FYI - Avon is putting in a newer and more elaborate park and ride with bus shelters at Rt. 83 just south of the tracks.

Who needs RTA to run the trains anyway, get a different company!

Deech:  that was my thought.  Doesn't BNSF run some of the Metra trains in Chicago? 

I'm not 100% sure but I think so.

Yes, they do.  So does (I believe) Union Pacific on those lines that used to be operated by the Chicago & Northwestern.

Talking to RTA I think is a waste, I would talk to Norfolk Southern Corp to see if they would want to take control of the commuter rail line. Maybe even ask Richard Branson to buy the rights and make it part of his Virgin train lines. There are other options out there the city just needs to look and not waste there time with RTA, some cities even have their port authorities controlling rail lines! Cleveland, maybe that would be a good idea….? Sorry but I’m just not a fan of RTA, its seems like the RTA buses I have rode on have all been dirty and junkie. Maybe its because I’m use to the Lake Tran or Lake Tram buses or what ever they are called. They always seem to be in nicer shape and cleaner. They also seem to have a lot of clean airbuses, good thing! I do like the rapid transit but I really wanted to see the loop around the city built but I think that idea is dead.

Yeah... RTA seems to have a love affair with its nasty buses, despite rising gas prices, traffic delays, and pollution problems.  I loved when Calabrese suggested starting a direct Lorain-Cleveland commuter bus to test the market...  It's just so him!  :-D

Yes, they do.  So does (I believe) Union Pacific on those lines that used to be operated by the Chicago & Northwestern.

 

I checked with a friend of mine who recently worked for Metra and whose job it was to assign crews. The only Metra lines that use freight railroad crews are BNSF and UP -- that includes on-board crews as well as station agents. All the other lines (Wisconsin Central, former Milwaukee Road, NS, former Rock Island, IC Electric, etc) are all Metra crews.

From Bay Village and a couple months old, but worth posting to show what officials are saying in one of the West Shore suburbs in Cuyahoga County. These are minutes from a City Council committee of the whole meeting, on October 23, 2006...

_______________

 

http://www.cityofbayvillage.com/government/files/Committee%2010-23-061.doc

 

Update – Lorain County Community Alliance – Commuter Rail

 

Law Director Ebert reported on a meeting he attended on Friday, October 20, 2006 at Lorain County with many public officials from Lorain and Cuyahoga Counties in attendance.  Mr. Ebert stated that he did indicate that we are not opposing commuter rail as long as it doesn’t affect the agreement with Norfolk and Southern Corporation.  Mr. Ebert stated that it is his opinion that commuter rail will not happen in the near future, due to the amount of money required which must be privately raised.  Some of the communities discussed putting a fee on redevelopment by builders to help raise the funds.

 

The amount of $2 to $3 million is suggested from each community for seed money for commuter rail.  Mr. Ebert commented that the agreement with Norfolk and Southern Corporation has been well documented, is in place, with full awareness of everyone that it is in existence and must be worked around as talks go forward regarding commuter rail.  The agreement has been discussed at every meeting.

 

Quiet Zones

 

Mr. Ebert stated that he has asked Norfolk and Southern Corporation for a meeting concerning quiet zones.  We have applied for the money to the rail administration, even though we are low on the priority list. The least expensive way would be to install concrete barricades to the railroad tracks, which is not feasible in Bay Village.  The quad gates are feasible at an average of about $400,000 per crossing plus additional costs for updating the hardware.

 

Mr. Ebert stated that when he meets with Norfolk and Southern Corporation regarding the quiet zone he will also speak with them in theory regarding commuter rail to be sure that Norfolk and Southern would not look at the discussions as voiding their agreement or interceding their agreement whatsoever.  The agreement with the Westshore communities has no sunset date; the City of Cleveland’s agreement did.  Mayor Sutherland noted that it is hard to justify spending a few million dollars for five train whistles per day.

