We did Steam in the Valley yesterday. A lot of fun. 
 

See below...  So my comment is this:  CVSR tickets might get taxed.   Peninsula has installed parking meters for spots on city streets, but all of the rest of the motorists who use the NPS-owned lots in Peninsula and Boston get to park for free.  Doesn't seem quite right. 

 

"Also on the table is an entertainment tax for local shows and possibly for people riding the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad,"

 

Peninsula and Cuyahoga Valley National Park settle their differences after decades of tension

https://www.ideastream.org/news/peninsula-and-cuyahoga-valley-national-park-settle-their-differences-after-decades-of-tension

Edited July 6, 20222 yr by gildone

Found this today in CVNP’s proposed Community Access Plan. I’m happy to see they’re on board.

 

I like the next one, too. And maybe the two items can be combined?

40 minutes ago, KJP said:

I like the next one, too. And maybe the two items can be combined?

Sounds like they’re on your wave length.
 

Lots of good of good stuff in here, including promoting park & ride at Rockside and Akron stations, improved biking access and circulation, and the below 👇🏼 

All good but for me the best tidbit is the plan to take the railway up to Cleveland. Connecting downtown to the National Park opens up a whole lot of potential tourism. That's potential spending that we're not getting now. Hurry up already.

I was talking with a railyard tech from Fitzwater and apparently whomever owns the ROW between Canal Rd. and Terminal Tower (CT&V? I'm not up to date in that department, I'm rarely working with rail companies) is happy to accommodate CVSR... at $75 per ft. Had that been discussed previously? Talk about old fashioned railroad robbery! Nothing new to report, just thought someone here might get a kick out of that. 

Bedrock owns the riverfront property below Tower City.  In fact they've been working on stabilizing the hillside in recent days.

Bedrock doesn't own the old B&O line all the way out Rockside though, but hopefully they can serve as an ambassador towards extending the system to their site. 

1 hour ago, ELaunder said:

Bedrock doesn't own the old B&O line all the way out Rockside though, but hopefully they can serve as an ambassador towards extending the system to their site. 

 

Ah, you're talking about south of downtown. CSX owns it but the city can reposses the portion north of I-490 if CSX ever stops using it. And they've stopped using that portion. 

7 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Ah, you're talking about south of downtown. CSX owns it but the city can reposses the portion north of I-490 if CSX ever stops using it. And they've stopped using that portion. 

Am I understanding your posts correctly, that Bedrock is trying to get CVSR extension to Tower City. 

I sent this to CVSR. Maybe they'll want these historic former Metro North commuter rail cars....

 

 

@Oldmanladyluckbeat me posting this by a minute, but I’m cross posting here since I think CVSR extension is much more likely than proper regional rail from CLE to Akron to Canton. But we can certainly dream.

 

From NOACA's "Major Projects" presentation at the Board of Directors last week:

 

 

I'd never seen this extension mentioned with respect to NOACA before.  This, along with Ronayne's tweet and NPS's community access plan, seems like some legitimate momentum.  All of these entities have funds they could kick in (I'd imagine CVSR itself probably has the least, which is why this hasn't happened yet) and hopefully a desire to make it work.

I saw the movie a couple weeks ago and didn't realize the train scenes were filmed right here in the valley!  

 

 

Tom Hanks movie 'A Man Called Otto' features Cuyahoga Valley National Park

 

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/entertainment/movies/2023/01/20/tom-hanks-a-man-called-otto-features-cuyahoga-valley-national-park/69825068007/

36 minutes ago, acd said:

From NOACA's "Major Projects" presentation at the Board of Directors last week:

 

 

I'd never seen this extension mentioned with respect to NOACA before.  This, along with Ronayne's tweet and NPS's community access plan, seems like some legitimate momentum.  All of these entities have funds they could kick in (I'd imagine CVSR itself probably has the least, which is why this hasn't happened yet) and hopefully a desire to make it work.

 

I wonder if this means the preferred trackage has been selected.

15 minutes ago, Dougal said:

 

I wonder if this means the preferred trackage has been selected.

 

I was wondering the same thing.  Stating a specific figure like they did would lead me to guess yes.

