Projects And Transportation > Railways & Waterways

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad

(1/55) > >>

clvlndr:
[note: cvsr's projects a station on Canal Rd. near TC's amphitheater.  KJP had suggested, and I had hoped, trains would rise from this right of way into TC's indoor parking lot to allow for a better connection with Public Sq and the Rapid Lines -- but Canal Rd. would be a start]

COOL CLEVELAND BLOG CVSR response: 

On finishing the Scenic Railroad (See Scenic rail from Tower City to Akron here) Thanks for your recent story on extending Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) excursion rail service into downtown Cleveland. CVSR President/CEO Doug Cooper, staff, and trustees are redoubling their efforts to make this a reality by 2008. In conjunction with the Towpath Trail's pending downtown extension and possible Tower City area convention center, CVSR is very excited about someday linking downtown Cleveland with the nation's 3rd most highly visited national park. Once CVSR's downtown station opens on Canal Road near Tower City's Amphitheatre, the railroad will provide easy access to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CVNP) and ski areas for residents, tourists and cyclists from across Greater Cleveland. The terminal's proximity to the nexus of the region's entire public transportation system will be especially important for those who choose not to or don't drive autos (e.g. the very old, the very young, the transit dependent, and those wanting to save money). Furthermore, numerous other attractions in Cleveland, Akron and Canton will be opened up by the railroad such as the Metroparks in three counties and the Rock & Roll, Inventor's and Football halls of fame. CVNP, Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association, Ohio and Erie Canal Association, Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, Forest City Enterprises and Heidtman Steel have emerged as CVSR's principal partners in this effort. Through CVNP, CVSR has contacted trackage owner CSX to start exploring the technical feasibility of the extension. This Fall, with help from the Ohio Rail Development Commission, CVSR is planning a meeting with CSX to learn whether it believes the project is financially. If so, a full court press will be needed across Northeast Ohio to establish the project's political feasibility and secure local and federal funding to begin the needed planning and engineering. That also includes identifying the funds needed to upgrade the track, build stations and pay for daily operations. With CSX approval, public awareness and political support will be crucial to the project's success. To that end CVSR has done several things. Over the past year it formed three advisory councils of local leaders, one each in Cleveland, Akron and Canton. It also launched its "All Aboard for Cleveland" (ABC) campaign. Part of the ABC campaign involves a powerpoint presentation on CVSR history and the extension that is given to local interest groups. And preparations are in full swing for CVSR's All Aboard Ball black tie fundraiser event on June 4, 2005 at Heidtman Steel in the Cuyahoga Valley. For more about CVSR visit http://www.cvsr.com. To schedule an ABC presentation, contact Doug Cooper at president@cvsr.com . And for tickets or information about the All Aboard Ball call 1.800.468.4070 ext. 3004. Again, thanks for the great story!
from Cool Cleveland reader Richard M. Enty, Chairman, CVSR Board of Trustees richard.enty@sbcglobal.net

KJP:
Let's hope this happens. My fingers are crossed in a big way!

KJP

clvlndr:
Wasn't Rich Enty the former RTA chief planner under Ron Tober?

Also, I saw when searching cvsr/commuter news, a poster on a railfan website had recently stated that he had it on good authority that Akron Metro RTA was "quietly" improving cvsr bridges and roadway in planning for eventual commuter rail.  Since the guy was merely a poster (like me) with no credentials or other evidence of credibility to buttress his statement, I didn't copy/post his message, but that would be interesting.

I think a decision/statement needs to made, once and for all, whether this extension will be simply an extension of the tourist line or an honest to goodness commuter rail system.  Cvsr, publicly at least, continues to insist they are dead set against commuter rail (yet, cryptically, they say on their website that using the expanded cvsr can remove drivers from traffic and stress -- something of a mixed signal, eh?).  Frankly, it's not worth public money to extend what would amount to a Cedar Point-type amusement ride if it is not going to also be used as a serious commuter rail operation.  I don't think families, pleasure riders, railfans, etc., really have any particular trouble driving down to Valley View to pick up the trains headed south as they have for decades.  Nor do I think having the tourist terminal in downtown Cleveland is going to cause people to flock downtown to board the trains or, vice versa, cause Akron/Canton people ride slow, scenic old trains into downtown in any appreciable numbers -- not for the high dollar and political costs involved in building the facilities and negotiating with the freight carriers to use/improve their rails for the extended service.

In that vein, if commuter rail is the goal, I think a determination must be made to route trains up the hill over Canal Rd and into Tower City's underground parking lot (where the old trains went) so COMMUTERS will be undercover and accessible to the short escalator or elevator rides into the mall/Rapid transit area/elevators to Public Sq. area.  Leaving COMMUTERS off at the river bed level near the TC amphitheater at a location where they will have to climb extensive outdoor steps or ride shuttle vans or buses up to the TC parking lot (which is how you have to access the amphitheater currently), is no way to build a commuter railroad.  If we're going to do this thing -- and Lord knows, this region is way behind the game in its total lack of commuter rail beyond the rapid -- let's do it right.

KJP, do you think you could have any influence in this matter?

mrnyc:

--- Quote ---I think a decision/statement needs to made, once and for all, whether this extension will be simply an extension of the tourist line or an honest to goodness commuter rail system.
--- End quote ---

not so fast -- there is no need to rush and do that quite yet.

i say let the quiet momentum build. as long as things are happening, even be they minor, as long as there is movement, i wouldn't push it. let akron metro and cvsr work undercover for awhile longer for now!

maybe we all should just write or email akron metro and cvsr, tell them we are noticing this and "express support" for the time being?

KJP:
There is a public purpose for getting CVSR service to Tower City Center, even if it's geared toward transportation to/from the national park at the slow travel speeds you mention. Remember that the Cuyahoga Valley National Park is the third-most visited park in the nation which, for the time being, means getting there mostly by car.

But, the environmental problems of auto-centric access to other popular national parks (Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc) has been well documented. Do you think those parks would jump at the chance to have a rail serving it to reduce smog, restrict parking lots that have toxic water running off its pavement, and the like? Of course they would, and that's why Grand Canyon restored a rail line from Williams AZ (links to Amtrak) to the South Rim to help deal with some of these problems.

That's a rail line that serves but a small part of a huge national park. Here in Northeast Ohio, we have a rail line that runs the length of another large national park, with multiple stations serving multiple historic and natural sites -- all within walking distance of stations. Add to that the parallel Canal Corridor Trail and the CVSR's bike-carrying capabilities, and you've got the beginnings of creating a park that has superior access by environmentally friendly modes.

Then, at the northern end, you link the park's trains and trails to the main transit hub in a major city. With that, you can introduce a whole urban population -- especially for children but not exclusively for them -- to the wilderness and to historic locations that ultimately founded the basis for economic growth in Northeast Ohio. That's got to be an eye-opener for urban youth, many of whom sadly never venture beyond their neighborhoods.

If that isn't a public purpose that warrants public funding, I don't know what is. I don't if this is a problem or an asset, but it's almost impossible to put a price tag on that kind of benefit. It's a problem because some governmental types will want to see a qualitative cost-benefit analysis. But it's an asset because if something is so priceless, then it's got to have a tremendous value. And I think that's exactly what a CVSR link to Tower City will deliver.

KJP

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page