 

Mr. Ebert stated that future commuter rail meetings will be held on a regular basis.  The officials are also looking at creating stations in various communities, and while there is interest in other communities Mr. Ebert noted that Bay Village does not have the type of undeveloped land to create parking.  Mr. Cruse commented that something of this nature could tie in with the Park-n-Ride station on Columbia Road and a little station at Dover Junction could be interesting to bring foot traffic in to the center of town.

 

Mr. Ebert noted that the problem with federal funding for all the communities is the years required and seed money just to get the analysis done.  Another ten years would be required to get 50% funding for the project.  Mr. Young commented regarding the commuter train travel in Chicago to the downtown financial district.  There was a growing population, with a dramatically expanding community in order to create the system and northeast Ohio is not a dramatically expanding community.

 

Mr. Ebert noted that this is a well organized effort, with many people involved, and he will keep Council posted as future meetings are held.  Mr. Ebert stated that he attends to be sure our agreement with Norfolk and Southern Corporation stands in place and is not going to be jeopardized.

 

Mrs. Barnett asked if the railroad crossings are shared with the City of Westlake.  Mr. Ebert stated that they are within the jurisdiction of Bay Village, and were our major taxpayer before the second track was abandoned.

 

###

 

Knowing Cleveland it would take 10 or more years to get anything done!

That's the minimum of how long it has taken every place else to get commuter rail service up and running.

^^ ... and that's when there's cooperation... The key is commitment and getting everyone in one canoe pulling their oars in the same direction.  If everyone doesn't want it and there's dissention, then it will be dragged out indefinitely.  And with the Lorain commuter rail there's smoke on the horizon when Joe Calabrese, the chief of the largest transit agency (and at least part-host of the project) is going around badmouthing the project in the shadows.  Very vexing, indeed.

I'm drafting a letter supporting the project to George Dixon on the RTA board in advance of the 1/16/07 meeting.  I'm writing as a Cuyahoga County resident and RTA user.  I'll post it here once my final draft is complete.  I urge others to do the same:

 

CONTACT INFO (from RTA website):

George F. Dixon III

President, Board of Trustees

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

1240 W. Sixth St.

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

 

Direct phone calls and e-mail to:

Board Secretary

216-566-5187, [email protected]

 

 

Magyar:  that's what I'm doing for the revolution today.

Here's my letter:

 

George F. Dixon III

President, Board of Trustees

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

1240 W. Sixth St.

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

 

Dear Mr. Dixon:

 

As a Cuyahoga County resident and RTA user, I would like to express my support of the proposed Lorain-Cleveland commuter rail project.  Not only does the greater Cleveland area need better transportation choices, we also need to embrace new ideas to reverse the region’s economic difficulties. 

 

Greater Cleveland is suffering economically in large part because the population of the region (which has been stagnant since 1960) continues to spread outward in auto-dependent development patterns.  This has greatly increased the infrastructure costs of the entire region while destroying the tax bases in Cleveland and many first-ring suburbs. 

 

Successful metropolitan areas have successful urban cores.  We cannot build a successful urban core in Cleveland without offering quality transportation alternatives to driving.

 

The most successful cities in the 21st century will be ones that increase their liveability by offering transportation alternatives to the automobile and encouraging “new urbanist” style development. This is already evident in cities like Portland, Oregon.  Lorain-Cleveland commuter rail presents a great opportunity for the greater Cleveland area to begin embracing this trend.  It will make Cleveland more attractive to employers, and it will help attract and retain residents.

 

Some erroneously believe that the project will increase sprawl.  The sprawl is already there as nearly all of the land along the proposed corridor is developed.  This project will densify the development and create more attractive and liveable neighborhoods around the stations.

 

Another erroneous belief is that the project will compete for transit funding to the detriment of RTA when in fact, RTA’s money is not needed for this project as I understand it. 

 

We need to look at ways to broaden the constituency for public transportation so that we can in turn increase support for transit funding in general.  This project will help accomplish that.

 

Commuter rail in Cleveland is a sound idea that is long overdue and the most logical route to start with is Lorain-Cleveland.  I ask that you and your colleagues on the RTA board support the project at RTA’s January 16, 2007 board meeting.

 

 

Now, who else is going to send one?