NOACA serious about connecting downtown Cleveland with Cuyahoga Valley National Park via Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad

 

Quote

At a meeting Thursday afternoon, representatives of NOACA and partnering agencies reached an informal agreement on their roles and responsibilities in pushing the project forward this year, NOACA Executive Director Grace Gallucci told cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/01/noaca-serious-about-connecting-downtown-cleveland-with-cuyahoga-valley-national-park-via-cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad.html

20 minutes ago, freefourur said:

NOACA serious about connecting downtown Cleveland with Cuyahoga Valley National Park via Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad

 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/01/noaca-serious-about-connecting-downtown-cleveland-with-cuyahoga-valley-national-park-via-cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad.html

 

I really love the idea of being able to go by train from downtown to basically anywhere in the national park, and I think it'll be a unique amenity in attracting residents and increasing tourism.

 

At the same time, it seems like it would be a wasted opportunity if there wasn't some sort of commuter rail component to this.  Even a train just going back and forth between Tower City and Independence during normal M-F commute times seems like it could be hugely popular for commuters and be a sort of proof of concept for expanded rail in the region.

9 minutes ago, acd said:

 

I really love the idea of being able to go by train from downtown to basically anywhere in the national park, and I think it'll be a unique amenity in attracting residents and increasing tourism.

 

At the same time, it seems like it would be a wasted opportunity if there wasn't some sort of commuter rail component to this.  Even a train just going back and forth between Tower City and Independence during normal M-F commute times seems like it could be hugely popular for commuters and be a sort of proof of concept for expanded rail in the region.

 

I was thinking along the same lines. Would it be possible to add bypasses along the route to have a direct commuter line between Cleveland and Akron?

 

A stop in Independence might make sense, though parking at the current station would have to be greatly expanded. Access to the current station is not very direct either, which isn't a big deal for a scenic rail but wouldn't be super convenient for a commuter rail. 

I think it's a terrible idea unless a significant amount of housing and mixed-use were developed around train stops at Rockside Road, Brecksville Road, Bradley Road, Steelyard Commons (develop north end with housing), and maybe Flats South before arriving a station next to the river below Tower City. This isn't a fast line -- even with track upgrades. It's got lots of curves, a grade-crossing with two busy freight lines with slow freights coming in/out of Flats rail yards. Then there's the lift bridge over the Cuyahoga River, below I-490.

 

Park-n-ride transit doesn't produce ridership for a downtown that's as over-parked as ours. And the station would be at the far-west end of downtown. Clevelanders don't walk. They aren't going to walk more than 10 minutes from the train to their job, not when most downtown workers have parking at their workplace -- and often it's free parking. Ridership is down 84 percent on the Rapid at Tower City Center since 2019. There is hope it can come back somewhat, especially if we keep developing housing and transit villages around Rapid stations. But unless we attempt the same thing -- combining transit and real estate to make CVSR a lifestyle that combines transit, residential, walkable town centers with easy access to active sports and heritage tourism in the valley -- then we're trying to put a square peg (the train) into a round hole (our car-dependent lifestyle).

On 1/23/2023 at 2:07 PM, acd said:

 

I was wondering the same thing.  Stating a specific figure like they did would lead me to guess yes.

 

The cleveland.com article seems to indicate a CUT terminus without actually saying so.  

 

Off topic: my great aunt lived in Akron and I bet she would have cheerfully used the CVSRR as a Cleveland-Akron commuter train if it had operated forty years ago. She preferred comfort over speed.

40 minutes ago, acd said:

 

I really love the idea of being able to go by train from downtown to basically anywhere in the national park, and I think it'll be a unique amenity in attracting residents and increasing tourism.

 

At the same time, it seems like it would be a wasted opportunity if there wasn't some sort of commuter rail component to this.  Even a train just going back and forth between Tower City and Independence during normal M-F commute times seems like it could be hugely popular for commuters and be a sort of proof of concept for expanded rail in the region.

