After seeing the site plan and what we are hearing about SW HQ on jacobs lot..  I would prefered tthe above as their headquarters...  I know im being greedy

 

45 minutes ago, KJP said:

this would have massive implications for Downtown CLE - tourism, gambling, etc. wow. let's hope this happens!!

 

What was the reason they did not do it when Tower City opened in 1990 (which seems like just a few years ago because now I am old)?

 

Something about fume exhaust, or station ceiling height or something?

3 minutes ago, punch said:

What was the reason they did not do it when Tower City opened in 1990 (which seems like just a few years ago because now I am old)?

 

Something about fume exhaust, or station ceiling height or something?

 

For the space under the buildings, trains had to use electric locomotives (because of fume exhaust). But I think rent was the much larger factor in Amtrak moving to the lakefront.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Lakefront_station

 

"Amtrak used to run its trains through Cleveland Union Terminal (now Tower City Center), which was built in 1928 and served as the main terminal for the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit, and in 1955, the crosstown Red Line.[3] By 1971, because of Cleveland Union Terminal's high rent, the massive size of the facility, and the need to switch to electric locomotives to access its enclosed platforms, the newly-formed Amtrak decided to construct a smaller station outside the terminal.[4] This smaller station was also closed when the Lake Shore train was discontinued in 1972. Lakefront Station was built in 1976–1977 and opened for service in 1977 to provide service for the new Lake Shore Limited, which had resumed service via Toledo in 1975.[2] The station officially opened on June 29, 1977, with the formal dedication occurring on July 12.[5] According to Amtrak's employee magazine, a crowd of more than 300 gathered for the dedication of the $552,000 depot. Speakers included Mary J. Head, vice chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors, and Cleveland Mayor Ralph J. Perk. Following the dedication ceremony, attendees were invited to tour the facility and enjoy cake and coffee.[6]"

Idk, as cool as inter-city passenger rail returning to TC would be I’m really hoping that a multi-modal station as part of a Mall extension land bridge to the lakefront completing Burnham’s vision is executed in my lifetime.

I just think that project would be way more transformative for downtown and the connection to the lakefront than bringing trains back into TC would be.🤷‍♂️

Edited March 12, 20214 yr by CleCaneFan

1 hour ago, CleCaneFan said:

Idk, as cool as inter-city passenger rail returning to TC would be I’m really hoping that a multi-modal station as part of a Mall extension land bridge to the lakefront completing Burnham’s vision is executed in my lifetime.

I just think that project would be way more transformative for downtown and the connection to the lakefront than bringing trains back into TC would be.🤷‍♂️

I posted my thoughts in the transportation thread:

 

 

Since more people visit the development threads, I figured this should be posted here too.......

 

 

AND

 

 

This would be transformational for downtown. I'm curious about Bedrock's interest in something of this scale.

 

Edited April 15, 20214 yr by Mendo

16 minutes ago, Mendo said:

This would be transformational for downtown. I'm curious about Bedrock's interest in something of this scale.

 

 

So are we. Bedrock promised us a written response but their public affairs VP is out of town. 

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

So are we. Bedrock promised us a written response but their public affairs VP is out of town. 

@KJPcould something like this breathe life back into retail at Tower City or is that too far gone as far as the change in direction 

2 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

@KJPcould something like this breathe life back into retail at Tower City or is that too far gone as far as the change in direction 

 

It could, especially on the same floor level as the station's main concourse. But it would be the type of retail one would find at airports and train stations -- newstands, non-sit-down restaurants/food counters, luggage/travel accessories, touristy-type retailers, etc. Consider the potential annual boardings -- about a million people (give or take a couple hundred thousand. It would be more people than go to Cavs and Browns games per year but fewer than go to Indians games.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

It could, especially on the same floor level as the station's main concourse. But it would be the type of retail one would find at airports and train stations -- newstands, non-sit-down restaurants/food counters, luggage/travel accessories, touristy-type retailers, etc. Consider the potential annual boardings -- about a million people (give or take a couple hundred thousand. It would be more people than go to Cavs and Browns games per year but fewer than go to Indians games.

Even that retail is better than none. I’d take it

This would be great.  Keep pushing KJP!  And any type of retail would be nice, especially since that whole "Blockland" thing seems to be dead with Bernie making his Senate run. 

12 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Even that retail is better than none. I’d take it

True--and it would benefit downtown residents in many ways over nothing. 

Combine this kind of retail with the usual casino located outlet mall fare and it would be game changing for downtown life.  