Thanks, Gildone! Your letter hit all the right points.

 

If others would like to send communications, please get those letters and e-mails to RTA Board President George Dixon before Jan. 16 (this Tuesday).

 

CONTACT INFO:

 

George F. Dixon III

President, Board of Trustees

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

1240 W. Sixth St.

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

 

Direct phone calls and e-mail to:

Board Secretary

216-566-5187, [email protected]

Well said, gildone.

Is anyone else going to send an e-mail to George Dixon too? 

^I've made my voice loud & clear to RTA in favor of this project... and I'll leave it at that.

Now that I have some quiet time after a very long day, I wanted let you know that my presentation this morning before the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's board of trustees regarding the West Shore Corridor commuter rail project went off very well. RTA GM Joe Calabrese, who is very pro-bus, even suggested that RTA might want to contribute some resources (financial, engineering expertise, etc) to the effort. All board members were present and all stayed for the presentation at the end of a long series of committee meetings.

 

Most board members listened, but Westlake Mayor Dennis Clough (a board member) spoke in support of the project and Valerie McCall (also a board member) from Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's office asked what Cleveland officials were involved. I told her Scott Frantz and another planning commission staffer (whose name I can't remember) attended stakeholder meetings and that Planning Director Bob Brown was on my e-mail notification/news list.

 

Also getting up and speaking at the podium in favor of the project were Cleveland Councilman Kevin Kelley (chair of the Aviation & Transportation Committee), Lorain County Transit GM Tom Ferguson and newly elected state rep Jennifer Brady (West Shore suburbs).

 

I gave all the board members printed copies of my PowerPoint presentation, a backgrounder on alternatives analysis funding and a copy of the sample resolution which All Aboard Ohio is asking all on-line communities to pass.

 

Here is a PDF of the PowerPoint presentation I gave at the RTA board meeting (1.42mb download):

http://members.cox.net/kenatsun/West%20Shore%20Corridor-RTA.pdf

Great presentation.  Two questions, both from page 17:

 

1. What is SAFETEA-LU?

2. What is the Alternatives Analysis Program, 49 U.S.C. 5339?

 

 

 

SAFETEA-LU is the federal six-year surface transportation funding program, last reauthorized by Congress in 2005. SAFETEA-LU stands for Safe Accountable Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Why that convoluted name?

 

When Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) wanted a bill named for his wife, Lu, six staffers spent an afternoon formulating SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users).

 

To which U.S. Senator John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) said, "I think people are starting to spend more time coming up with a clever acronym than they are worrying about the substance and the impact of the legislation they write."

______________________-

 

As for the Alternatives Analysis program, here is a write-up I distributed at the RTA meeting (something that only policy wonks could love!):

 

 

 

West Shore Corridor

Alternatives Analysis – Overview

 

The following is background information pertinent to Congressional intent on earmarks and appropriations, the status of the Lorain – Cleveland Commuter rail project as it is currently understood, and potential funding sources for an Alternatives Analysis.

 

Congressional Intent

 

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the incoming 110th Congress will convene on January 4 and is expected to begin work immediately, staying in session throughout January and February. While the current continuing resolution (CR) for FY 2007 runs through February 15, the incoming leadership of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees this week announced their intention to fund programs now under the CR by "passing a year-long joint resolution". They also announced that there will be "no Congressional earmarks in the joint funding resolution" that they will pass. They indicated that they would place a moratorium on all earmarks until a reformed process is put in place.  While this affects FY2007 appropriations, we need to look at FY2008 Appropriations, which are suggested in the President’s Budget Report issued in February 2007.

 

 

Lorain – Cleveland Commuter Rail

 

The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Cleveland area examined the feasibility of initiating commuter rail service in a proposed corridor between Cleveland and Lorain County in northeast Ohio. Currently, no commuter rail service operates in the corridor. The proposed corridor is one of seven found to be potentially feasible for commuter rail under Phase I of the Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (NEORail) conducted by NOACA. Phase II of the NEORail study was completed several years ago, although no published report is available.  Phase II identified four corridors that would constitute the preferred commuter rail system for northeast Ohio. These four corridors were then prioritized for possible phased-in implementation in a two-tiered process.  The Lorain-Cleveland route was determined to be one of the feasible routes.

