.

 

Separately, a fundraiser to benefit All Aboard Ohio’s West Shore Corridor advocacy efforts, will be held starting at 4 p.m. Nov. 18 at the Black River Landing Transportation Center in downtown Lorain. All Aboard Ohio is a 501©(3) nonprofit educational organization, for which contributions may be tax-deductible. A social hour, dinner, dancing and auction of local railroad/transit memorabilia will be held.

 

The keynote speaker at the fundraiser will be Pete Aadland, Director, Communications and Business Development, North San Diego County Transit District. The NCTD operates Coaster commuter trains on a 42-mile route, Breeze express buses on 50 routes and is building a 22-mile diesel light-rail service called Sprinter that is scheduled to open in December 2007.

 

 

END

 

 

 

See Hunter Morrison e-mail on next two pages ....

 

 

 

From: Hunter Morrison

Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:47 PM

Subject: NS West Shore Settlement

 

Ken:

 

I regret not being able to be with you and the West Shore group tomorrow morning. As I indicated, ODOT is opening a set of enhanced bridges on the YSU campus. This project is one of the first products of our Centennial Master Plan, and, as one of the authors of the plan, I must be there for the ribbon cutting.

 

You have asked me for my recollections on the NS agreement with the City of Cleveland regarding train volumes on the Nickleplate line between Cleveland and Vermilion. I fortunately have a complete file of the Draft EIS, the agreement between the City and NS, and the press release and City Council briefing notes that accompanied the announcement of a settlement in June, 1998.

 

You will recall that the settlement is the result of the complaint made by Cleveland and the West Shore communities following the announcement that, as a consequence of the Conrail breakup, freight rail traffic on the Nickleplate line would double from 13 to 27+ trains a day.

 

The concern expressed by the impacted communities revolved around the safety consequences of such a dramatic increase in freight rail traffic. Specifically, the Nickleplate line along the lakeshore is an almost entirely at grade alignment from Edgewater west to Vermilion. The communities were concerned that long, often slow moving freight trains would effectively cut their communities in half, creating traffic congestion and--most importantly--blocking emergency vehicles trying to service all parts of their communities. Concern was also expressed regarding the dangers of carrying hazardous materials through densely-populated communities and the noise resulting both from the trains themselves and the requirement that trains use horns at grade crossings.

 

I should note that at no time during the development of the communities' case against NS was the issue of commuter rail raised. While NOACA's commuter rail study was in the works at the time, the issue of impacts of short (one or two car) passenger train sets on the West Shore was never in play. Cleveland and its sister cities to the west were concerned exclusively with the impacts of dramatically-increased freight rail on their residential neighborhoods.

 

I would further state that the negotiations between NS and Cleveland--which by prior agreement acted as agent for all of the impacted West Shore communities--was undertaken under the auspices of the Surface Transportation Board and in accordance with the provisions of the STB'S Draft Environmental Impact Statement of December 12, 1997. This DEIS governed the Federal Action entailed in the sale of the Federal asset, Conrail, to NS and CSX and did not address any local action (Federally supported or locally funded) involving the use of any of the impacted Conrail rights of way for future commuter rail or rapid transit service.

 

The DEIS and the NS/Cleveland agreement are silent on the issue of commuter and rapid rail, both because these uses were not germane to the Federal Action for which mitigation was sought and because the impacts of such a use were speculative. If we had been asked a the time to opine on the possible impacts, we would no doubt have seen them as minimal in light of the scale of impacts resulting from the doubling of heavy freight rail traffic on the Nickleplate.

 

After 6 months of intensive negotiations, NS voluntarily agreed to the following as pertains to the Nickleplate Line:

 

1) To construct at its own expense the Cloggsville Connection which would enable NS to accommodate additional freight traffic on Clark Branch trackage through Cleveland industrial districts and avoid increasing traffic on the Nickleplate. The cost of this improvement was $27 million.

