NorthShore64

Of course I'm excited to see interest and movement towards the development of a soccer stadium in Cleveland, but WPSL Pro - Really??? The only reasons why they wouldn't pursue at least a Women's USL Super League Team are either that they Don't have the financial resources MLSNP doesn't prefer to work with an ownership group that also manages a USL team And again, they went with MLSNP over USL 1 / USL Championship because they likely didn't have the financial resources. I have been following and watching a lot of lower league soccer in the US for years. I am more optimistic about the growth and future of US soccer than most. A new women's D-2 league is great to see, but it is far from a sure thing. You need active ownership groups that are willing to spend money to build a stronger league and attract new fans. You also need time, years to build a league up into something that can draw meaningful outside investment and fan interest. Right now the bar to get into this league is pretty low, significantly lower than what CSG could pursue. Most, if not all of the teams in the new WPSL PRO seem to have less resources than Cleveland. The WPSL PRO will exist in some major markets, but all are currently represented by MLS or USL-C teams like in Oklahoma City. Regardless of the market a lot will be playing in collegiate stadiums (or a high school football stadium like Austin). Markets where they are the biggest teams in town include; Fargo, Sioux Falls, Wichita and Columbia. The closest market to Cleveland in the WPSL is Real Central NJ, an existing amateur team making the jump up into the new league. They play in suburban Trenton. There current stadium is a Women's field hockey/soccer stadium at Rider University. This is similar to the MLS Next Pro Independent teams which play in some pretty small markets when compared to Cleveland. These include; Huntsville, Bridgeport, High Point NC, Jacksonville and Grand Rapids. Well there's Jacksonville, that's a major league market right? They are currently building their own stadium without public funds, capacity: ~2,500. And I know some will way Cleveland is a new market in the current soccer landscape. Start small and grow with the fandom as you build up its presence in the market. Today there is already a league structure in the US that would facilitate that, its the USL. TL;DR - The stadium size and investment is severely mismatched with the leagues these teams will be playing in. Either raise more money to compete in higher leagues (that a market like Cleveland could easily support), or build a smaller stadium and ask for less public money. A more appropriate size for a WPSL Pro and MLSNP shared facility would be ~2,000/5,000.

Huh, I wonder why they would choose then... Seriously though, it would be good timing to make an announcement on either the clubs/stadium progress right around one of the biggest soccer games in the cities history. The city deserves better than hosting a game stolen from Columbus by an owner that doesn't want to invest in Cleveland.

Awesome. Really appreciate the work that went into this. I'm on board except I prefer KJP's suggestion to run the Green Line to the airport, with the blue line taking on the waterfront line connection. I'll take either Shaker Line so long as the East Side Red Line is balanced out with a new 4th line. Green to the west would be a good way to get higher ridership on the line. Map of switched Blue and Green Line terminus:

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up. The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations: The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations. 9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case). Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes. This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train. Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines.

Sorry to be that guy, but would you mind reposting this in the Transit ideas for the future thread for discussion so that we can keep this one focused on RTA news. I look forward to reviewing your concepts in more detail over the weekend. Ya no problem, honestly thought this was the Transit ideas for the future thread. Lol, speculative cartography beats dooms scrolling!

Many here will already be familiar with these options, but I had some graphics made up. The following is an exploration of alternative route configurations: The combined RTA rail system has 5 terminal stations (Airport, Muni Lot, Windermere, Van Aken, Green Road) . There are 10 possible ways to connect these 5 terminal stations. 9 of the 10 possible lines could be considered (the Van Aken-Green Road line would have a very limited use case). Under the current track configuration, 3 of these 9 lines (7-9) would partially require the use of reverse operations. Lines 8 and 9 could potentially be operated without reversing with the construction of a new direct rail connection somewhere east of E.55th station(8B and 9B). A direct connection along Line 7 would be unfeasible. Of the 6 remaining lines, 3 represent the existing routes operated by RTA. The other 3 new lines (4-6) connect Windermere to the Muni Lot and the Shaker Lines to the Airport. The existing network could only be completely served by a minimum of 3 lines. Operating the system with more than 5 or more lines would likely be too complex. The frequency of service on each line also must be considered when selecting a configuration. Lines operating at different frequencies could potentially result in uneven service at certain stations. Within these parameters there are a limited number of workable configurations. Most options will however increase the amount of direct trips possible when compared to the current configuration. One feasible option is a network configuration of Lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. The existing Red and Green Lines would be joined with a Blue Line rerouted towards the Airport, and a new "Orange Line" connecting the East Side Red Line to the Waterfront Line. If each line was operated at a 30 minute frequency, this would match the existing service levels of the Rapid System (15 minute frequency on the network west of Shaker Square). The proposed configuration creates new direct service to the Waterfront Line for East Side Red Line riders and new service from the West Side to Shaker Square. With his new service there are however some drawbacks. Riders traveling directly to Tower City would see no change to their commute. Riders that currently travel through Tower City would however see a slight disruption to their service as now only every other train that serves their station would be headed towards their intended destination. For example a passenger traveling from the Airport to University Circle would only be able to board a direct train every 30 minutes. This type of disruption could be minimized through the improved transfer process between lines under a unified rail system and a proper layering of scheduled trains. Trains should be scheduled to enter the "trunk" line (Tower City to E. 55th) every 7.5 minutes, alternating between each inbound line. This service pattern would allow for a rider traveling from Brookpark to board a Blue Line train, get off at Tower City, then board an east bound Orange Line train arriving in 7.5 minutes. This would save the rider 7.5 minutes of waiting at Brookpark for a direct Red Line train. Increasing frequency on this network configuration would best be achieved through adding an additional train to each line per hour, providing a service of every 20 minutes per line. This would allow for service frequencies of every 10 minutes east of Shaker Square, and every 5 minutes in the trunk line. An increased frequency alternative in this configuration could be 15 minute frequency on the Orange and Blue Lines, and 30 minute frequency on the Red and Green. A configuration with mixed frequencies will however create unbalanced train departure intervals at most stations. TL;DR - This is my preferred network configuration with a unified rolling stock. 10 minute frequency per line, two car sets on the Red, Blue and Orange Lines.