 

West Shore communities have expressed continuing interest in the study of commuter rail and other public transportation improvements in this corridor and are currently engaged in a regional decision-making process necessary to program and fund this proposed project.  An Alternatives Analysis is proposed as the follow-up to the system plan developed by NOACA under the NEOrail Study program.  SAFETEA-LU authorizes the project as “Lorain – Cleveland Commuter Rail.”  There is no appropriation for the authorized project.

 

 

Funding Sources

 

Federal financial support for alternatives analysis may be derived from the new discretionary Alternative Analysis Program (49 U.S.C. 5339).  Other sources include Section 5303 Metropolitan Planning Program (NOACA study funds) and planning programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  FTA Urbanized Area Formula funds (Section 5307) and flexible funds under the FHWA’s Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program also may be used to support certain planning activities.  This would require concurrence and approvals by Cleveland RTA and NOACA.  RTA is the designated recipient of formula transit funds to the region.  I have concentrated our attention on the Section 5339 Alternatives Analysis Program.

 

Alternative Analysis Program (49 U.S.C. 5339)

Alternative Analysis projects are studies conducted as part of the transportation planning process required under sections 5303 and 5304. Beginning in FY2006, funding is provided under section 5339 instead of within the eight percent allowed for projects prior to Final Design and Construction under TEA-21.

 

1. Total Allocation - SAFETEA-LU authorizes the following amounts for the Alternative Analysis program for fiscal years 2006-2009.  In FY 2006 and FY 2007 there are 18 projects authorized for a total of $18,900,000 each year, leaving $6,100,000, which could be allocated to other projects during those years. There are no projects authorized in FY 2008 or FY 2009. It is important to note that these allocations are subject to be changed by subsequent appropriations acts and additional projects may be earmarked during the appropriations process.

 

2. Program Requirements - The transportation planning process of Alternative Analysis includes (a) An assessment of a wide range of public transportation alternatives, which will address transportation problems within a corridor or subarea; (b) ample information to enable the Secretary to make the findings of project justification and local financial commitment; © the selection of a locally preferred alternative; and (d) the adoption of the locally preferred alternative, which will be part of the long-range transportation plan. The federal government's share of the total cost of a project under this section is 80 percent. The funds will be awarded as separate section 5339 grants. The grant requirements under this program will be comparable to those for section 5309 grants.

 

What this means for the West Shore Corridor project is that an appropriation under the Section 5339 program or other suitable program should be sought depending on what the best approach to Congressional earmarks and funding sources would be. 

 

###

Good job, KJP, and congrats on the continued progress forward.

 

What is Ivanhoe?

 

 

Ivanhoe?

Either a literary classic .... or a Russian hooker.

Nice. I was wondering if he was referring to the street Ivanhoe in Collinwood?

It was on one of your slides in the presentation.

Oh! I even did a word search of the presentation, and nothing came up. Then I remembered his name was on the oil discoveries/production slide. Here is a write up about Buz Ivanhoe:

 

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ivanhoe/

 

And, lo and behold, you will also see the same oil discoveries/production chart on that page.

KJP:  At the 1/16 meeting,  was there any sort of vote by the RTA board as to whether or not to support the project? 

My presentation was strictly informational. But I did give the board a sample resolution for their future consideration.

RTA = Thumbs down!

Created a little ad that I don't know what to do with yet....

 

If you live, work, visit or have family in Rocky River, please write to Mayor Pam Bobst or a councilperson of your choice to encourage them to act NOW on passing a resolution in support of commuter rail serving their town. Please let them know that there is room in downtown Rocky River for compact, pedestrian-friendly development resulting from commuter rail. Commuter rail will also raise property values in Rocky River. As for urban sprawl into Lorain County, nothing can stop it except for tearing out I-90. I post these comments because of the following meeting minutes (contact info follows)....