 

2) To maintain freight traffic on the Nickleplate at 14 trains a day and absorb increased traffic of 14 trains a day on the Clark Branch.

 

3) To contribute $10 million, at the rate of $2 million/year to a Community Impact Fund, the proceeds of which would be available for noise mitigation and similar measures.

 

4) To contribute an additional $2.6 million to the Fund if, within 8 years of the completion of the Cloggsville Connection, freight traffic on the Nickleplate exceeded 26 trains/day.

 

4) To contribute 10% of the cost of grade separation at West 117th Street if traffic on the Nickleplate exceeded the projected train volume by 5 trains a day within 5 years of the completion of the Cloggsville Connection.

 

In summary, the agreement is silent on commuter rail and, in my opinion, is not binding on NS should it agree to allow RTA to use the trackage for that purpose. The intent of the agreement between Cleveland and NS was to govern the use of the Nickleplate as a freight rail corridor serving the national interests and not as a commuter rail corridor meeting the needs of a local market. I would anticipate that, if Federal funds are used for the proposed commuter rail service, appropriate evaluation of environmental impacts will be required. At that time, any impacts from the use of this corridor for local passenger service can be evaluated.

 

I hope that this clarifies the issue. As I indicated, I can make available source documents if you wish to delve more deeply into the record.

 

Hunter

so they mention that its the 8th most used transit corridor?

 

Anyone know the top ten?

Here are the top-ten RTA bus routes, ranked by total riderhsip in 2005:

 

326 Detroit - Superior        3,547,361

6 Euclid Ave                    3,071,548

1 St. Clair                        2,144,667

22 Lorain                        2,070,102

15 Union                          2,069,559

14 Kinsman                      1,932,469

35 Broadview - Quincy      1,125,976

20/A W.25-Broadvw/State  1,079,360

19 Broadway - Miles          1,059,658

25B/W Madison                  874,478

 

It's from a more detailed message on ridership rankings, which I posted at: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4504.msg109589#msg109589

This may be a stupid question, but if the rationale for this is that the neighborhood wants to invest in transit upgrades as a community development strategy, and if the 35 (on Broadview) and the 20A (on State) are some of the most frequently used corridors, and if the 51X (on Pearl) does not rank toward the top of the list, why is the neighborhood concentrating on rail/BRT on Pearl instead of on Broadview or State, both of which have similar retail districts that could benefit from increased use?

 

Granted, maybe Pearl ranks 11th on the list, but it just seems counterintuitive not to concentrate on the other two corridors, particularly since all three routes will get you in Parma's vicinity and all three would start with the exact same W. 25th St. route into Ohio City. If anything, I would think creating a faster transit line along Pearl would dilute ridership on the other two bus lines and thus potentially harm their respective retail strips.

Good questions. Probably why RTA is asking questions about whether to include the Broadview/State corridors in the planning that's to come.

thanks for the numbers KJP.

 

I always assumed that euclid was number one. Oh well.

 

guess we should put some LRT on detroit now.

I find it odd that the 326 has such a high passenger total. It doesn't come as frequently as the other buses.

^ But not that infrequently. Every 10 minutes during rush hours and 13 minutes during the day. Anectdotally, everyone time I've ridden the 326, it's been PACKED. The stop at Public Square typically has a line of 20-30 people whenever I've ridden it in the AM.

plus, the 326 is really the combination of 2 routes - the 3 and the 26.  this bus truly goes cross town and does not terminate in downtown as many of the other routes do.

 

i'm not sure why this is the case though - do people really ride this route all the way through?

A couple years after the Lakewood Community Circulator started running, the 326 west of the West Boulevard Rapid station saw its frequency of service reduced to every 25 minutes off-peak. During peak hours along all of its route, and all day (and night) east of West Boulevard, the 326 runs as frequently as it ever did (see it's timetable at www.riderta.com).

