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.
The Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad is clearly a hit. Many trains like their dinner train, frequently sell out. I've never ridden -- which hopefully will change this summer -- but I understand it's a great experience. But should the line be extended 8 miles north from its Rockside Road terminal into Tower City and be converted into commuter rail to downtown Akron? I say yes, although the idea slowly percolating for years is to extend .. but keep it as a tourist rail. I ask: why not do both?
I've been aware of CVSR for decades, but only recently learned certain things:
I was always under the impression it operated with old-time steam trains... It does not. It uses totally modern, some recently rehabbed, contemporary diesel locomotives. It's the passenger cars that are vintage, like the California Zepher.
I thought it was a kind of rickety, light rail-type operation. Wrong again. CVSR is a full-fledged standard, heavy passenger railroad. Apparently a major storm and Cuyahoga River flood in, I believe, the 1990s wiped a lot of infrastructure in the CV Nat'l Park out. But since then, through (apparently) grants and fundraising, the RR has been built up to modern standards. 1 of the 2 bridges of roadways in Akron was rebuilt in 2013. The electronic crossing gates (at roadways) controls have all been modernized and are state of the art. Most importantly, though, CVSR has a modern maintenance facility north of the Brecksville station where trains are stored, repaired and washed.
I always thought the train through the park and stopped in low-density/light population areas away from suburbs and cities... Only partially correct. A number of station stops are in the woods, but many are close by (5-10 minute drive) populations centers, such as Brecksville, Richfield and Walton Hills. Of course, at Rockside, there's the corporate center with a bunch of hotels (and a few apts) and restaurants nearby. The CVSR stop at Peninsula, in Summit County, is the center of a quaint (postcard-ish) small village that features a number of bars and restaurants right adjacent to the station. The line passes right through a shopping center/apt complex in north Akron and terminates at Akron Northside -- a rather hot area of apartments, condos, and a new Courtyard by Marriott adjacent to the train terminal. The Northside "Marketplace" is a small version of the thriving Van Aken District's Market Hall but is on the ground floor of a few-years-old apartment midrise. There are bars and shops nearby, and both downtown and the University of Akron are a few blocks south.
In short, we already have a fully operational nearly 30-mile, modernized passenger railroad in our backyard. Extend it northward 8 miles, and it puts passengers in the core of downtown, at the hub of the Cleveland RTA rail network -- with an indoor connection to trains, but also the Tower City complex of the Rocket Mortgage (Cavs) Fieldhouse, 2 major hotels, the casino and several restaurants and stores -- not to mention the next-door Progressive Field of the newly-crowned Guardians major league baseball club.
4 or 5 weekday 1-way morning in/evening out trains (plus weekend special events (ie Browns)) would do the trick. Regular commuters, college students, Browns/sports fans and even Hopkins airport passengers would all benefit from this commuter service... and, oh yeah, we'd still have the class CVSR tourist trains as well -- but now they board at Tower City instead of nowheresville off Rockside Road.
I don't think it's particularly realistic - would the extension go in the 77 median? Then Ontario at some point?
And is there any real demand to warrant the cost (hundreds of millions) and ongoing maintenance? The red, blue and green rapids are already underutilized and scraping by on obsolete parts, with the Flats and East 9th line effectively shut down. The region is already ignoring its legacy infrastructure and has been for decades.
I wish there were light rail and street cars blanketing and connecting cities, truly do. Maybe if we run out of gas sooner than later, it becomes ungodly expensive, and more people leave the suburbs would there be some momentum.
4 or 5 weekday 1-way morning in/evening out trains (plus weekend special events (ie Browns)) would do the trick. Regular commuters, college students, Browns/sports fans and even Hopkins airport passengers would all benefit from this commuter service... and, oh yeah, we'd still have the class CVSR tourist trains as well -- but now they board at Tower City instead of nowheresville off Rockside Road.
I ask: why not?
Respectfully…please no. We have so few places to enjoy nature and find some semblance of peace and tranquility. The thought of bombing commuter trains through the heart of CVNP 8-10 times per day to connect metro areas makes me ill.
The current scenic railroad (running seasonally) offers a relaxing way to meander through the park, spot wildlife, enjoy the river, quaint villages and such. This mission would be totally incompatible with a metro-to-metro commuter train framework running concurrently.
In short, this would be very disruptive to a natural treasure (CVNP) and it would alter, for worse, the quaint stopping points along the way.
I applaud the creative thinking, but no thank you on this one.
I kinda understand what SlidRules is saying but also get Prof's idea too. Our region is pretty large to have zero commuter rail. I do think the transit situation here holds us back from being that next tier up metro area. A lot of it is people's mentality. To generalize, but I think accurately, all public transit her eis viewed as a poor person thing.
I don't think it's particularly realistic - would the extension go in the 77 median? Then Ontario at some point?