When I first saw the Amtrak plans posted above I immediately thought of the Salesforce Transit Center in San Fran, which could be a lofty aspiration for a hub like this. Amtrak on the ground floor, access to Tower City Rapid Station underneath, buses on the upper level... it makes too much sense IMO. Then, queue the Bedrock development around of and on top of the entire hub and your pretty much set for life lol. Throw in a nice park too on the water for extra spice.

Edited April 16, 20214 yr by Geowizical

15 hours ago, KJP said:

 

So are we. Bedrock promised us a written response but their public affairs VP is out of town. 

 

Putting rail back in Tower City might not do a lot for Bedrock, but it would give them a long-term paying tenant; and I can't think why they would object. The "City Block" idea seems to be withering with time.

10 hours ago, Dougal said:

 

Putting rail back in Tower City might not do a lot for Bedrock, but it would give them a long-term paying tenant; and I can't think why they would object. The "City Block" idea seems to be withering with time.

And now Bernie is throwing his hat in the ring to be the most Trumpy GOP Senate candidate in Ohio.    I'm sure he won't be paying attention to Tower City any longer.  

BTW, Scene had a nice write-up of putting Amtrak back at Cleveland Union Terminal....

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2021/04/16/amtrak-station-at-tower-city-awwww-hell-yeah

 

This has the same text info but more photos than what is on the All Aboard Ohio website which I hear is hard to view on some mobile devices (probably because the site is in dire need of updating!).....

 

 

SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 2021

AAO: why Amtrak hub at Tower City makes sense

 

All Aboard Ohio’s Board of Directors voted unanimously this week to favor Tower City Center as the site for a proposed Amtrak mini-hub. But the Board of the non-profit passenger rail and transit advocacy association noted that it would not oppose development of the existing Amtrak station site as the transportation hub.

 

The statewide group said that Amtrak's proposed mini-hub at Cleveland makes a major capital improvement like this justifiable. It didn’t make sense with Amtrak running just one or two trains each day in the middle of the night. But Amtrak’s proposed Cleveland mini-hub would bring significant new passenger traffic and business activity to downtown Cleveland.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/04/aao-why-amtrak-hub-at-tower-city-makes.html

 

My first recollection of Cleveland urban development goes back to Erieview. I was a child and l was hooked. Despite the impressive number of projects completed there are these two unicorns that just can't seem to get any traction. The first is the combined landbridge/lakefront development. The second is a TowerCity rail station with multiple Amtrak routes. A CVSR would be icing on the cake. 

 

I get that there are many reasons (financial, political, real leadership) why these two projects may remain unicorns. I have had the rug pulled out from under me so many times l've stopped counting so at this point l'll just remain an interested observer. But l'll still dream and maybe someday we'll actually see one of these unicorns in the flesh.

 

And kjp, thanks for all your tireless efforts in promoting train travel in our little piece of wilderness. It is much appreciated.

KJP :  Would the landbridge still happen if this proposed intermodal amtrak hub with everyone involved moved from the current amtrak

station to tower city.

Whether it's here or the lakefront, I still believe the biggest impediment to getting this done will be our state legislature.

1 hour ago, simplythis said:

KJP :  Would the landbridge still happen if this proposed intermodal amtrak hub with everyone involved moved from the current amtrak

station to tower city.

 

I would hope so, as how many amtrak passengers were expected to be users of the landbridge! Most (which is at 3-4am) arrive or depart in passenger cars....

^ RTA Waterfront Line station would still be there. Maybe it gets moved to below landbridge or remains as is with access to/from landbridge.

4 hours ago, simplythis said:

KJP :  Would the landbridge still happen if this proposed intermodal amtrak hub with everyone involved moved from the current amtrak

station to tower city.

 

I would think so. The city began planning it before they learned about Amtrak's plan to expand services here. And like @skiwestsaid, the proposed new consolidated Waterfront Line station would be there.

 

4 hours ago, Mendo said:

Whether it's here or the lakefront, I still believe the biggest impediment to getting this done will be our state legislature.

 

I started writing a reply which turned into a column! I posted the column here:

 

http://allaboardohio.org/2021/04/17/from-750-miles-to-500-how-a-new-definition-can-expand-amtrak-in-ohio/

 

The short version is, we may get some passenger service without any involvement by Ohio IF Congress changes the definition of a long-distance trains from 750 miles to 500 -- as it should.

 

For continued discussion of passenger rail (non-Tower City Center stuff), see this thread.......

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Redirecting from the Tower City real estate developments thread.....

 

 

 

I started writing a reply but turned it into a blog post at AAO's website.....

 

http://allaboardohio.org/2021/04/17/from-750-miles-to-500-how-a-new-definition-can-expand-amtrak-in-ohio/

 

 

 

 

 

I love this idea so much! Keep up the pressure KJP!

