11 hours ago, Geowizical said:

Very true. It was more a suggestion since this is somewhat of a Cavs/Clinic-specific project if felt kind of removed from the rest, but I could see why not

Maybe by the phases to help socialize per their plan - Phasae 1A, 1B, 2, 3.... especially since we are led to believe that news on the start of Phase 1B may come this year.

I forgot to mention this earlier but as of the weekend there was also clearing and grubbing happening and heavy machinery being assembled at the top of Eagle Ave just off Ontario. I assume of course for the reconstruction of the Eagle Ave connection down to the Cavs facility. A bit jarring at first to see some of the overgrown weeds and plants on the river-facing side of Ontario gone lol

Today. These guys are cookin 

Lotsa riverside construction going on -- here, on Scranton Peninsula and possibly West Bank (1250 Riverbed).

 

Not as pretty a shot, but i stood on the roof of my truck da**it so I’m posting

 

I love that the flood gates opened for pics of this project. I was driving down there recently through the mud to peak through the open gate. It's quietly become a major construction site.

15 hours ago, freethink said:

 

Welcome to the party finally. That was easy. Now do the Lakefront with a potential remodeled Browns stadium along with a future Burke dome, adjacent development (Vocon renderings) and All People’s park. 

On 3/7/2025 at 11:09 AM, Mendo said:

I love that the flood gates opened for pics of this project. I was driving down there recently through the mud to peak through the open gate. It's quietly become a major construction site.

My addition to the Cavalanche

On 3/5/2025 at 1:08 PM, ITakeTheRapid said:

Today. These guys are cookin 

 

Work on the riverfront is coming along very fast... you might even say Bedrock has hit Peak Performance

 

Edited March 10Mar 10 by sonisharri

Love it.   Dan Gilbert gets it done.  Imagine how different this Browns stadium debacle would be if Gilbert owned the team and wanted to invest in our urban core! 

Does anyone know what is inside the brick building along the tracks

That smoke stack really needs to go! 

7 minutes ago, newyorker said:

That smoke stack really needs to go! 

I'm pro smokestack, it could be a cool way finding feature. Dress it up, add lights, etc. Cool potential. Adaptive reuse, nod to the past and all that. 

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

I'm pro smokestack, it could be a cool way finding feature. Dress it up, add lights, etc. Cool potential. Adaptive reuse, nod to the past and all that. 

Agreed! I'm not a designer (obviously), but something like this on each side of the smokestack (lit up at night) could be fun, ala Battery Park.

 

@Paul in Cleveland ! 

 

Also not a designer, more of a dreamer.

 

How about the letters "Cavalanche" ? Plus, crazy lights and and a big sparkler shooting embers out the top at the start of said Cavalanche ™ ? 

The smokestack next to Lower.com field, home of the Columbus Crew is a great example, https://www.columbuscrew.com/news/top-2021-moments-smokestack-facelift.  I believe it even has pyrotechnics for celebrating goals.  

Edited March 11Mar 11 by STRIVE2THRIVE

Wait til Bobby George sees these ideas. Thanks guys.

Has there been any progress on replacement of the Stones Levee bridge that was removed? It's my understanding that it's going to be replaced by a new one, for cars and people.

On 3/10/2025 at 4:16 PM, newyorker said:

That smoke stack really needs to go! 

Excuse me sir, but these older structures help sell that mix of historical cleveland and a new future.

 

So the smoke stack stays and a new use for the building should be found.

 

Egad! Some people just put me in a bother 

I wonder if Bedrock could tie this into their rock and roll land? It sounds like they don't want to, but maybe they should want to? It's clearly marketed to tourists, and as has been discussed, so would CVSR. Why not double down from Bedrock's perspective? Tie the unique national park attraction into your mixed use tourist magnet, it seems like that can only draw more business to rock and roll land. Purely conceptually it makes sense. Maybe they just don't want the headache of working with so many layers of bureaucracy, regulatory hurdles, etc? I don't know, but that's my guess.

 

Pivoting slightly, I know Bedrock intends to rebuild the Gateway connection, I haven't seen them say they will connect their new Rock and Roll land into this, but I don't see why they wouldn't. Again, makes sense, hopefully they do. That would be one more attraction with a direct link to Tower City, which seems like only a good thing to me!

 

I know I have seen a previous proposal for a CVSR terminus at the walkway location as well, maybe there's some way to make all these things work together instead of fight each other? 

5 hours ago, originaljbw said:

The naysayers keep saying "the 25 mph train" which of course it is for breakfast with santa and murder mystery dinners.

 

Is there any reason why a commuter train couldn't go 55 during weekdays/business hours? 