And is there any real demand to warrant the cost (hundreds of millions) and ongoing maintenance? The red, blue and green rapids are already underutilized and scraping by on obsolete parts, with the Flats and East 9th line effectively shut down. The region is already ignoring its legacy infrastructure and has been for decades.
I wish there were light rail and street cars blanketing and connecting cities, truly do. Maybe if we run out of gas sooner than later, it becomes ungodly expensive, and more people leave the suburbs would there be some momentum.
No, the extension would not go in I-77, but follow the path of a winding lightly used and partially abandoned railroad route that continues along the winding river -- and crosses low-level it under the I-490 bridge. The route ends up near rundown, very, very lightly used and rundown Canal Street, where it would have to elevate into the Tower City parking lot near/under the current canopy and escalator into the TC mall. This would likely cost the most money but still be a drop-in-the-bucket compared to the much-overrated Opportunity Corridor (see below). Again, I stress the fact that about 27 miles of the 35 mile route is an extant, well functioning, rehabbed railroad, so the infrastructure is in place. Some modest costs like a basic signal system, a few passing sidings and a new station or 2 (including 1 at the Steelyards shopping complex) would be needed.
Cost?
We always quibble when it comes to any new transit, but roads -- sure, build and expand 'em to the cows come home... we don't care.
The Federal govt gave Ohio $400M to build the 260-mile, 3-C Amtrak line connecting Ohio's 3 largest metro areas... But John Kasich came in as govt and rejected it; turned it back. Instead went shoved a 3.5 mile $300M Opportunity Corridor down Cleveland's throat to do, what? shave a few mins of West Sider's travel time to Cleveland Clinic? The OC was supposed to provide new housing and retail in the so-called 'forgotten triangle'. So far we're only guaranteed a relocated main police station we really don't need and a bunch of storage, mainly cold-storage, facilities. Big whoop. No, the Innovation Square development plus the new mixed us apt-Meijer's complex at Cedar-E.105, er excuse me, Opportunity Corridor, was already being planned and executed before the OC came around. About the only good aspect the OC may attract are some apts along E. 79 near the Blue-Green Line elevated Rapid stop -- but financing for those is hardly certain.
Light Rail?
Not realistic for that length (35 miles). Light rail, essentially streetcar technology over private rights-of-way, is too tight and shaky for such an operation -- fine for a 15-25 minute jaunt to Shaker Hts, but not for this ... Commuters want the ride, space and comfort of a spacious, smooth-riding passenger car.
Respectfully…please no. We have so few places to enjoy nature and find some semblance of peace and tranquility. The thought of bombing commuter trains through the heart of CVNP 8-10 times per day to connect metro areas makes me ill.
The current scenic railroad (running seasonally) offers a relaxing way to meander through the park, spot wildlife, enjoy the river, quaint villages and such. This mission would be totally incompatible with a metro-to-metro commuter train framework running concurrently.
In short, this would be very disruptive to a natural treasure (CVNP) and it would alter, for worse, the quaint stopping points along the way.
I applaud the creative thinking, but no thank you on this one.
I don't see how so few extra short commuter trains would disrupt the CVNP - modern bi-level push/pull trains are an engine + 2 or 3 cars whereby CVSR trains seem to have about 6-8 passenger cars with oppositve-facing engines on each end. The Towpath is not going anywhere and, again, I am emphasizing that CVSR continue and be integrated into this service -- on non-Browns weekends (meaning all but 8 or 10 per year), CVSR would have total reign over the tracks.
And as far as having these few more trains would somehow disrupt Towpath hikers -- 4 to 5 round trips on weekdays -- how are Red Line Greenway hikers/bikers/strollers with infants/dog walkers -- not disrupted by walking next to the RTA Red Line with all-day (save 3 hours in the early morning0 trains every 15 mins in both directions 7 days/week? And the RLGW travels through some dicey post-industrial areas of town.
No, the extension would not go in I-77, but follow the path of a winding lightly used and partially abandoned railroad route that continues along the winding river -- and crosses low-level it under the I-490 bridge. The route ends up near rundown, very, very lightly used and rundown Canal Street, where it would have to elevate into the Tower City parking lot near/under the current canopy and escalator into the TC mall. This would likely cost the most money but still be a drop-in-the-bucket compared to the much-overrated Opportunity Corridor (see below). Again, I stress the fact that about 27 miles of the 35 mile route is an extant, well functioning, rehabbed railroad, so the infrastructure is in place. Some modest costs like a basic signal system, a few passing sidings and a new station or 2 (including 1 at the Steelyards shopping complex) would.
The National Park Service owns the 26-mile stretch of track between Rockside and the Akron southern terminus, having purchased the line from CSX Transportation in 1987. The Feds’ purchase of this rail stretch fell within the context and backdrop of the “Parks to the People” movement, ie, making national parks more accessible.