@KJPwhere does Bedrock and the city stand on the idea of bringing all of this to tower city? I think it’s a GREAT idea and it’s a game changer. 

45 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

@KJPwhere does Bedrock and the city stand on the idea of bringing all of this to tower city? I think it’s a GREAT idea and it’s a game changer. 

Also, since there’s an “airmall” in most airports (including Hopkins) can’t we have some variation of that in this? It’ll be a major transit hub, I would think it would make a lot of sense to have a version of the airmall concept here

As long as Bedrock can still build over the train platforms, I don't see why they would have a problem with this idea.

20 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

@KJPwhere does Bedrock and the city stand on the idea of bringing all of this to tower city? I think it’s a GREAT idea and it’s a game changer. 

 

We reached out to them and they promised to give us a statement. But I think their VP of communications was out of town. We're looking forward to hearing from them. They stand to benefit greatly and this gives them a another retail target market for Tower City.

Maybe I'm in the minority - but I don't have urgency for a lakefront transportation hub.  I may just not know enough about the issue - so I apologize to the more knowledgeable.  But point being, I'm super excited about Amtrak's interest in a Tower City hub.  Increasing Cleveland's connectivity to other major cities has to be a key goal for the area's long term future.  Having more folks arriving at Tower City - even for purposes of travel to other cities- but especially for those coming downtown for business or entertainment -  and being on the front step of Public Square -  how can that not be a total win for the city?

 

When you think of the infrastructure possibilities for the not-too-distant future,  like an Ohio hub connecting Cincy, Columbus and Cleveland -or a bullet train that takes passengers between Chicago and Cleveland in 30 minutes - Tower City as a hub is going "Back to the Future" when Cleveland's Union Terminal was a vital stop between the East Coast and Chicago.  Years ago, a P.R. campaign called Cleveland the "best location in the nation."  But that was a phrase with a decidedly mid-20th century perspective.  Our notion of where one has "to be"  has changed so much in recent years thanks to Zoom meetings and the new post-pandemic mentality.  Still, cities that are easily accessible and connected to one another  have a major evolutionary advantage going forward even as a high tech world continues shrinking.  Redeveloping the Tower City location as a national transportation hub should be a key target for Cleveland leadership effective now. 

5 hours ago, CleveFan said:

Maybe I'm in the minority - but I don't have urgency for a lakefront transportation hub.  I may just not know enough about the issue - so I apologize to the more knowledgeable.  But point being, I'm super excited about Amtrak's interest in a Tower City hub.  Increasing Cleveland's connectivity to other major cities has to be a key goal for the area's long term future.  Having more folks arriving at Tower City - even for purposes of travel to other cities- but especially for those coming downtown for business or entertainment -  and being on the front step of Public Square -  how can that not be a total win for the city?

 

When you think of the infrastructure possibilities for the not-too-distant future,  like an Ohio hub connecting Cincy, Columbus and Cleveland -or a bullet train that takes passengers between Chicago and Cleveland in 30 minutes - Tower City as a hub is going "Back to the Future" when Cleveland's Union Terminal was a vital stop between the East Coast and Chicago.  Years ago, a P.R. campaign called Cleveland the "best location in the nation."  But that was a phrase with a decidedly mid-20th century perspective.  Our notion of where one has "to be"  has changed so much in recent years thanks to Zoom meetings and the new post-pandemic mentality.  Still, cities that are easily accessible and connected to one another  have a major evolutionary advantage going forward even as a high tech world continues shrinking.  Redeveloping the Tower City location as a national transportation hub should be a key target for Cleveland leadership effective now. 

I’m quite sure moving the transit center back to Tower City is the overwhelming majority opinion here. I think the only slight hesitation is that moving the transit will make it harder to get the land bridge, but there are still ways to make that happen. (As Ken pointed out, that could still consolidate the two Waterfront Line stations.) All of your points are right on. 

 

10 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m quite sure moving the transit center back to Tower City is the overwhelming majority opinion here. I think the only slight hesitation is that moving the transit will make it harder to get the land bridge, but there are still ways to make that happen. (As Ken pointed out, that could still consolidate the two Waterfront Line stations.) All of your points are right on. 

 

If given the choice between a land bridge and moving a major transit station from the middle nowhere down the tracks to Tower City, I'm taking the latter 8 days a week

1 hour ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

If given the choice between a land bridge and moving a major transit station from the middle nowhere down the tracks to Tower City, I'm taking the latter 8 days a week

 

Agree, even though I think the land bridge is also of great importance. Perhaps the Tower City option gives momentum toward a less hectic lakefront, at least from a vehicular standpoint.