____________

 

CITY OF ROCKY RIVER

 

JANUARY 16, 2007

 

The Committee-of-the-Whole was called to order by Mr. Hagan, President of Council, at 8:00 p.m.

 

Council Members Present: Mr. Gollinger, Mr. Moran, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Hurtuk, Mrs. Bartolozzi, Mr. Long, Mr. Hagan

 

Administration: Mayor Bobst, Mr. Linden, Mr. Koran

 

______________________

 

Commuter Rail Resolution:

 

Mr. Bemer explained that a sample resolution in support of federal funding for an analysis of the viability of a commuter rail system was distributed to Council members and is also being presented to all communities of the West Shore Stakeholders by All Aboard Ohio. The proposed rail system would extend from Lorain to downtown Cleveland. The resolution supports search and research as explained in Sections 1 and 2, providing for no agreements at this time or any financial expenditures. Passage of this resolution would indicate interest in the investigatory process and whether or not it would benefit the communities served, the environmental impact and the cost. This was proposed a month ago, and there have been no meetings since, but one is expected soon.

 

All Aboard Ohio, headed by Ken Prendergast, is rallying the West Shore Stakeholders. A primary interest is in developing areas along the rail line in Lorain County, particularly residential and retail. About 15,000 residences would be within a short distance of any depot, as well as other commercial and retail development, e.g. theaters. This would also require parking. All this development would create a market for new homes to support the commuter rail project.

 

Mr. Bemer has attended two stakeholder meetings and was asked to present this resolution to Council to see if there is interest in pursuing the project because there will be some significant costs at some point. Federal and state funding is yet to be determined. Asked about funding, Mr. Bemer estimated that with private funding, the project could be in operation in two or three years. With federal funding, it could take 15 years. However, the availability of federal funding is doubtful because the project is not safety oriented. Private funding is being encouraged, e.g. charging a fee for development of property or areas surrounding a depot. Of particular interest to Rocky River is the anticipated Quiet Zone. Mr. Bemer estimates that this project would require 10 trains per day, two round trip trains in the morning and evening and one at noon.

 

Mr. Gollinger pointed out that there would be significant hidden costs. It could make Lorain County more attractive to our residents with new housing and easy transportation to downtown. Rocky River has no room for the development and parking which would need to accompany a depot, so it seems, he said, there would be no significant benefit to our community in promoting this project. Additionally, the issue of the Quiet Zone needs to be addressed. He has not had much feedback from residents about the commuter rail line, but what he has had has been negative.

 

Mr. Bemer indicated that at one meeting, a comment was made anticipating an initial target of $3 million in development costs, so the attitude of the communities needs to be gauged.

 

Mr. Hagan commented that this resolution supports a search for federal funding and does not obligate the community for anything else.

 

Mayor Bobst noted that any funding would be only for investigation, research to tell communities of gains to be made by following through with the project.

 

Mr. Hagan asked about the role of Norfolk Southern. Mr. Bemer said that there has been no formal statement, but that he felt the railroad would be interested in being the landlord of the system.

 

Mrs. Bartolozzi agreed with Mr. Gollinger and suggested that Council wait to see what action is taken by other communities. A consensus was reached to wait, and Mr. Bemer will report following the next meeting on what other communities have done.

 

###

 

To contact Mayor Pam Bobst:

[email protected]

440-331-0600

 

To contact members of council (esp. Bartolozzi and Gollinger):

 

http://www.rrcity.com/councilwebpage.html

 

Mailing address:

21012 Hilliard Boulevard

Rocky River, Ohio 44116

Geez, I don't think I know anyone who lives in RR.  I'll ask around, though.  Good work KJP!

You would think that Rocky River would be on board with this proposal - they have a rail line right next to their downtown (Old Detroit Rd, Beachcliff) shopping districts - I think it would be a great addition to have a rail station next to that kind of retail development and would differentiate them from Westgate or Crocker Park.  Not to mention the convenience for those who live nearby, such as in that big pink condominium building, and commute downtown.  There has to be some room north of the tracks for a parking garage for park-n-riders, isn't there?