The scenic railroad only has one set of tracks. Regardless, I think it would be a missed opportunity to not run dual tracks to independence. If only to keep the commuter rail option open it makes sense, but it may also afford CVNP a bit more flexibility in running trains. 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

I think it's a terrible idea unless a significant amount of housing and mixed-use were developed around train stops at Rockside Road, Brecksville Road, Bradley Road, Steelyard Commons (develop north end with housing), and maybe Flats South before arriving a station next to the river below Tower City. This isn't a fast line -- even with track upgrades. It's got lots of curves, a grade-crossing with two busy freight lines with slow freights coming in/out of Flats rail yards. Then there's the lift bridge over the Cuyahoga River, below I-490.

 

Park-n-ride transit doesn't produce ridership for a downtown that's as over-parked as ours. And the station would be at the far-west end of downtown. Clevelanders don't walk. They aren't going to walk more than 10 minutes from the train to their job, not when most downtown workers have parking at their parking -- often it's free parking. Ridership is down 84 percent on the Rapid at Tower City Center since 2019. There is hope it can come back somewhat, especially if we keep developing housing and transit villages around Rapid stations. But unless we attempt the same thing -- combining transit and real estate to make CVSR a lifestyle that combines transit, residential, walkable town centers with easy access to active sports and heritage tourism in the valley -- then we're trying to put a square peg (the train) into a round hole (our car-dependent lifestyle).

 

These are all great points.  It would certainly do more harm than good towards any future commuter rail movement if ridership is low, and it really doesn't travel through high population areas.  The focus should definitely be TOD around existing rapid stations vs. hypothetical new CVSR stations.

 

Perhaps it would be best to stick to just a CVSR extension and explore commuter rail if the demand/housing materializes sometime in the future.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

I think [commuter rail is] a terrible idea unless a significant amount of housing and mixed-use were developed around train stops at Rockside Road, Brecksville Road, Bradley Road, Steelyard Commons (develop north end with housing), and maybe Flats South before arriving a station next to the river below Tower City. This isn't a fast line -- even with track upgrades. . . unless we attempt the same thing -- combining transit and real estate to make CVSR a lifestyle that combines transit, residential, walkable town centers with easy access to active sports and heritage tourism in the valley -- then we're trying to put a square peg (the train) into a round hole (our car-dependent lifestyle).

Agree, 100%.  AND

 

1 hour ago, acd said:

The focus should definitely be TOD around existing rapid stations vs. hypothetical new CVSR stations.

 

Perhaps it would be best to stick to just a CVSR extension and explore commuter rail if the demand/housing materializes sometime in the future.

Amen.  Let's work on identifying the best places for TOD, build TOD, and keep the option of a future double-track in mind. 

 

I would love to see rail connections from Lorain-Cleveland-CLE (Hopkins)-Akron-CAK-Canton -- someday.

This was posted on Facebook 

 

We're so excited!!! After 4 months of abbreviated operations due to land erosion near the tracks, CVSR IS BACK!!!

The Cleveland Dinner & Event Train returns this Friday night, February 3. . .and just in time for Valentine's Day and all of you beer lovers, is Ales on Rails February 10. The Grape Escape wine tasting excursion on February 11 is featuring romantic reds and rosés to put you in the mood for love 💋💕. Book your seats TODAY https://tinyurl.com/3bf3vfmp.

Oh. . .lets not forget the Scenic excursions through the Cuyahoga Valley National Park They start up again on on March 4th!!!

Boo

 

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad temporarily suspends all operations

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/local/2023/03/03/cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad-temporarily-suspends-all-operations-erosion-river/69968763007/

Yay

 

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad to return operations between Peninsula and Akron sooner than anticipated

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cuyahoga-county/cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad-continues-operation-peninsula-and-akron/95-ae982ae5-92a1-47b3-88aa-e406fe07fe43

Wish Representative Sykes would have brought a few of her colleagues along for the ride to show off CVSR & CVNP to a larger audience, but still nice to get some federal attention. 

 

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad provides congresswoman a chance to learn about rail infrastructure

 

By Zaria Johnson

 

"Congresswoman Emilia Strong Sykes took a ride on the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad Monday to build on her understanding of Ohio’s rail infrastructure.

