Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back to the CVSR as a commuter option. Here is a recent article, apparently it is still being talked about with US Rep Emilia Sykes. Most of this article is about the existing train schedule and erosion mitigation. I believe the CVSR is still closed between Rockside and Peninsula, but they are running trains (I heard them) between Peninsula and Akron.
Would be totally cool to get the CVSR into Tower city, or perhaps even better, RTA managed heavy rail from Tower City to Rockside. Seems like RTA would have to manage any commuter train going into Tower City. Perhaps they form a partnership with CVSR. There's your optimistic thought for the day.
It's interesting that, per this article, the most vocal advocate of CVSR commuter connection to Tower City/RTA/downtown is Lisa Petit the superintendent of the CVNP. Cuyahoga County Exec. Chris Ronayne has also voiced support for the CVSR extension to Tower City as well. Hopefully, it will finally happen. Some posters in other threads want the rail line extended to the old, 1890s, boarded-up B&O railroad terminal in the Flats instead of Tower City, which makes no sense to me.
btw, I like the idea of running non-stop, 1-stop (Steelyards) rush hour express commuter service to Valley View, but it would have to be diesel or diesel-electrically powered. Full-scale electrically-powered Rapid Transit would be too expensive for such a lightly-populated area, even as much as I'm all for Rapid expansion to other parts of the county/region.
It's interesting that, per this article, the most vocal advocate of CVSR commuter connection to Tower City/RTA/downtown is Lisa Petit the superintendent of the CVNP. Cuyahoga County Exec. Chris Ronayne has also voiced support for the CVSR extension to Tower City as well. Hopefully, it will finally happen. Some posters in other threads want the rail line extended to the old, 1890s, boarded-up B&O railroad terminal in the Flats instead of Tower City, which makes no sense to me.
btw, I like the idea of running non-stop, 1-stop (Steelyards) rush hour express commuter service to Valley View, but it would have to be diesel or diesel-electrically powered. Full-scale electrically-powered Rapid Transit would be too expensive for such a lightly-populated area, even as much as I'm all for Rapid expansion to other parts of the county/region.
You're going to have to school me here. Any thoughts on how they would get a diesel powered CVSR train up into Tower City? I agree that the B&O station makes absolutely no sense. But to get the CVSR train up to Tower City, I'm assuming that's a lot more infrastructure:
* I know they have trackbed most of the way up, but they will need a bridge over the Cuyahoga, right?
* They would have to augment the existing Tower City building to accept a diesel locomotive and I assume this will require ventilation
* Connections to the Tower city RTA system would have to be easy, like connecting from the Red line to the Green line
Sounds like this is a big project. Would like to know your thoughts on what makes sense for the first cut of this.
Back to the CVSR as a commuter option. Here is a recent article, apparently it is still being talked about with US Rep Emilia Sykes. Most of this article is about the existing train schedule and erosion mitigation. I believe the CVSR is still closed between Rockside and Peninsula, but they are running trains (I heard them) between Peninsula and Akron.
Why not just keep CVSR as-is and expand RTA light rail using the railbed that CVSR uses?
I think, much as I hate to say it, running diesel locomotives (or even Amtrak) into Tower City is a fantasyland pipedream, esp. the CVSR.
I'm still conviced that if anything w/rail needs to happen, it's expanding the Waterfront line along the I-90/CSX corridor. Working out particulars with Laketran and CSX and using existing railbed is way easier than building or tearing down an entire section of a shrinking city center for years. All of us rail junkies sometimes are in deep denial about the city of Cleveland and it's "growth." It's a city proper population that now begins with a "3" and is in no way increasing, downtown is not booming (though its downtown residential is growing, it's not going to fix the hemorrhaging of the city neighborhoods in regards to population). However, we can still talk about moving people via rail regionally. Extending all RTA lines is doable and RTA has dropped the ball on this for decades.
You're going to have to school me here. Any thoughts on how they would get a diesel powered CVSR train up into Tower City? I agree that the B&O station makes absolutely no sense. But to get the CVSR train up to Tower City, I'm assuming that's a lot more infrastructure:
* I know they have trackbed most of the way up, but they will need a bridge over the Cuyahoga, right?
* They would have to augment the existing Tower City building to accept a diesel locomotive and I assume this will require ventilation
* Connections to the Tower city RTA system would have to be easy, like connecting from the Red line to the Green line
Sounds like this is a big project. Would like to know your thoughts on what makes sense for the first cut of this.
You raise THE important conundrum... how to get these trains up to Tower City? As I'm sure you know the area, the rail line (currently unused I believe) to the TC area is at a low level; just above the Cuy River level I believe, so trains would have to elevate all the way up to the track level for entering Tower City. Given the fact we would be using diesel-powered trains, the gradient would likely have to be more gradual than if we were using electrified cars similar to the current Rapid.