Good comments and you would think they would be on board. There's no room north of the tracks (U.S. 6 gobbled up that area), but there are at least a couple of locations immediately south of the tracks for smaller parking decks -- especially if built vertically with housing above them.

West Shore Corridor Stakeholders meeting

 

Friday, Feb. 23, 2007 -- 1:00-2:30 p.m.

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency

Board Meeting Room

1299 Superior Ave.

Downtown Cleveland

 

Preliminary Agenda

 

 

Scheduled to convene this meeting is Cleveland Planning Commission Director Robert Brown, also NOACA's board president

 

Alternatives Analysis:

 

+ Federal appropriation application update

+ State funding request(s)

+ Local initiatives

        > resolutions of support for analysis

        > unsolicited financial pledges

        > project sponsor

 

Organizational Issues:

 

+ Community Station Area Development subcommittee - next steps?

+ Legal subcommittee - update on NS communications

+ Creation of "Project Funding Subcommittee" to develop strategies

 

Other Issues and Next Steps

 

+ Demonstration project discussion

+ Set Project Funding Subcommittee strategic planning meeting

+ Set coordination meeting with other emerging transit projects in the region

 

 

NOTE: Please contact Ken Prendergast to suggest any revisions to this tentative agenda, at:

 

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]

P R E S S  R E L E A S E

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                    CONTACT:    Ken Prendergast

Feb. 7, 2007                                                                (216) 288-4883 or (216) 986-6064

 

Cleveland City Council passes West Shore Corridor resolution

 

CLEVELAND -- At its regular meeting Monday, City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Ohio Congressional Delegation to provide $1.5 million in each of the next two federal fiscal years for an alternatives analysis of potential transportation improvements in the West Shore Corridor.

 

If the funding is provided, a variety of transportation improvements between downtown Cleveland, the West Shore suburbs, downtown Lorain and possibly beyond will be weighed to determine their costs and benefits. Potential impacts on economic development, access to jobs, plus natural and built environments will be measured. A public involvement process will be an essential part of the analysis.

 

Transportation improvements could include adding commuter rail, expanding express bus service, restructuring existing bus routes, providing more hiking/biking paths and enhancing the existing roadway system. Sub-elements could feature transit-oriented development around stations, better transit waiting environments, adding quiet zones to the existing Norfolk Southern rail line and more.

 

Once the options for improving transportation in the West Shore Corridor are analyzed, a preferred alternative may be selected by the region's stakeholders and funding may be sought to implement it.

 

All Aboard Ohio, a statewide nonprofit association, thanked City Council for passing the resolution. Special recognition goes to Ward 15 Councilman Kevin Kelley, chair of the Aviation & Transportation Committee, for introducing the resolution. Additional recognition goes to council members who joined Councilman Kelley in sponsoring the resolution -- Anthony Brancatelli, Patricia Britt, Joe Cimperman, Roosevelt Coats, Kevin Conwell, Brian Cummins, Martin Sweeney and Matthew Zone.

 

"I gratefully appreciate council's passage of this important resolution," said Ken Prendergast, All Aboard Ohio's director of research and communications. "It sends a clear message to Congress that maintaining access to jobs in the West Shore Corridor is of paramount concern to City Council. Whatever transportation improvements result from this analysis should seek to enhance Downtown Cleveland's prominence as the region's main employment center."

 

"The region needs to be vibrant and connected," said Councilman Kelley, who favors commuter rail. "These goals would be served by regional commuter rail. While I would like everyone in the region to live in the city of Cleveland, it's very important that people at least work in the city of Cleveland."

 

"What the resolution is calling for is a better stewardship of precious resources," added Councilman Cimperman, whose ward includes downtown Cleveland. He also chairs council's Planning Committee. "Whether it's laying less asphalt or connecting more people to our venues, to me this is about the future."

 

"We need to be creating alternative methods of transportation that won't be increasing our carbon emissions," said Councilman Zone, chair of council's Public Utilities Committee. "Adding commuter rail is a win-win situation. It will help Cleveland be a more desirable place to live."