CVSR entered into a cooperative agreement with the NPS in 1989, again in keeping with the vision to increase park accessibility and enhance visitor experience. The two organizations’ goals were/are aligned. CVSR is a recreational/excursion enterprise, first and foremost, and they operate on the NPS-owned track accordingly.
Periodically there have been discussions about extending the CVSR line to CLE, but that would entail purchase of the remaining 8-mile stretch of track from CSX.
<<Expanding to Cleveland would make CVNP the only national park with rail access from a major metropolitan center. Regular Cleveland service would likely increase Cleveland-based ridership and would also facilitate additional Cleveland-focused special events and fundraisers. However, past negotiations with CSX have not been fruitful, mainly due to liability concerns. Nonetheless, as the opportunity arises, CVSR and CVNP should continue to explore the possibilities with CSX to purchase the line to Cleveland, transferring the liability to CVSR and providing operational rights for freight trains to CSX. This would require a significant capital investment and increase total operating costs, so should be considered carefully.>>
The key point here is that you’re talking about usurping the entire ~34 mile stretch of rail line and repurposing it as a high volume metro-to-metro commuter corridor. My personal distaste for the project aside, I don’t see any scenario in which the National Park Service would be amenable to allowing that on their lines.
The entire CVNP / NPS rail study (including the source for the quote above) can be found here.
The National Park Service owns the 26-mile stretch of track between Rockside and the Akron southern terminus, having purchased the line from CSX Transportation in 1987. The Feds’ purchase of this rail stretch fell within the context and backdrop of the “Parks to the People” movement, ie, making national parks more accessible.
CVSR entered into a cooperative agreement with the NPS in 1989, again in keeping with the vision to increase park accessibility and enhance visitor experience. The two organizations’ goals were/are aligned. CVSR is a recreational/excursion enterprise, first and foremost, and they operate on the NPS-owned track accordingly.
Periodically there have been discussions about extending the CVSR line to CLE, but that would entail purchase of the remaining 8-mile stretch of track from CSX.
<<Expanding to Cleveland would make CVNP the only national park with rail access from a major metropolitan center. Regular Cleveland service would likely increase Cleveland-based ridership and would also facilitate additional Cleveland-focused special events and fundraisers. However, past negotiations with CSX have not been fruitful, mainly due to liability concerns. Nonetheless, as the opportunity arises, CVSR and CVNP should continue to explore the possibilities with CSX to purchase the line to Cleveland, transferring the liability to CVSR and providing operational rights for freight trains to CSX. This would require a significant capital investment and increase total operating costs, so should be considered carefully.>>
The key point here is that you’re talking about usurping the entire ~34 mile stretch of rail line and repurposing it as a high volume metro-to-metro commuter corridor. My personal distaste for the project aside, I don’t see any scenario in which the National Park Service would be amenable to allowing that on their lines.
The entire CVNP / NPS rail study (including the source for the quote above) can be found here.
Why not just run a shuttle or bus service from downtown to the CVNP and save hundreds of millions of dollars? The service would be better; in 20-30 years, it likely could be an autonomous, much less expensive service. It would be infinitely less fuel intensive given the size and weight of trains.
Fixed rail service expansion should be put on hold IMO until we understand the impact of the autonomous vehicle revolution. Hub-and-spoke service seems the future, with autonomous vehicles feeding the hubs connected either by bus service or rail, depending upon the level and frequency of transit demand.
We have much better uses for very limited mass transit dollars in Greater Cleveland IMO.
Respectfully…please no. We have so few places to enjoy nature and find some semblance of peace and tranquility. The thought of bombing commuter trains through the heart of CVNP 8-10 times per day to connect metro areas makes me ill.
The current scenic railroad (running seasonally) offers a relaxing way to meander through the park, spot wildlife, enjoy the river, quaint villages and such. This mission would be totally incompatible with a metro-to-metro commuter train framework running concurrently.
In short, this would be very disruptive to a natural treasure (CVNP) and it would alter, for worse, the quaint stopping points along the way.
I applaud the creative thinking, but no thank you on this one.
The Explorer services of the CVSR greatly complement the CVNP, especially providing one-way travel for bikers, kayakers and hikers.
Especially for kayakers, it would be great if more detail was provided about preferred locations to board the train, exit the train for river launch, and then exit the river. Do kayakers really use the CVSR?
Obviously with a bike, you can use the bike to return to a parking lot, making the one-way CVSR service very beneficial for longer bike trips.
How many hikers use the CVSR, rather than just driving to the location that they want to explore? However, are there any reasonable mass transit connections from downtown to the CVSR for individuals, such as visitors, that don't have a car or don't want to drive to the park for some reason?
Sadly, I haven't explored the CVNP sufficiently to know the adequacy of CVNP parking facilities, especially in peak season.
The CVSR website should provide this information.
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.