 

Her visit is part of a larger effort on rail safety, Strong Sykes said, following the Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine in February and the introduction of the bipartisan Reducing Accidents in Locomotives (RAIL) Act in March.

 

...

 

Although she didn’t expect rail to be a focus for her when she took office in January, Strong Sykes said research and engagement with the CVSR and Ohio’s other railroads revealed intersections between other key issues, like the economy and climate change."

 

https://www.ideastream.org/term/events/2023-04-11/cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad-provides-congresswoman-a-chance-to-learn-about-rail-infrastructure

Let's make it happen! 

 

 

^ Is there a map somewhere that shows the route it would take?

On 9/15/2018 at 4:52 PM, KJP said:

 

If something happens, yes.

 

 

 

And based on the above information as well as our discussion in the Cleveland Random Questions and Nautica threads, a 2.25-mile city-owned right of way starting at the original mouth of the Ohio & Erie Canal would approximately comprise the following....

 

B&O-cityowned-row by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Although I'm pretty sure that the CSX-owned tracks just north of its movable bridge below I-490 are still used by either CSX or CROW to shuttle cars between the Cleveland Works on the East Bank and CSX's West 3rd Street Yard on the West Bank, it is possible to build a passenger-only track for CVSR across the unused track space across the movable bridge to avoid these freight moves. Furthermore, CSX left an unused track between its West 3rd Yard and Steelyard Commons for CVSR to use someday. That track still remains as of July 2017 GoogleEarth images. The rails may still be OK to use, everything below them probably need to be replaced. CSX still uses the track along the river south of West 3rd Yard and the Jennings Crossing of NS, to a wye-track called Willow. Just south of this wye is where National Park Service ownership begins. A little more than a mile south of that is where CVSR operations begin.

 

On 9/15/2018 at 10:04 PM, KJP said:

Difficult to serve the zoo directly because the NS and CSX rail lines past the zoo are both much more active (3-10 trains per day) than the rail line along the Cuyahoga River (a train or two per week). In past plans for a Cleveland extension, a zoo station stop would have been served by a shuttle bus/zoo tram on the long-discussed Lower Big Creek Greenway. I liked a stop near old Harvard Road but First Interstate was willing to pay for a station at the north end of Steelyard Commons, also close to Tremont.

 

Past plans had two different operating scenarios -- extend the existing trains (3 trains a day each way Wednesday-Sunday May-October, weekends only November-May) to downtown; or run self-propelled rail cars hourly each day as a shuttle service between downtown and Rockside Road.

 

On 9/16/2018 at 12:52 PM, KJP said:

Some maps I made a couple of years ago, showing what MIGHT be needed to get CVSR downtown. This includes coming up with automatic train stop signal system at Jennings Crossing and finding someone willing to staff the CSX movable bridge below I-490. Perhaps the CROW would be willing to staff it........

 

Cleveland-extension-text1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Cleveland-extension-text2 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Jennings Crossing-text by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

 

On 6/18/2019 at 2:03 PM, KJP said:

There is a new and aggressive effort to get CVSR extended north to downtown Cleveland. For the first time in 20 years, this one actually has a chance of success and would also help boost shortline freight rail service in the industrial valley, putting that service in the hands of railroads who actually care about local service. I hope to be able to share more details soon. Fingers crossed. Ironically, the relocation of Sherwin Williams' Breen Center could also help the effort to extend CVSR to the old B&O station and the Canal Basin Park, next to the Waterfront Line's Settlers Landing station. Yet another reason for putting a Red Line station on the north end of the Cuyahoga Valley viaduct!

 

On 6/19/2019 at 9:38 PM, KJP said:

 

All true. And BTW, since CVSR's train layover/storage/maintenance facility is on old Fitzwater Road at the north end of Brecksville, and since the first run of the day is likely to come south from downtown Cleveland at about 9 a.m. or so, wouldn't it make sense to sell tickets for people to ride what would otherwise be a deadhead run from Brecksville to downtown?

 

BTW2, here's an idea I put out there a few years ago. Perhaps the timing wasn't right. But with the hotel situation in control of the city of Independence, now might be a good time to revisit this idea?