The National Park Service has a low speed limit for the train in the park. This is not the right route for commuter rail service - that would need to use the NS mainline right of way further east through Bedford, Macedonia, and Hudson. (Same RoW as Amtrak uses, but it would need significant upgrades for frequent passenger service since there is already so much freight on that route.)

3 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

The National Park Service has a low speed limit for the train in the park. This is not the right route for commuter rail service - that would need to use the NS mainline right of way further east through Bedford, Macedonia, and Hudson. (Same RoW as Amtrak uses, but it would need significant upgrades for frequent passenger service since there is already so much freight on that route.)

In addition, I'm quite certain the tracks wouldn't be rated for 55 mph operation over most of the route anyway.  Would probably require lots of upgrades to ballast, curves etc.   

13 hours ago, cadmen said:

It's a train. My unscientific opinion is everyone loves to ride the train. So it's a sort of "lf you build it people will ride it." It's not more complicated than that. Everything else is just details.

9 hours ago, originaljbw said:

The naysayers keep saying "the 25 mph train" which of course it is for breakfast with santa and murder mystery dinners.

 

It doesn't need to be fast to be useful. For visiting the park.  For a relaxing day trip to Akron or Cleveland.  For catching up on email or reading or getting some moments in the greenery of the park. 

 

It doesn't have to be something that EVERYONE wants to use every day to be a worthwhile investment. 

Just to add another voice, I've done the Rockside to Akron CVR trip a couple of times.  It takes a little over 2 hours round-trip.  While there are many beautiful scenic views, there is a decent sameness to some of it as the park is just that, a park.  And yet, everyone who was a part of both groups LOVED the experience.  It did not feel boring or tedious because along with the view, you also have the people you came with to talk to.  It is an experience.  It may not be something that every person will want to do every week or every month, but it's one that is enjoyable to do from time to time and is extremely novel to out-of-towners.  And in terms of variety, extending it to Cleveland would only help in that regard as the city will add very different views.  One would transition from being directly downtown to the suburbs and into the park, quite the scenic trip.  And I imagine a lot of folks would not go the whole way, many would ride from downtown to Peninsula or Rockside instead of Akron, increasing access to those places and the nearby businesses with folks who aren't interested in visiting the entire route.

 

And as others have said, while this is not a transit-oriented endeavor, increasing access to CVR for people without cars is a big deal.  I work in adult education, and a massive proportion of my students are poor and cannot afford a car.  What an enriching thing this could be for them, their children, and their grandchildren in the same way that having a free world-class art museum and an incredibly good zoo (free on Mondays) both serves as tremendous public goods.

 

I don't think it needs to necessarily go all the way to Tower City, but the closer it CAN get, the better (and that seems like the most logical option based on everything else I've seen, but I'm glad to be proven wrong if there really is a stronger alternative).

23 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

If people want to go to the park they will drive vs. ride this because it's too slow to justify riding this instead. That's it that's all. When it comes to transportation in this country people will always choose the more convenient option. 

 

I also don't feel that there are enough people without a car that will use this to justify the investment. 

 

Since we all seem to be talking about theoretical situations, here is a real one: as a college student, I don't own a car. I've never ridden the CVSR because the Rockside stop is inconvenient from most of Cleveland (without a car). Despite having been an avid hiker growing up, largely through Boy Scouts (I literally built a hiking trail as my Eagle Scout project), I've only been to the national park once: when I took the 77 (bus) to Brecksville to visit the metropark and walked far enough across to get to the national park side.

 

Realistically, many of us just don't want to spend $9,000/yr on car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance, parking, and tolls just so that we can go to the 3 places in the suburbs that don't have bus stops.

 

You've said that no one would ride the train because it's quicker to just drive—then surely, nobody would ever hike, bike, or kayak to the park either, because the freeway is faster. As others have said, it is a form of recreation as much as it is a form of transportation.

 

On 3/12/2025 at 9:13 AM, Ethan said:

 

To get back on topic, while the proposed station location at the riverfront is not ideal, it's possible it would be a very short walk to an infill RTA station at the new soccer stadium. If riverfront development continues around the Cavs facility and new stadium, this could make a good "Riverfront East" stop.

Imagine how much better Bedrock’s riverfront would be if it was built around this:

 

 

Thanks for the great work, @Geowizical

 

 

On 3/13/2025 at 6:34 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

The National Park Service has a low speed limit for the train in the park. This is not the right route for commuter rail service - that would need to use the NS mainline right of way further east through Bedford, Macedonia, and Hudson. (Same RoW as Amtrak uses, but it would need significant upgrades for frequent passenger service since there is already so much freight on that route.)