 

And, BTW, in 2004, the 51X that runs all the way down Pearl Road ranked 32nd out of 78 RTA bus routes with 336,716 rides.

 

The 79 and 45 operated down Ridge Road, as well as parts of Pearl and Fulton. In 2004, the 79 ranked 18th in the system, carrying 652,221 rides, while the 45 ranked 73rd with 66,792 rides.

Here's a neat photo spread of the new RailRunner commuter rail service that just started in Albuquerque, NM...

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/jetnash/NMRailRunnerSep06

A public meeting is being held on the future of the W. 25th Street Corridor:

 

Saturday, Oct. 14

10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Metrohealth Campus, in the 170 Rammelkamp conference room

Free parking and refreshments provided.

 

The meeting is being held by the Clark Metro Development Corporation, along with the following sponsors: Ohio & Erie Canalway, CharterOne, Dollar Bank and Ohio Canal Corridor.

 

For more information call 216-741-9500, x15

All,

 

I had the chance to speak with Kucinich today for about five minutes on the commuter rail proposal. I learned the unfortunate news that, for whatever reason, he has not been told a thing by his staff about the ongoing West Shore Corridor Regional Rail stakeholder meetings. The next one will be held at 9:30 a.m. Oct. 20 at the Lorain Community College's Spitzer Conference Center.

 

I encourage anyone reading this and supporting commuter rail service in the West Shore Corridor to please write, call, fax, e-mail or meet with Kucinich and/or his staffer Marty Gelfand to tell them you support the rail service. And, if you should hear of an event where Kucinich will attend, please go there and speak with him directly. Please ask him that you support federal funding for a transportation alternatives analysis of the West Shore Corridor which requires a significant public involvement process.

 

For Kucinich's contact information, go to http://kucinich.house.gov/Contact/ (send regular mail only to his district offices).

 

For more information about the regional rail service and to consider some talking points, click on this link http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/West%20Shore%20Corridor.pdf to view a powerpoint presentation (may take a few minutes to open for dial-up users).

 

Edited to include contact info and powerpoint link.

^^ Lord in heaven!

 

I guess I know what I'm writing this weekend!

Marty Gelfand is an obstruction.

I see that dude around all the time.  Has he been at these meetings?  Anyone from Kucinich's camp?

good dodge dennis.

 

why am i not surprised?

 

ok, i'll get out my snail mail pen, if it still works. sheesh.

 

I see that dude around all the time.  Has he been at these meetings?  Anyone from Kucinich's camp?

 

He was at the first meeting only. He arrived late enough to miss my presentation on why the Lorain-Cleveland element of NOACA's NEORail plan should be given a second look. He made his speech and then left. What a great listener.

 

ok, i'll get out my snail mail pen, if it still works. sheesh.

 

I would consider an e-mail or phone call, unless you want to write to his district office in Lakewood. Never send regular mail to Congressional offices in D.C. It has to be irradiated and will add a month or more to delivery time.

^well whaddaya know? the email option for dennis is pretty new. he didnt have it last i looked, which was under a year ago.

 

*whoops i think he did -- its just a bit convoluted. email lodged.

 

Have fun and support a good cause at the same time!

 

I invite all of you to join us starting at 6 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 18 for All Aboard Ohio's Fall Rail Cocktail & Buffet, to be held in downtown Lorain at the Black River Transportation Center. Cosponsoring this event are the Lorain Port Authority and the Stocker Foundation. Proceeds from this event will benefit the nonprofit All Aboard Ohio's West Shore Corridor activities.

 

Entertainment and program:

 

There will be hors d'oeuvres, wine, beer, a TV for diehard Buckeye/Wolverines fans, followed by a buffet dinner and an excellent speaker from San Diego California, where they have two types of commuter train operations under discussion for our West Shore Corridor.