 

 

Here you go, @urb-a-saurus

56 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

^ Is there a map somewhere that shows the route it would take?

 

Cleveland Planning Commission wants Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad connection as part of Bedrock’s massive riverfront project

Published: May. 20, 2023

By Steven Litt

 

"Early stage “conceptual” plans for a massive downtown riverfront development proposed by Bedrock, the real estate company headed by Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert, won unanimous approval Friday from the Cleveland City Planning Commission.

 

...

 

Friday’s vote came with conditions. One of the most important is that the city wants Bedrock to continue working with public agencies to explore the possibility of including an extension of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad in its plans.

 

Such a connection could provide a direct rail link from Tower City Center to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park and Akron — something planners have dreamed about for decades."

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/05/cleveland-planning-commission-wants-cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad-connection-as-part-of-bedrocks-massive-riverfront-project.html

On 9/16/2018 at 4:51 PM, KJP said:

Travel times would be slow since it's a recreational train. The current service averages 20 mph. It may take 25-30 minutes between downtown and Rockside Road. Nearly 20 years ago, the capital cost estimate for the Cleveland extension was $20 million with an annual operating subsidy of $1 million.

 

The chances of transportation projects happening in the USA aren't very good. When they do happen, the average time from idea to ribbon-cutting is 10 years. They're even more difficult to achieve in no-growth metro areas like ours.

Hey @KJP, you said that a circa-2000 estimate pegged the CVSR extension to downtown as a $20M capital project. What do you think the most bare-bones version of the extension would cost today? Not including getting into TC Rapid station - more like a basic version with a simple station at the east end of the TC parking lots at the level of Canal Rd. 

13 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Hey @KJP, you said that a circa-2000 estimate pegged the CVSR extension to downtown as a $20M capital project. What do you think the most bare-bones version of the extension would cost today? Not including getting into TC Rapid station - more like a basic version with a simple station at the east end of the TC parking lots at the level of Canal Rd. 

 

 

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations......

 

Acquire from CSX 9.3 miles of ROW including purchase of 8.15 miles (last 1.15 miles reverts to city ownership) -- $8.15 million

Upgrade 5.66 miles of track to FRA Class 3 from Rockside Road to Jennings Crossing @ $1 million per track-mile -- $5.66 million

Jennings Crossing - Add ITS on CVSR & absolute signals on NS-CSX-CVSR. Construct new CSX at-grade crossing of CVSR -- $10 million

Construct 2.5 miles of new FRA Class 3 track from Jennings Xing to 1,500' north of Cliffs Cleveland Works East turnout -- $12.5 million

Wheeling Crossing -- Add ITS on CVSR & absolute signals on NS-CSX-CVSR tracks. Construction new NS at-grade crossing of CVSR -- $10 million
Cuyahoga River lift bridge -- Placeholder for potential major structural repairs, equipment replacements, etc -- $10 million

Construct 1,500 feet of new FRA Class 2 track from Cliffs turnout to new turnout onto CVSR -- $2.5 million

Upgrade 1.4 miles of track to FRA Class 3 from new turnout to near Eagle Ave including siding, 2 turnouts -- $2.4 million

Construct Steelyard Commons station (platform, shelter, lighting, vehicle pull-off lane) -- $1 million

Construct Tower City/Flats South station (platform, shelter, lighting, vehicle pull-off lane, parking) -- $2 million

Add/upgrade grade crossing safety at 14 roadway crossings (5 are public crossings) -- $3.5 million

 

Subtotal $67.71 million

Add 30% contingency $20.3 million

Subtotal $88 million

Add 20% professional services $17.6 million (FYI ranges from 20-35% of project costs -- I went with 20%)

TOTAL $105.6 million

If Positive Train Control is required, add $250,000 per track-mile (about $2.5 million) and up to $70,000 per locomotive operating on the same track as CVSR track. Although with these proposed infrastructure investments, I tried to limit the amount of track on which passenger and freight would mix.

Cross posting from the Cleveland Union Terminal thread:

 

Just now, Boomerang_Brian said:

In today's AAO meeting, Ken Sislak talked quite a bit about extending CVSR to Tower City / Bedrock development. His proposal is different and less expensive than Ken P's recent proposal. I'll summarize in this post.