My take is: though this new CVSR track level would be level with that the current Rapid uses for egress/ingress to TC, CVSR's terminal would be completely separate from the Rapid station. It would be most logical to place CVSR's terminal directly on the parking spaces that, of course, used to be the passenger train platforms before Amtrak relocated all passenger service to the Lakefront. The good news is, that in taking this approach, CVSR passengers disembarking from trains could use the same temp-controlled entrance and escalators (at the TC's south end) into the TC mall where, of course, an indoor connection could be made to the Rapid lines, Rocket Mortgage Field House, Jack Casino, the hotels, etc.
Why not just keep CVSR as-is and expand RTA light rail using the railbed that CVSR uses?
I think, much as I hate to say it, running diesel locomotives (or even Amtrak) into Tower City is a fantasyland pipedream, esp. the CVSR.
I'm still convinced that if anything w/rail needs to happen, it's expanding the Waterfront line along the I-90/CSX corridor. Working out particulars with Laketran and CSX and using existing railbed is way easier than building or tearing down an entire section of a shrinking city center for years. All of us rail junkies sometimes are in deep denial about the city of Cleveland and it's "growth." It's a city proper population that now begins with a "3" and is in no way increasing, downtown is not booming (though its downtown residential is growing, it's not going to fix the hemorrhaging of the city neighborhoods in regards to population). However, we can still talk about moving people via rail regionally. Extending all RTA lines is doable and RTA has dropped the ball on this for decades.
As I mentioned, above, I would love to expand the Rapid along the proposed CVSR corridor to meet CVSR trains currently terminating in Valley View. I just don't see that happening, though, given the expense of building all the electrical infrastructure to run Rapid trains. This corridor just has too little population or traffic nodes (besides, of course, sprawling/suburban strip mall-ish Steelyards Commons and the suburban-ish corporate campuses and motels of Valley View, itself) to justify such a transit expense (heck: we can't get RTA to extend the Rapid into areas where there IS high populations, such as Lakewood, which is directly on a low-usage railroad corridor; so a Valley View extension would rank way down the list.
On top of this, you have the problems integrating a full-fledged electrified Rapid onto the planned 8-mile CVSR route into downtown, including the numerous grade crossings in the Flats/Cuyahoga Valley south and, even more difficult: the low-level jackknife drawbridge over the Cuyahoga River just under the I-290 high-level bridge.
Using the diesel technology CVSR currently uses, in expanding CVSR into Tower City, would make the most sense.
You raise THE important conundrum... how to get these trains up to Tower City? As I'm sure you know the area, the rail line (currently unused I believe) to the TC area is at a low level; just above the Cuy River level I believe, so trains would have to elevate all the way up to the track level for entering Tower City. Given the fact we would be using diesel-powered trains, the gradient would likely have to be more gradual than if we were using electrified cars similar to the current Rapid.
My take is: though this new CVSR track level would be level with that the current Rapid uses for egress/ingress to TC, CVSR's terminal would be completely separate from the Rapid station. It would be most logical to place CVSR's terminal directly on the parking spaces that, of course, used to be the passenger train platforms before Amtrak relocated all passenger service to the Lakefront. The good news is, that in taking this approach, CVSR passengers disembarking from trains could use the same temp-controlled entrance and escalators (at the TC's south end) into the TC mall where, of course, an indoor connection could be made to the Rapid lines, Rocket Mortgage Field House, Jack Casino, the hotels, etc.
Thanks for the feedback. Looks like the route is coming into Tower City from the East. They would have to resurrect or replace one of those old railroad lift bridges over the Cuyahoga, near Zaclon River Landing.
Wouldn't be too bad. That would be cool to catch a train from TC to Akron North.
Thanks for the feedback. Looks like the route is coming into Tower City from the East. They would have to resurrect or replace one of those old railroad lift bridges over the Cuyahoga, near Zaclon River Landing.
Wouldn't be too bad. That would be cool to catch a train from TC to Akron North.
I read a Tweet earlier this week from County Exec. Ronayne that he supported extending CVSR to Cleveland... but to the old B&O station in the Flats.
I understand it would be expensive to bring the CVSR trains up from the riverbed level to the lower level of Tower City, but it can and should be done. Again, as I've said to other rail/rapid rail expansion projects: why spend the big bucks -- in this case, the considerable sum just to upgrade the tracks, add signaling, fix/update the jackknife Cuyahoga River bridge, etc, only to cheap-out on the most important aspect: connecting CVSR trains to the RTA rail-bus hub at Tower City/Public Square.