 

Plus, there are some very interesting local items and activities up for auction at the end of our event, including a fire alarm system from Cleveland Union Terminal, books on the area's rail/transit history, poster-size maps of Cuyahoga County's public transportation system in the 1930s, plus a locomotive cab ride on the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, an overnight stay for two at the Oberlin Inn, and much, much more!

 

To register, sponsor, or for more information about All Aboard Ohio's Fall Rail Cocktail & Buffet...

 

Click on these links...

 

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/LorainFundraiserInvite.pdf

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/LorainFundraiserRegistration.pdf

 

 

Feel free to forward this e-mail to anyone else you feel might be interested.

_____________________

 

I hope to see you all this Friday at the next West Shore Corridor Regional Rail Stakeholders Meeting, held in conjunction with the Lorain County Community Alliance. For registration/directions information, see http://www.lccommunityalliance.com/meetings.shtml or call (440) 366-7535. There is no charge for this event.

 

 

Kenneth Prendergast

Director, Research & Communications

All Aboard Ohio!

12029 Clifton Blvd., Suite 505

Lakewood, OH 44107-2189

(216) 288-4883 cell

(216) 986-6064 office

[email protected]

www.allaboardohio.org

Did anybody go to this meeting yesterday?

Nope. Forgot about it.

 

There will be hors d'oeuvres, wine, beer, a TV for diehard Buckeye/Wolverines fans,

 

It sounds like a great event, but after the beer and wine, you might want to bring some riot equipment if the Buckeye/Wolverine fans are a little too diehard. :box:

We will have a security guard in the parking lot, and one of the people at the event will be a police sergeant from Lakewood. So we're covered inside and out!

Good questions. Probably why RTA is asking questions about whether to include the Broadview/State corridors in the planning that's to come.

 

huh? "rta" and "the planning that's to come" in the same sentence? what's this? a game of what two things don't go together?

 

heh. hope i'm wrong.

 

^only if they bring NOACA into the discussion

I just got back from the West Shore Corridor Regional Rail stakeholders meeting, which was held at Lorain County Community College. It was an excellent meeting. The law directors of  Bay

Village, Lakewood and Rocky River met to determine that their bosses (the mayors) want to pursue commuter rail and want their communities' joint agreement with Norfolk Southern (which limits freight train traffic) to be protected. They are now scheduling a meeting with NS to determine how that can be accomplished and if the agreement needs to be amended to include commuter rail while keeping freight rail traffic where it is.

 

We also had a good presentation from a Chicago-based real estate consultant, Stephen Friedman, who showed us how they are doing transit-oriented development and how it can be used as a financing mechanism for adding or expanding rail transit service. There was some good discussion, and for many folks, it was their first exposure to the idea of transit oriented development, let alone using it as a capital funding mechanism. And it's always good to learn from those in other cities how they do things.

 

We also had a representative of the United Transportation Union. If that name rings a bell, it's a major national union headquartered in downtown Lakewood, in the Lakewood Center North building. While the increased number of union jobs from the commuter service is important to them, an even bigger benefit to the UTU is that their headquarters would gain a station site. They believe it will be a huge benefit to have people come in from out of town, take the Red Line from the airport and transfer to the commuter rail service to downtown Lakewood and their back door. And it's also a matter of pride. The UTU can now say their headquarters is served by trains run by their people. And the UTU has a lot of political clout -- especially with some guy named Kucinich.

^ holy smokes, sounds like that went even better than i could have imagined. great work kjp. it sounds like support for neo commuter rail is picking up steam (sorry couldnt resist).

Woo woo! That's me make a train whistle sound ;)

Great stuff KJP - again, keep up the good work.

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.

 

 

 

Don't we also have to remember that the steps taken to create quiet zones also increase grade crossing safety which is probably even more important?

Absolutely! The addition of "four-quad" lights & gates and/or median barriers (both of which prevent vehicles from going around the gates) make crossings in quiet zones much safer.  In fact, some communities like Springfield and Fostoria are working with ODOT on total grade separations (overpasses) to eliminate the grade crossings altogether as part of their efforts to create quiet zones.