 

The use of federal planning funds for the West Shore Corridor was authorized by the most recent federal surface transportation law, passed in 2005. Then-Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-Lorain) worked to ensure the authorization was included in the surface transportation law.

 

END

That's fabulous!  I loved your quote, KJP, and am pleased to see that our council members specifically support commuter rail!

A ride on the Music City Star in Nashville, set to music (this is probably a close comparison to the initial service on the West Shore Corridor)....

 

 

And one without music....

 

Quiet zones, what a waste of money! People shouldn't have bought a house so close to the tracks in the first place!

So should we demolish the thousands of homes near the tracks? Or should we make a modest investment in enhancing their marketability and value? I think the latter.

 

As opposed to freight trains, commuter trains don't block road crossings and emergency vehicle access. But the addition of commuter trains will increase the noise of locomotive horns the same as any increase in freight train traffic would. And the noise is constant as a train approaches -- there are 27 road crossings in just five miles in Lakewood, plus another five crossings in the western fringe of Cleveland.

 

Rather than see a decrease in property values from the added noise, Quiet Zones will allow an increase in the re-sale value of properties within 1,000 feet of the tracks by 2-8 percent. Roughly 3,000 properties would be positively affected in Lakewood alone, and increase the value of the community's taxbase. That's a crucial benefit for a city that cannot easily add new construction without demolishing something first.

 

Consider this:  Creating a Quiet Zone through Lakewood would have a comparable impact on the community's taxbase as adding a large office building -- but without demolishing anything in this densely developed city.

 

The Quiet Zones are being sought less to appease existing residents. They are being sought to boost the marketability of Lakewood to future residents, and especially for the homes near the tracks.

Quiet zones, what a waste of money! People shouldn't have bought a house so close to the tracks in the first place!

 

I bet you feel the same about those folks who live close to the airprot.

Quiet zones, what a waste of money! People shouldn't have bought a house so close to the tracks in the first place!

 

There's a large safety component to quiet zones.  The quiet is actually a side-benefit, but "quiet" is what people react to. 

 

 

 

I see what you mean by how the quiet Zones will allow an increase in the resale value of properties, that is a good idea. I never looked at it that way. Thanks. But I still don't feel bad for the people who complain about noise, when they bought a house with train tracks in the backyard! I'm reading good things about this project so I really hope that it keeps moving in the right direction!

But I still don't feel bad for the people who complain about noise, when they bought a house with train tracks in the backyard! I'm reading good things about this project so I really hope that it keeps moving in the right direction!

 

I don't either.  You have to live with your choices.  I also hope this project keeps moving forward too.

 

 

Update: the RTA board on Tuesday is expected to take up the same West Shore Corridor resolution which Cleveland City Council passed last week.

 

By the way, I just realized I never posted a map here of the rail corridor and POTENTIAL commuter rail stops....

 

Nice

The Cleveland City Council Resolution is very nice.  I'm just wondering, since it appears the reso supports a full study of the line, is this beyond the scope of the original "demonstration" project (as in experiment) using cheaper, 2nd hand equipment being sold at (or near) scrap rates by the likes of Chicago's Metra, Amtrak (engines) and the like?  Can't the latter be more quickly implemented and be less prone to the naysayers -- like this new Rocky River councilman who seems like he's carrying the anti-rail torch for the deposed mayor -- than the more drawn out, Federal process?... just curious.

The demo and alternatives analysis can and should be carried out simultaneously. The results from the demo would be incorporated into the alternatives analysis. Joe C wanted the demo done with buses. My response is that since some people will ride trains but won't ride buses, this won't tell us as much. My suggestion then is to have a demo offering buses and trains, and see where the ridership goes. The rail demo isn't just to look at the amount of ridership, but who's riding, where are they riding, why are they riding, etc. Also, the analysis needs to look at community impacts to see what long-term investments might need to be made for noise abatement, station locations, bus feeders, amenities, etc.

 

By the way, Westlake and Lakewood city councils also passed resolutions of support and are now on record as supporting this project.

^OK, thanks for the info.