Thanks for the post. I've thought about this a lot as well and come to a similar conclusions. It is a good starting point to assume that the Red line should continue operating with at least 2 units, and Blue/Green with 1. In a scenario where the three existing lines continue on their same routes, increasing frequency should prioritize the Blue Line first. Getting the route to every 15 minutes (with 2 additional units per hour) would really increase the usability of the line. Even 1 more car running increasing frequency to every 20 minutes would be a notable upgrade. Obviously it would be great to get increased frequency on the Green Line, but in a scenario where there is only enough resources (not just rail cars but money/operators for increased operations) to add 2 new cars per hour, they should both go to the Blue Line. If Green Line frequency is kept at every 30 minutes during the day (again do to limitations beyond rail car shortages), service could at least be improved with the addition of two units for the morning/evening commute to get 1 hour of 15 minute frequency. An upgrade in service this small can improve the usability of the line for the 9-5 commuters. Just for some added context, outside of additional runs in the morning/evening commute (between 5-7.5 minute frequency during peak), service was about the same off peak in terms of frequency on the rapid lines ~20 years back. Here are the weekday timetables for the Red and Blue/Green Lines before the ~2008 service cuts:

Also just while we are briefly on the topic of KC, I think its worth mentioning that although they've made great progress on their streetcar system, there bus system is facing drastic cuts. It looks like they've come to a temporary solution, however there is still a missing long term funding source for busses in the metro area. Kansas City passes $2.5 billion budget, future of KCATA buses still up in the air Isabella Ledonne - Mar. 20, 2025 - KSHB "With an anticipated budget shortfall of nearly $32 million according to KCATA leaders, the transit authority proposed to cut 13 bus routes, reduce weekend and nighttime operating hours, reduce fleet numbers, suspend the IRIS microtransit program and lay off 171 transit workers. ... Council submitted a last-minute proposal to give the KCATA $46 million from the 2025-2026 budget to keep buses fully running with routes intact until October 31, 2025. But there are no current plans as to what may happen after that." Right now it looks like serive would be reduced to: KCATA to reduce route frequency, reinstate fares to help reduce costs MassTransitMag - Apr. 8, 2025 "service will begin at 5:00 a.m. and end at 11:00 p.m. The Main Max, Troost Max, Prospect Max and #24 will see frequency changed to every 15 to 20 minutes between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Outside of those hours, frequency will be reduced to every 30 minutes and all other routes will be switched to 60-minute headways." You can't just have a very good streetcar (by new build, mid-sized American cities standards), you also need a dedicated funding source for the cities pubic transit system. Hopefully the streetcars success could help build support for a dedicated regional funding source, perhaps at the Jackson County level. St. Louis on the other end of the state was able to expand its regional funding to help pay for continuing service and a new crosstown light rail line.