 

 

2 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

If given the choice between a land bridge and moving a major transit station from the middle nowhere down the tracks to Tower City, I'm taking the latter 8 days a week

I'd personally, for sure, pick the land bridge, I can understand why others wouldn't, but for me, it's the clear choice. It just comes down to priorities. 

15 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I'd personally, for sure, pick the land bridge, I can understand why others wouldn't, but for me, it's the clear choice. It just comes down to priorities. 

OK, let's be clear here - this ISN'T the choice, at least not at this point.  Keeping Amtrak on the lakefront doesn't necessarily deliver the land bridge; and moving Amtrak to Tower City doesn't eliminate the land bridge option.  There will be lots of different funding mechanisms considered (or that at least should be considered) and many can only be used for certain types of projects, so it's pretty difficult to make simple comparisons on a cost basis.  I'd be a lot more curious in WHY you think one version or the other would be better.  For me, the high level bridge across the Cuyahoga alone is enough reason to strongly favor Tower City over the Lakefront.  The river is more useful when the NS rail bridge is open, and not having to rely on a lift bridge makes westbound rail out of Tower City more reliable and timely. And I have previously outlined my entire comparison thought process, as has Ken (via AAO).

 

Another thought: by some pre-pandemic measures, expanding the convention center would have been a reasonable proposal.  Perhaps this proposal could be merged with land bridge concepts as a way to figure out funding, with or without the Amtrak station.

5 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

OK, let's be clear here - this ISN'T the choice, at least not at this point.  Keeping Amtrak on the lakefront doesn't necessarily deliver the land bridge; and moving Amtrak to Tower City doesn't eliminate the land bridge option.  There will be lots of different funding mechanisms considered (or that at least should be considered) and many can only be used for certain types of projects, so it's pretty difficult to make simple comparisons on a cost basis.  I'd be a lot more curious in WHY you think one version or the other would be better.  For me, the high level bridge across the Cuyahoga alone is enough reason to strongly favor Tower City over the Lakefront.  The river is more useful when the NS rail bridge is open, and not having to rely on a lift bridge makes westbound rail out of Tower City more reliable and timely. And I have previously outlined my entire comparison thought process, as has Ken (via AAO).

 

Another thought: by some pre-pandemic measures, expanding the convention center would have been a reasonable proposal.  Perhaps this proposal could be merged with land bridge concepts as a way to figure out funding, with or without the Amtrak station.

Has a convention center expansion north been discussed anywhere outside of our reckless speculating here?

2 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Has a convention center expansion north been discussed anywhere outside of our reckless speculating here?

I don't think so.

9 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Has a convention center expansion north been discussed anywhere outside of our reckless speculating here?

I remember KJP discussing it in the Lakefront development thread. What i remember reading about it sounded positive.

He will have to comment on it.

22 minutes ago, simplythis said:

I remember KJP discussing it in the Lakefront development thread. What i remember reading about it sounded positive.

He will have to comment on it.

It needs to happen. 

23 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

OK, let's be clear here - this ISN'T the choice, at least not at this point.  Keeping Amtrak on the lakefront doesn't necessarily deliver the land bridge; and moving Amtrak to Tower City doesn't eliminate the land bridge option.  There will be lots of different funding mechanisms considered (or that at least should be considered) and many can only be used for certain types of projects, so it's pretty difficult to make simple comparisons on a cost basis.  I'd be a lot more curious in WHY you think one version or the other would be better.  For me, the high level bridge across the Cuyahoga alone is enough reason to strongly favor Tower City over the Lakefront.  The river is more useful when the NS rail bridge is open, and not having to rely on a lift bridge makes westbound rail out of Tower City more reliable and timely. And I have previously outlined my entire comparison thought process, as has Ken (via AAO).

 

Another thought: by some pre-pandemic measures, expanding the convention center would have been a reasonable proposal.  Perhaps this proposal could be merged with land bridge concepts as a way to figure out funding, with or without the Amtrak station.

I know that the two aren't actually linked. I was considering the question more as a hypothetical. (Bit in the real world of limited funds a plausible one) I've read your post arguing that a new CUT would be the most important mega project for Cleveland, it was well thought out, but I just disagree.

 

The short version is that what I value most in cities is walkability, and the difference that the land bridge will make in that respect is huge. I wander down the malls every few days, and every time I wish I could walk straight to the lake. What St. Louis did with the gateway arch is what I'd like to see Cleveland do for the Lake / Rock Hall. What I value second most is parks and urban green space, the land bridge also provides more of that.