 

nah. amtrak zips through lots of national parks. or a waiver could be had. it may not be the best route for a cac commuter route, but it could be done if there was enough will to do it. the reasoning being it seems to be quickest/easiest to accomplish.

3 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

nah. amtrak zips through lots of national parks. or a waiver could be had. it may not be the best route for a cac commuter route, but it could be done if there was enough will to do it. the reasoning being it seems to be quickest/easiest to accomplish.

What happens in other national parks is not relevant. The CVNP has a low speed limit for this RoW. And as @Cleburger pointed out, the tracks, signaling, and road crossings would have to be significantly upgraded to increase speed. So if we are spending the money for the infrastructure upgrades to make a proper regional rail, we should spend it on the appropriate rail corridor. This proposal is about getting people into the park, not through it. 

On 3/14/2025 at 1:16 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

What happens in other national parks is not relevant. The CVNP has a low speed limit for this RoW. And as @Cleburger pointed out, the tracks, signaling, and road crossings would have to be significantly upgraded to increase speed. So if we are spending the money for the infrastructure upgrades to make a proper regional rail, we should spend it on the appropriate rail corridor. This proposal is about getting people into the park, not through it. 

 

it does matter what happens in other national parks to point out the speed limit if one exists here is completely arbitary and could be negotiated. more importantly its relevant if it costs less to get up and running vs a more ideal row. and of course any stops in the park … would include the park. 😉

28 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

it does matter what happens in other national parks to point out the speed limit if one exists here is completely arbitary and could be negotiated. more importantly its relevant if it costs less to get up and running vs a more ideal row. and of course any stops in the park … would include the park. 😉

Other national parks are not relevant because they do not have the obviously superior alternative route that we have here. They are going through parks because they have to. Our intercity transit link does not have to. The speed limit from the national park is not the primary issue. Once you factor in   the infrastructure upgrade costs necessary for faster speeds, the speed limit argument is moot; it’s just an easy point to include when discussing why this should not be the intercity route between Cleveland and Akron. 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Other national parks are not relevant because they do not have the obviously superior alternative route that we have here. They are going through parks because they have to. Our intercity transit link does not have to. The speed limit from the national park is not the primary issue. Once you factor in   the infrastructure upgrade costs necessary for faster speeds, the speed limit argument is moot; it’s just an easy point to include when discussing why this should not be the intercity route between Cleveland and Akron. 

 

i’m not sure what needs to be done and what costs more for any various routings, so that would need to be estimated. but i suspect the cv line is cheapest to upgrade and you may be pushing aside good enough for perfect. for one thing it absolutely needs to be extended up to downtown asap, just for park visit purposes. and if the downtown extension gets built you can bet akron will want one. if it were ever extended south it would become a stealth commuter line (lets call it) regardless.

3 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

i’m not sure what needs to be done and what costs more for any various routings, so that would need to be estimated. but i suspect the cv line is cheapest to upgrade and you may be pushing aside good enough for perfect. for one thing it absolutely needs to be extended up to downtown asap, just for park visit purposes. and if the downtown extension gets built you can bet akron will want one. if it were ever extended south it would become a stealth commuter line (lets call it) regardless.

 

It already extends to Akron. I'm not an expert, but looking at much of the route it is between the river and roadways meaning there are not a lot of opportunities for bypasses which I would think you would want for an effective commuter train. 

 

Also, thinking of the alternate route, which I believe would run closer to Hudson, it hits more population centers that would support a commuter rail line. CVSR very much does not hit population centers along it's existing route. 

 

Look, I'm for extending north to Cleveland and south to Canton, but we shouldn't promise more than what this route will ever be. Failure of this line to be an effective commuter route could very effectively be weaponized against CVSR and commuter rail more generally. 

Edited March 16Mar 16 by Luke_S

53 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

i’m not sure what needs to be done and what costs more for any various routings, so that would need to be estimated. but i suspect the cv line is cheapest to upgrade and you may be pushing aside good enough for perfect. for one thing it absolutely needs to be extended up to downtown asap, just for park visit purposes. and if the downtown extension gets built you can bet akron will want one. if it were ever extended south it would become a stealth commuter line (lets call it) regardless.

C'mon. You are arguing with me about this and you aren't even aware that the CVSR already goes to downtown Akron. I really, really want there to be proper regional rail between Cleveland, Akron, and Canton and I've spent a lot of time learning about what has been studied and what would be practical. As Luke much more politely summarized, there are many reasons why the CVSR is NOT the right route for CAC rail. It is relevant to note that when CAC rail was studied as part of the Cleveland Commuter Rail feasibility study in 2001 (sponsored by NOACA), the CVSR route wasn't even one of the options considered - that's how obvious it is that it isn't the right route. Characterizing the CVSR extension as transit between Cleveland and Akron will undermine efforts for proper transportation investments in Ohio. Again, extending CVSR is about getting more people into the park, and it is absolutely worth doing for that purpose.