I was just in KC for a day back in March, but was able to see progress on the Riverfront extension. Here is the view from the top of the hill looking north towards the Grand Blvd. Bridge which will carry the tracks down towards the river. The entire northern extension is to service this new terminal station. There isn't a lot of trackage in its own dedicated ROW, but what little they do have is looking pretty good. The existing development along the River isn't too extensive, a few average looking new build apartment complexes and a hotel. The new development just east of the station (which broke ground just recently - KC Current breaks ground Wednesday on new mixed-use development along Berkley Riverfront) will help bring a lot more riders to the extension when fully built out. CPKC Stadium at the far end of this redevelopment project is only about a 5 minute walk from the new streetcar station. The three existing KC major league venues are all outside of the urban core, so its also cool to see the Current embrace the streetcar and the city in a way other teams haven't. Progress on the Main Street Extension is a little slower than I would have initially anticipated. I was in KC back in early 2023 and a lot of the route already had tracks imbedded in concrete back then. But its good to see that they are finally close to opening

Thanks for the reminder as we too were first puzzled why so many were on the bridge in jerseys one day when for years it was so desolate. Then we noticed it again. Please take notice planner people, developers and potential residents - It's Alive. I really try to appreciate our ballpark and how special it is, but nothing will make you more thankful for what we have then visiting other cities. Back in March I went to a game in KC for the Guards series there. I'm not trying to say anything bad about KC or Kauffman (its a nice ballpark and I get why people enjoy it), but I prefer Progressive so much more. It simultaneously feels more grand and more intimate than Kauffman while also being in the perfect location downtown, not some surface lot (which cost more to access than my actual ticket). Right now former Indians minority owner John Sherman is working to get his Royals a new ballpark (with ~$1 billion in public money) closer to town. I'm so glad that we already have a stadium right where it should be, with continuous renovations and modifications to keep it updated.

Some various pictures from opening day. Only the 11 "central" sections of the upper deck were replaced, a little under half of the total seats in 400/500. Row X folding chairs return. It looks like they were still moving into the newly renovated team office building. The Terrace hall entrance from the left field plaza is a really nice new way to get to the upper deck standing room only areas. It is a little circuitous, but it provides a third (1st entirely enclosed) escalator route to the top deck. You could still smell the new paint. The walkway up included a nice display of various significant game worn jerseys. You pass by the new North Coast Social entrance on the way up. Tickets start at ~$170 New Wire cam is surprisingly low. The new "Lexus Carnegie Club" seating area behind home plate. The biggest change to the stadium with this renovation was the removal of the (almost) continuous roof between both dugouts. I don't think it changed the sightlines too much for the lower bowl area behind the old roof, but the area does feel more open to the actual field. As is the case with the premium seating areas at a lot of stadiums, they seemed to be one of the most empty sections during play throughout the ballpark.

DCI received final approval at todays CPC meeting for its Public Square programming hub structure. The structure is movable. DCI plans to have this in by May. This is in part funded from the project for public spaces award they received in 2023. This is a small project, but a nice alternative to the cart/tent station that is occasionally used by DCI.

The City presented the Voinovich Park furnishings at todays CPC, receiving final approval. The ground cover in the existing planters will be replaced. Bocce Courts next to Nuevo (and some Bradford pears) along the southerner portion of the park will be replaced with new plantings/seating and a small play area. The southwest corner of the lawn will have a new covered seating area. Various new furnishings/seating options will be placed around the parks perimeter.

The La Bamba Bakery Complex building on West 65th received final approval at CPC today. It is about halfway between Clark and Storer across from the old Kmart. The parcel is from the land bank. Facility will include a bakery production facility, warehouse, offices, market and dinning area. The market and "fast casual" Resrutaunt are both new businesses for La Bamba group. They started in Cleveland ~15 years ago off West 25th, but I believe their current production facility is off West 130th.

The West 26th Apartment building across from the Voss redevelopment received unanimous zoning change and schematic approval at todays CPC meeting (along with approval for partial vacating of the midblock Hancock Ave). Final approval should be able to be received at local design review. The ~20 spot parking lot at the south end of the block along Monroe is a part of the Voss redevelopment, but connected to the apartment parking area.

That's why I used said "old" because it is still pretty nice but I thought they wanted to consolidate things downtown. Ya the Independence facility is still very nice, even without whatever modifications Gilbert has planned. There are a number of teams in the NBA that have only single court training facilities, with a few teams using a facility attached to their home arenas (Memphis, Denver). Within the WNBA itself, I believe the Aces are the only team with a dedicated practice facility. The Rockers facility will not only be better than a number of teams in the NBA, it'll arguably be one of the best facilities solely for a professional Women's sports team anywhere.