Update in my thinking: I now realize that CVSR trains can be more easily raised up and integrated into Tower City a mile east of Tower City (around E. 14th Street near the Flats Marathon Oil refinery storage tanks). At that point, the B&O/CVSR right of way meets the joint Norfolk Southern/RTA Rapid Right of Way. Then the Norfolk Southern freight tracks dogleg west and separate from the East Side Red/Blue/Green rapid tracks... I would suggest building a 2-track tunnel culvert for CVSR under the N-S ROW then following northwest and rising up to and along the RTA-Tower City ROW -- of course, laying tracks here would be easy along the empty right of way of the long-gone passenger route into Tower City adjacent to the RTA tracks.
I read a Tweet earlier this week from County Exec. Ronayne that he supported extending CVSR to Cleveland... but to the old B&O station in the Flats.
I understand it would be expensive to bring the CVSR trains up from the riverbed level to the lower level of Tower City, but it can and should be done. Again, as I've said to other rail/rapid rail expansion projects: why spend the big bucks -- in this case, the considerable sum just to upgrade the tracks, add signaling, fix/update the jackknife Cuyahoga River bridge, etc, only to cheap-out on the most important aspect: connecting CVSR trains to the RTA rail-bus hub at Tower City/Public Square.
Update in my thinking: I now realize that CVSR trains can be more easily raised up and integrated into Tower City a mile east of Tower City (around E. 14th Street near the Flats Marathon Oil refinery storage tanks). At that point, the B&O/CVSR right of way meets the joint Norfolk Southern/RTA Rapid Right of Way. Then the Norfolk Southern freight tracks dogleg west and separate from the East Side Red/Blue/Green rapid tracks... I would suggest building a 2-track tunnel culvert for CVSR under the N-S ROW then following northwest and rising up to and along the RTA-Tower City ROW -- of course, laying tracks here would be easy along the empty right of way of the long-gone passenger route into Tower City adjacent to the RTA tracks.
A lot of this is greek to me, but I encourage you to actually go ahead and suggest it to Ronayne, Birdsong, and anyone else you know of who is involved.
A part of me wonders if a separate facility is being preferred in order to cater to some stereotype of suburban CVSR riders not wanting to share space with actual public transit users. (and to be fair, what you experience in Public Square after exiting TC is a roll of the dice).
A part of me wonders if a separate facility is being preferred in order to cater to some stereotype of suburban CVSR riders not wanting to share space with actual public transit users. (and to be fair, what you experience in Public Square after exiting TC is a roll of the dice).
I seriously doubt this is the reason, and if it is, Cleveland is in far worse racial-psychological condition than anyone could imagine. And if people are so timid that they can't face a few homeless folks or street people, well then, they really shouldn't be in a city. You make it sound like Public Sq is some kind of war zone, even if it is a bit faded from its glory days of decades ago... It's much better than what you're portraying and, don' t forget, Terminal Tower itself is in large part, now, an apartment building -- featuring very high rents, so Public Sq. can't be that bad.
No, I think the real problem, as I stated, is money and, as usual, Cleveland doing transit on the cheap in doing half the job, but not finishing what it started... It's why we have a nice Rapid system but no subway; why we have a Waterfront Line Rapid that passes directly in front of a newly rebuilt/expanded convention center, yet with no connection; why Sherwin-Williams which, in its present location, has an underground walkway to the Tower City Rapid hub, but in its new 36-story office tower rising across the street from Tower City has been designed with no connection (overhead or underground) to TC whatsoever... and the list goes on and on...
I seriously doubt this is the reason, and if it is, Cleveland is in far worse racial-psychological condition than anyone could imagine. And if people are so timid that they can't face a few homeless folks or street people, well then, they really shouldn't be in a city.
That's exactly what I am talking about. People like that exist. There are people who refuse to go downtown/public square or hate doing so. We should not cater to those people, and there's probably no pleasing them, but they absolutely exist.
Cities have spent too much time trying to cater to the sensibilities of suburbanite commuters. That's why we have downtown highways, countless surface lots, no signal priority on the health line, etc.
Attitudes towards downtown and especially towards public transit are actually one of the biggest differences I have noticed between my years in Cleveland versus Pittsburgh.
Quote:
You make it sound like Public Sq is some kind of war zone, even if it is a bit faded from its glory days of decades ago... It's much better than what you're portraying
I think you're adding a lot of baggage to my statement.
My own experience has been just what I said, it's a roll of the dice. Sometimes it's beautiful and enjoyable and makes me love the city. Other times there's issues.
Anyway, I hope you are right and that I was just being too cynical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