 

At some point in the past, a demonstration CVSR run was done to downtown on the old B&O / river level tracks. Check out these great pix!

 

Here's the existing rail spur and what would be the easiest way to do the extension IF there was no massive Bedrock project lurking:

 

Here's the view from roughly the old B&O terminal, showing how the Sherwin Williams Breen Center and parking lot cover the old B&O / river level rail right of way.

 

The Bedrock renderings we're familiar with:

 

This is Bedrock's proposal: vacate the existing Canal Rd and then relocate a new Canal Rd to where the existing rail spur is (removing the rail). BOOOOO!!!!!!!!

 

Bedrock's proposal for the new Canal Rd:

 

Ken S then talked a bit about how the B&O rail accessed Cleveland Union Terminal using the rail ramp that Ken P would like to start using again. Apparently the ramp goes up to the east, meaning B&O trains would go west to where the NS lines curves towards its viaduct, then use the rail ramp to back up the hill going east, then go west and cross the NS mainline to join the RoW going into CUT. The top right picture below shows a train going up the ramp, and the bottom right picture clearly shows the ramp and where it ties into the NS line. I'm pretty sure both of those pictures are looking east. Ken S's opinion is that restoring the track would be very expensive and crossing the NS line would be operationally difficult; his opinion is restoring CVSR all the way into CUT is not practical. (I also asked him about moving Amtrak to CUT. He mostly focused on the high cost and also shared some concerns about the Amtrak Superliners fighting into CUT. He clearly feels that Amtrak staying on the lakefront is acceptable.)

 

 

Ken S is trying to convince Bedrock that simply street running the CVSR in the new Canal Rd is the best option to get CVSR closer to Tower City. Canal would only need to be a little wider than Bedrock's current proposal. He's actually recommending two separate platforms / "stations". One at the end of the current rail spur, not too far from the Tower City food court. This would be a high level platform to simplify handicap access. He's recommending a second platform where the Eagle Ave Extension bridge crosses the B&O tracks, since this is where Bedrock is proposing Kayak drops into the river. Kayakers could use this area and easily connect to kayaking places in the national park using the train.

 

 

Here are some street running examples Ken S has been using as he makes the case for this proposal:

 

Here's the kayak launch from Bedrock's proposal. The second CVSR platforms in Ken S's proposal would be near here.

 

Here's another view with the street-running CVSR superimposed:

 

Ken S talked about some of the other challenges facing this project:

 

 

Someone asked about a Steelyard station, and Ken S said the platforms are already there and were built as part of the Steelyard development. I don't think this is accurate - I don't remember seeing any platforms and I don't see any sign of platforms on Google Streetview (the track they would use is right next to the Tow Path Trail behind the Steelyard stores). That said, I'm pretty sure that the Steelyard owners would still be supportive of putting in a station if the CVSR extension comes together.

 

I thought this was a really interesting alternative proposal that certainly would be less expensive and would likely have some operational benefits compared to going into the RTA station (not having to cross the NS lines; not having to do the zig-zag maneuver to get up the hill). I'm very curious in the opinions of @KJP @gildone and @neony on this street running concept. I think I'd like it better if the platform loading area had rail on its own Right of Way, even if it was street running to the east, just so there wouldn't be a bunch of cars backed up while loading and unloading CVSR trains. (Perhaps that's already the idea and I just missed it.)

 

 

Did city derail scenic railroad extension?

By Ken Prendergast / June 30, 2023

 

While helping Bedrock Real Estate acquire land for its downtown riverfront development, the city of Cleveland may have also “significantly harmed” nascent efforts to extend Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) passenger trains north to downtown. That harm was the apparent result of the city releasing itself from a lien on current and former railroad rights of way along the Cuyahoga River from below Tower City Center south to near Interstate 490.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/06/30/did-city-derail-scenic-railroad-extension/

28 minutes ago, KJP said:

Did city derail scenic railroad extension?