$250 million is a much higher fee than I would've guessed. There are teams in the WNBA who haven't even played yet that payed ~1/5th of what Gilbert did. Cleveland beat out some big markets (Philly, Houston, Miami) to get this team in this round of expansion. Sometimes all you need is a wealthy owner that believes in and is committed to the city. The WNBA season is expanding from 40 to 44 games for this upcoming season, giving each team 22 home games a season. Right now the WNBA has an average attendance of ~9,800, up from averaging ~6,500-7,500 for most of the 2010s. If the Rockers have the league average attendance (which could potentially be much higher by 2028 given the current trajectory of the league), they would bring ~220,000 fans over a 5 month period downtown to the Q. It is hard to project what Rocker attendance could look like for the 2028 season, but an average of ~10,000 could be a reasonable figure. Under Gilbert, the Monsters have been growing attendance to a league leading average of over 10,000 in the AHL. The Cavs have also maintained strong numbers even in some dreadful seasons. When compared with other sports team owners, Gilbert is better than the vast majority at building up fan interest/engagement in a team. If Haslam gets what he wants in Brook Park in time for the end of the lease in 2028, the Rockers could be arriving at a pretty opportune time. It wouldn't entirely make up for losing the Browns to the suburbs, but attendance of ~10,000/game would account for roughly 40% of the Browns fans lost to Brook Park.

The people of Brookpark continue to speak out against what they deem to be an intrusive development in their community. The... Football Stadium Gas Station? Proposed Brook Park Circle K sparks heated debate Maura Zurick - Cleveland.com - Feb. 17, 2025 "A proposal to rezone land for a new Circle K gas station and convenience store near residential properties reignited heated debate at a City Council meeting last Tuesday (Feb. 11). The measure, previously discussed in September, has been met with strong opposition from residents who have raised concerns over traffic congestion, safety and potential health hazards." If they need a special meeting for a gas station after a heated council meeting, I wonder what resident opposition could look like if the time comes for stadium discussion/approval.

Yes it is possible that Cleveland would get a Super Bowl if we build a dome, but it is in no way a certainty. If it was, then we should get some sort of confirmation from the league. Instead of the league talking about a potential Super Bowl, they are “dangling another NFL draft” for Cleveland. The Draft, an event so big that this years will be in the nations 157th largest metro around the league's 2nd oldest stadium. I don’t think we need a dome for a draft.

FWIW - yes every active NFL dome has hosted a Super Bowl however: The Astrodome never hosted a Super Bowl The Kingdome never hosted a Super Bowl The RCA Dome never hosted a Super Bowl The still standing and mostly empty Dome at America's Center (Trans World/Edward Jones Dome) also never hosted These four venues were the home stadium of an NFL team for a combined 92 seasons.

Haslam: "yes taxpayers would be on the hook if our anticipated revenue projections fell short" Also Haslam "no we can't share data for the county projections yet" ALSO "make the decision now so we can have shovels in the ground within the year"

from the PD Article: Browns unveil financing plan for $2.4B dome stadium in Brook Park Rich Exner - Cleveland.com - Feb. 13, 2025 "Haslam said that since the bonds would be issued by the county and the state, he conceded that those governments would be on the hook if something unexpected fell through on the anticipated revenue. But he said the Browns have been very conservative in their calculations, and provisions still could be written into the agreements to address concerns. ... They said they weren’t yet able to share a similar projection for the proposed county bonds. ... 'We have had productive meetings (with the Browns) of late, most principally on the lakefront plan,' Ronayne said. 'So, we were surprised at their press briefing, as it relates to their plans at Brook Park.'"

Although not specially related to the existing gateway stadium proposal/NWSL bid, this is good news for all major US cities/markets that will be left out of the MLS system. It is great that this ownership group want to bring Div. 1 soccer to Cleveland (in the form of an NWSL expansion team), however it is disappointing that they so far haven't shown any interest in pursuing the USL alternative. If this ownership group can't meet the new NWSL expansion fee of >$110 million, they should be pivoting away from the NWSL (and MLS Next Pro for the men's team), and go after a: USL Super League (Division 1 Women's) team and a USL Championship (currently Division 2, with a potential road to Division 1) team A group in Lexington went this route and opened their new stadiums for both teams in 2024. The 7,500 seat stadium has the ability to expand to 11,000 in the future. The complex (which includes 7 practice fields) cost $80 million. \

The language used by USL (over the years, but specifically in this announcement) really does seem to indicate that they are trying to create their version of PRO/REL. It might be their best shot at competing with the MLS system in the United States. The end of rapid MLS expansion (with continued growth in soccer domestically), relatively low entry cost, existing league structure and greater degree of individual team autonomy make it significantly more achievable for the USL to implement their version of PRO/REL by time this league launches. This is however the United States, and wealthy sports owners are not going to like the idea of threatening their revenue streams with a performance based league system. It will be really difficult to convince ownership groups to willingly join such a system when owners in every other professional sports league have no such threat. They might just do it this time though because its a great way to compete with MLS at the Division 1 level. Successfully implementing PRO/REL (even if it is within a "closed" USL system) could give the league legitimacy and serve as the greatest threat to the existing US professional sports franchise model in years.