 

Good to see ya back on-line Gildone. 

wow...NJ Transit in Cleveland.  cool!!

I was reading the community newspaper in Hudson this weekend, and I saw the old train depot on 303 in the downtown area will be moved for around $200,000. It will preserved somewhere else. So, if commuter rail ever comes down to that area, they'll need a new loading area! I think it'd be really awesome to have it, though. It'd be fun taking the train home on a Friday night to visit the family =)

 

Sorry no link to the article; they don't post all of them online :P.

Well, I'm glad at least Dennis is tentatively on board.  As we’ve all known (in this small community at least), and others are now seeing, commuter rail of this type was never at odds w/ the NS (freight) train limitation agreement Dennis brokered a decade ago. This whole episode is a perfect example how a lack of communication and understanding can set such a worthy, urban-building/friendly project like this back years; nearly a decade, in this case.  I'm just glad sensible heads seem to be coming around.

I was reading the community newspaper in Hudson this weekend, and I saw the old train depot on 303 in the downtown area will be moved for around $200,000. It will preserved somewhere else. So, if commuter rail ever comes down to that area, they'll need a new loading area! I think it'd be really awesome to have it, though. It'd be fun taking the train home on a Friday night to visit the family =)

 

Sorry no link to the article; they don't post all of them online :P.

 

If I recall, NEOrail studies indicated that the ideal route, south to Akron-Canton, was via NS thru Hudson splitting near that depot.  However, as this is the main frieght route out of Cleveland to the east and south, it was ditched as too expensive as rail capacity -- to carry the frieght and commuter traffic, would have to be expanded.  Some are looking at the CVSR route, although it doesn't serve the suburban population centers like the original route did.

Wouldn't this encourage sprawl? The CVSR has its major station in Peninsula, and that area, while growing rapidly, is much less developed than the areas near Hudson, Stow, Aurora, etc. I would assume they' do it in Peninsula because there is tons of parking for the park and the train there.

 

 

My response is posted here:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=5254.msg134589#msg134589

The right-of-way through Hudson has room to add at least one additional track, if not two.  One additional track would be done anyway, I think, for the Ohio Hub.  KJP can correct me here if I'm wrong. 

 

One of the biggest hurdles to the CAC through Hudson are all the NIMBY's in Silver Lake.  They swarmed into the public meetings full of emotion and anger but no facts.  I heard of pro-CAC people in Silver Lake who were threatened by their anti-rail neighbors.  In addition, the mayor had a seat on the transportation committee who nixed the project from consideration.    Again, KJP can probably fill in the details here.

 

The NIMBY's had no problem with supporting a widening of I-77 which would negatively impact the communities in Cleveland that have already been divided by the freeway.  In other words, they don't care about negative impacts for anyone else as long as they didn't have more train whistles in their community.

I could comment about that route, but I'd rather remind folks that....

__________________

 

Have fun and support a good cause at the same time!

 

I invite all of you to join us starting at 6 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 18 for All Aboard Ohio's Fall Rail Cocktail & Buffet, to be held in downtown Lorain at the Black River Transportation Center. Cosponsoring this event are the Lorain Port Authority and the Stocker Foundation. Proceeds from this event will benefit the nonprofit All Aboard Ohio's West Shore Corridor activities.

 

Entertainment and program:

 

There will be hors d'oeuvres, wine, beer, a TV for diehard Buckeye/Wolverines fans, followed by a buffet dinner at 7:30 p.m. and an excellent speaker from San Diego California, where they have two types of commuter train operations under discussion for our West Shore Corridor.

 

Plus, there are some very interesting local items and activities up for auction at the end of our event, including a fire alarm system from Cleveland Union Terminal, books on the area's rail/transit history, poster-size maps of Cuyahoga County's public transportation system in the 1930s, plus a locomotive cab ride on the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, an overnight stay for two at the Oberlin Inn, and much, much more!