By Ken Prendergast / June 30, 2023

 

While helping Bedrock Real Estate acquire land for its downtown riverfront development, the city of Cleveland may have also “significantly harmed” nascent efforts to extend Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) passenger trains north to downtown. That harm was the apparent result of the city releasing itself from a lien on current and former railroad rights of way along the Cuyahoga River from below Tower City Center south to near Interstate 490.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/06/30/did-city-derail-scenic-railroad-extension/

Interesting.  How did the city’s Director of Economic Development have the authority to release the liens?

16 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Interesting.  How did the city’s Director of Economic Development have the authority to release the liens?

 

I'm no lawyer but I thought that the process it took to do something has to be done in reverse to undo it.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Did city derail scenic railroad extension?

By Ken Prendergast / June 30, 2023

 

While helping Bedrock Real Estate acquire land for its downtown riverfront development, the city of Cleveland may have also “significantly harmed” nascent efforts to extend Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) passenger trains north to downtown. That harm was the apparent result of the city releasing itself from a lien on current and former railroad rights of way along the Cuyahoga River from below Tower City Center south to near Interstate 490.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/06/30/did-city-derail-scenic-railroad-extension/

 

Commented on Twitter, I suspect the powers that be don't want private competition showing up GCRTA.

That doesn't make any sense.  CVSR isn't public transportation.  And City of Cleveland and GCRTA are separate organizations. 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Did city derail scenic railroad extension?

By Ken Prendergast / June 30, 2023

 

While helping Bedrock Real Estate acquire land for its downtown riverfront development, the city of Cleveland may have also “significantly harmed” nascent efforts to extend Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) passenger trains north to downtown. That harm was the apparent result of the city releasing itself from a lien on current and former railroad rights of way along the Cuyahoga River from below Tower City Center south to near Interstate 490.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/06/30/did-city-derail-scenic-railroad-extension/

Would this affect your proposal to bring Amtrak back into Tower City or no? 

6 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Would this affect your proposal to bring Amtrak back into Tower City or no? 

 

If CVSR and its six trains a day can't come downtown, paying the costs of reactivating Tower City as a railroad station become tougher to justify if only Amtrak and its four nightly trains are the only ones involved.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

I'm no lawyer but I thought that the process it took to do something has to be done in reverse to undo it.

Generally speaking, Directors usually need legislation to be able sign something. 

I've updated the article with more information. Plus, I've embedded links to the lien release and the two deeds mentioned in the article.

Probably reading way too much into this, but can't help but notice that Bedrock was a sponsor of CVSR's annual Preservation for Generations event.

 

The amount of Cleveland companies listed here shows that CVSR isn't just an Akron-centric operation. We may finally have a strong enough constituency to make it more of a Cleveland-oriented service. 

On 6/19/2019 at 9:38 PM, KJP said:

 

All true. And BTW, since CVSR's train layover/storage/maintenance facility is on old Fitzwater Road at the north end of Brecksville, and since the first run of the day is likely to come south from downtown Cleveland at about 9 a.m. or so, wouldn't it make sense to sell tickets for people to ride what would otherwise be a deadhead run from Brecksville to downtown?

 

BTW2, here's an idea I put out there a few years ago. Perhaps the timing wasn't right. But with the hotel situation in control of the city of Independence, now might be a good time to revisit this idea?

 

 

Unfortunate news on this wonderful idea - after merging onto 77 north from the 480 bridge, I noticed the old hotel on Brecksville Rd was being demolished.  That’s too bad - I always liked Ken’s concept of making it a CVNP host hotel. 

12 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Unfortunate news on this wonderful idea - after merging onto 77 north from the 480 bridge, I noticed the old hotel on Brecksville Rd was being demolished.  That’s too bad - I always liked Ken’s concept of making it a CVNP host hotel. 

 

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by urb-a-saurus
Missing text

 

I've heard that CSX has taken out a key section of track and a key track connection that would allow CVSR to be extended to Tower City.  

 

Seems to me the City needs to be prepared to use eminent domain to acquire the needed property, at least in some areas, to do the extension if CSX decides to be obstinate. 

 

I've also heard that the city probably won't have the stones to do that, which is disappointing. 

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by gildone