 

And lastly, it isn't like the lakefront Amtrak station is a bad location (assuming a land ridge is built), this is at best a comparison between a good place to put the station, and a great place to put the station. There are a lot of pluses and minuses. But the one I haven't seen anyone being up, is that while it is slightly farther from Public Square, the whole walk will be down the malls, with great views, and green space the whole way!

 

One negative to the CUT, at least from my perspective, and one that I don't see discussed is that the area south of Terminal Tower that is currently a sea of parking lots, has some tremendous park potential! Downtown doesn't have any truly large parks and I'd love to see the river bank be park from Collision bend to the new Canal Basin Park. It will probably never happen, but I think it would be transformative for downtown to really embrace the riverfront and fill it with parks. 

 

On the whole I just perceive the land bridge as a more valuable addition to Cleveland, particularly if you assume we will get a new Amtrak Station either way. But I recognize it depends on what you prioritize for Cleveland's development. Just my 2¢

Something to consider when comparing station locations is that a lot of people using Amtrak connect through CUT. Currently the times Amtrak trains come through the waterfront line is not running or at least not synchronized to make the connection with lakefront (I have always just walked up to station). The walk isn't bad but having it all in one enclosed location would be ideal.

I've waited for a rideshare at the current station countless times- they can never find the entrance and when they do it looks abandoned and they turn around. Tower City would eliminate that BS, and topic for another forum, but the wayfinding to the current station is the woooorst if you don't already know where it is/how to get there.

10 hours ago, simplythis said:

I remember KJP discussing it in the Lakefront development thread. What i remember reading about it sounded positive.

He will have to comment on it.

 

The convention center expansion is being considered for the Medical Mart:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/10/global-center-for-health-innovation-leaders-want-30m-renovation-to-convert-facility-into-convention-center-extension.html

 

Remember that the city began planning the lakefront landbridge long before they knew that Amtrak was considering a major expansion here. The city's assumption was that Amtrak would continue to have a minimal presence on the lakefront. They can still build for that because at least the early stages of Amtrak expansion (Cleveland to NYC via Pittsburgh and via Buffalo) will use the lakefront station.

Using the Medical Mart certainly makes a lot of sense to me.  That would give that building a purpose finally.  Any idea if that is still actively under consideration?

4 hours ago, viscomi said:

Something to consider when comparing station locations is that a lot of people using Amtrak connect through CUT. Currently the times Amtrak trains come through the waterfront line is not running or at least not synchronized to make the connection with lakefront (I have always just walked up to station). The walk isn't bad but having it all in one enclosed location would be ideal.

 

if they are going to do a land bridge then yeah definitely this needs done too. at mimimum and in lieu of a full multi-modal facility. of course it doesn't matter now, but it will as the station gets more train service outside of vampire hours.

 

the land bridge is really an excellent idea though for sure. that would be really exciting to have and attractive for visitors. so much better than some generic bridge. two thumbs up for that.

 

question -- could it end up that both the lakefront and tc stations are used for amtrak?

Can't see Amtrak having two downtown stations in Cleveland. The advantage of the lakefront station site is that it can be expanded incrementally -- with or without the land bridge. Thus, the disadvantage of the Tower City site is that it would require a large, up-front investment just to get trains to the site, let alone the station facilities itself. Even if Amtrak decides today to have its Cleveland station at Tower City Center, it might be at least a decade before the first train could enter it. Amtrak expansion can and probably will happen incrementally, one line at a time, and then expanding service/increasing speeds on those lines. And in the absence of local leadership, the easiest thing to do is to keep expanding incrementally at the current station site.

 

While I don't like to make predictions, here's how I could see Amtrak expanding locally:

 

Existing: four daily trains (east/west Lake Shore Limited + east/west Capitol Limited)

2023-25: 10 daily trains (existing + 2 east/2 west Empire Corridor extension + 2 east/west Pennsylvanian extensions)

2026-30: 16 daily trains (existing + 2025 expansions + 3 east/3 west CLE-TOL-DET Corridor)

2030-35: 22 daily trains (existing + 2025-30 expansions + 3 north/3 south 3C Corridor)

 

A decade?? Christ. Bill Maher is always talking about the expense and difficulty in building things in America today. Perfect example.

1 hour ago, cadmen said:

A decade?? Christ. Bill Maher is always talking about the expense and difficulty in building things in America today. Perfect example.

 

A decade is the average length for a major transportation project to go from idea to ribbon-cutting. I hope it's only that long/short.

7 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

A decade is the average length for a major transportation project to go from idea to ribbon-cutting. I hope it's only that long/short.

Sheesh. That’s a buzzkill. Sad