 

To register, sponsor, or for more information about All Aboard Ohio's Fall Rail Cocktail & Buffet...

 

Click on these links...

 

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/LorainFundraiserInvite.pdf

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/LorainFundraiserRegistration.pdf

 

 

Feel free to forward this to anyone else you feel might be interested.

The right-of-way through Hudson has room to add at least one additional track, if not two.  One additional track would be done anyway, I think, for the Ohio Hub.  KJP can correct me here if I'm wrong. 

 

One of the biggest hurdles to the CAC through Hudson are all the NIMBY's in Silver Lake.  They swarmed into the public meetings full of emotion and anger but no facts.  I heard of pro-CAC people in Silver Lake who were threatened by their anti-rail neighbors.  In addition, the mayor had a seat on the transportation committee who nixed the project from consideration.    Again, KJP can probably fill in the details here.

 

The NIMBY's had no problem with supporting a widening of I-77 which would negatively impact the communities in Cleveland that have already been divided by the freeway.  In other words, they don't care about negative impacts for anyone else as long as they didn't have more train whistles in their community.

The right-of-way through Hudson has room to add at least one additional track, if not two.  One additional track would be done anyway, I think, for the Ohio Hub.  KJP can correct me here if I'm wrong. 

 

One of the biggest hurdles to the CAC through Hudson are all the NIMBY's in Silver Lake.  They swarmed into the public meetings full of emotion and anger but no facts.  I heard of pro-CAC people in Silver Lake who were threatened by their anti-rail neighbors.  In addition, the mayor had a seat on the transportation committee who nixed the project from consideration.    Again, KJP can probably fill in the details here.

 

The NIMBY's had no problem with supporting a widening of I-77 which would negatively impact the communities in Cleveland that have already been divided by the freeway.  In other words, they don't care about negative impacts for anyone else as long as they didn't have more train whistles in their community.

 

Are you talking about the Silver Lake neighborhood of Cuyahoga Falls? What say do they have about a train route through Hudson? Was it going to continue south into Stow and Silver Lake? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that train route cut over from Portgage County, or does it also cut over to Stow/Silver Lake somewhere?

 

It'd be strange if the people in Hudson opposed more trains. That rail crossing downtown is BUMPIN'. My parents live a few blocks from downtown, and you can hear the trains at all hours of the night. Lucky for them, it doesn't cross through traffic, so they don't whistle like they do in Lakewood at every street.

 

This sort of fits into at least 2 other threads, lol.

 

 

Yes, comments about that commuter rail service should go in the "Cleveland transit what's next" thread where there was a discussion about Silver Lake's opposition starting with....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2768.msg27396#msg27396

 

Let's keep this thread to the West Shore regional rail project.

 

Are you talking about the Silver Lake neighborhood of Cuyahoga Falls? What say do they have about a train route through Hudson? Was it going to continue south into Stow and Silver Lake? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that train route cut over from Portgage County, or does it also cut over to Stow/Silver Lake somewhere?

 

It'd be strange if the people in Hudson opposed more trains. That rail crossing downtown is BUMPIN'. My parents live a few blocks from downtown, and you can hear the trains at all hours of the night. Lucky for them, it doesn't cross through traffic, so they don't whistle like they do in Lakewood at every street.

 

This sort of fits into at least 2 other threads, lol.

 

My last comment on the CAC... Sorry Ken.  I posted this before I read your comment above...

 

Silver Lake is a municipality, not a neighborhood of Cuyahoga Falls, although it borders Cuyahoga Falls. The route that was picked for the CAC uses what is known as the "Akron Secondary" line between NS's Cleveland-Pittsburgh mainline and the CSX mainline through Akron.  You can see it from Route 8 as you drive through Silver Lake.  It's right next to the highway.  The Akron-Canton portion would utilize the same line that the CVSR is using for their Canton runs. 

 

The line you are referring to is, I think, the Wheeling and Lake Erie line from Akron to Kent to Cleveland.  That line was ruled out because it is too long and circuitous. 

 

Hudson isn't a problem.  They waffled on supporting it initially, but eventually did, if I recall correctly.  The ONLY community that opposes it is Silver Lake. 

 

I wish ORDC would consider starting some of the Ohio Hub trains in Canton utilizing the C-A-C route.  It's not something that hasn't been done elsewhere.  Some of the Detroit-Chicago Amtrak trains begin and end in Pontiac, some of the San Diegans between LA and San Diego go as far north of LA as San Luis Obispo, so there is successful precedent.  It would be nice to start and end a couple of the CLE-DET and CLE-BUF trains in Canton, and eventually some of the CLE-CHI ones too.  It would add significant ridership to the system, I would suspect.

 

Maybe they could do this as a "Phase II" of the Hub plan.  It would be a lot harder for the NIMBY's in Silver Lake to fight the state on interstate passenger rail service-- it would fall under the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution. 

 

Latest e-mail.....

__________________

 

Dear West Shore Corridor Stakeholders,

 

I will have a report for you soon from the last meeting, an excellent event held Oct. 20 as part of the Lorain County Community Alliance Annual Summit. Keep an eye out for it in the coming days.

 

Please note the upcoming meetings on your schedule:

 

+ Nov. 15, 9 a.m., Community Station Subcommittee, hosted by Westlake Planning Director Bob Parry, Westlake City Hall (details and agenda at bottom). Community officials, planners, developers and others interested in station-area locations/development are strongly encouraged to attend.

 

+ Nov. 18, 6 p.m., Fall Rail Cocktail & Buffet, cosponsored by the Lorain Port Authority and the Stocker Foundation, at Downtown Lorain's Black River Transportation Center. Please download invitation and registration from these locations:

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/LorainFundraiserInvite.pdf

http://members.cox.net/kjprendergast/LorainFundraiserRegistration.pdf

The event may seem a bit pricey, but at the $100 support level, you are still getting a complimentary year's membership in All Aboard Ohio, some great food and drinks, a terrific speaker and your contribution may be tax-deductible -- just remember to ask us for a receipt. Even if you can't attend, please check to the box on the registration to support All Aboard Ohio's West Shore Corridor efforts. We cannot progress without your help.

 

+ Early- to mid-December for next full Stakeholders Meeting. Plans are tentative right now, but we are looking at having another stakeholders meeting in that time frame, given the amount of activity. Prior plans were to hold off on meeting again until January, but that would have let things get stale. I will inform you as soon as possible when and where the December meeting will be held. Stay tuned.

__________________________

 

Meeting of Community Station Subcommittee

 

For the West Shore Commuter Corridor

 

 

9:30-11 a.m., Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2006

Westlake City Hall

Council Chambers

27700 Hilliard Road, Westlake

Host: Robert Parry, Director

Department of Planning & Economic Development

 

Coffee and rolls 9:00am

 

Purpose:

Review and discussion of potential station locations and economic development potential in each community adjacent to the existing rail line. 

 

 

Agenda:

 

Welcome and introductions 9:30 am

 

Review of NOACA NEO Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Ph2 stations suggestions

 

Review and discussion by communities of alternatives and development potential

 

Adjourn

 

###

 

 

Kenneth Prendergast

Director, Research & Communications

All Aboard Ohio!

12029 Clifton Blvd., Suite 505

Lakewood, OH 44107-2189

(216) 288-4883 cell

(216) 986-6064 office

[email protected]

www.allaboardohio.org

You can now register online with a credit card for All Aboard Ohio's Fall Rail Cocktail & Buffet, to be held Nov. 18 in Lorain.

 

Check it out!

 

http://www.allaboardohio.com/cms/index.php