 

I fully acknowledge that SOME people will use it as a way to get from Cleveland to Akron. That doesn't make it an intercity transit project.

 

Here's my post with the link to the 2001 Commuter Rail feasibility study with lots of details about how to implement commuter rail in Northeast Ohio:

 

15 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

C'mon. You are arguing with me about this and you aren't even aware that the CVSR already goes to downtown Akron. I really, really want there to be proper regional rail between Cleveland, Akron, and Canton and I've spent a lot of time learning about what has been studied and what would be practical. As Luke much more politely summarized, there are many reasons why the CVSR is NOT the right route for CAC rail. It is relevant to note that when CAC rail was studied as part of the Cleveland Commuter Rail feasibility study in 2001 (sponsored by NOACA), the CVSR route wasn't even one of the options considered - that's how obvious it is that it isn't the right route. Characterizing the CVSR extension as transit between Cleveland and Akron will undermine efforts for proper transportation investments in Ohio. Again, extending CVSR is about getting more people into the park, and it is absolutely worth doing for that purpose.

 

I fully acknowledge that SOME people will use it as a way to get from Cleveland to Akron. That doesn't make it an intercity transit project.

 

Here's my post with the link to the 2001 Commuter Rail feasibility study with lots of details about how to implement commuter rail in Northeast Ohio:

 

 

 

lol so its even closer to almost there — just extend to cle downtown, downtown akron, cak and canton.

 

its just that much cheaper to do as its up and running and that expense is already baked in.

 

the extension to downtown cle itself will make it a commuter line de facto. bet.

 

i dk what kind of ridership your are expecting, but nec type service, or really any typical built from scratch heavy duty commuter line service probably isnt needed. 

 

even if it is ever needed, build it out on a better route later whenever a pot of gold is found — as this one is going to be a commuter line regardless once the downtown cle extension is up and running. i doubt two n-s commuter lines would be needed, so a stealth, pokey service will do fine.

9 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

 

lol so its even closer to almost there — just extend to cle downtown, downtown akron, cak and canton.

 

its just that much cheaper to do as its up and running and that expense is already baked in.

 

the extension to downtown cle itself will make it a commuter line de facto. bet.

 

i dk what kind of ridership your are expecting, but nec type service, or really any typical built from scratch heavy duty commuter line service probably isnt needed. 

 

even if it is ever needed, build it out on a better route later whenever a pot of gold is found — as this one is going to be a commuter line regardless once the downtown cle extension is up and running. i doubt two n-s commuter lines would be needed, so a stealth, pokey service will do fine.

 

If your point is only that we should extend the line north to Cleveland and south to Canton and if people end up using it to get between Canton and Cleveland, then sure, I'm with you. 

 

But it originally sounded like you wanted a different commuter services during week days and that just doesn't make sense. Including a stop at CAK doesn't make sense. You ignored basically all of the reasons why this isn't even worth considering as a commuter rail route. You'd degrade the scenic rail service to provide subpar commuter service and both would likely fail.

Gee Whiz.  I may be in the minority, but after 5 days I believe this CVSR discussion can officially be described as beating a dead horse.  What is even more frustrating is that the original post that started it was so ill informed and mindless.  Maybe all this is just evidence of a development slow down so we have nothing interesting to discuss.  Please, somebody post a picture of the Cavs facility or speculate about Phase 1b.

20 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

If your point is only that we should extend the line north to Cleveland and south to Canton and if people end up using it to get between Canton and Cleveland, then sure, I'm with you. 

 

But it originally sounded like you wanted a different commuter services during week days and that just doesn't make sense. Including a stop at CAK doesn't make sense. You ignored basically all of the reasons why this isn't even worth considering as a commuter rail route. You'd degrade the scenic rail service to provide subpar commuter service and both would likely fail.

 

no i’m saying when its extended to downtown cle it will be a stealth commuter service regardless.

 

further extensions south don’t really matter as they aren’t ideal, but they would be nice if thats all that can be afforded.

Wait until you see the proposed schedule.

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

Wait until you see the proposed schedule.

I'm guessing it has to be about 2-2.5 hours from the South Flats to Akron. 

Posts (almost 30 of them) for the CVSR discussion have been moved to the appropriate thread.

 

Tower City Center lacks coherent future without more development, rail access

By Ken Prendergast / March 21, 2025

 

Like many who work in one of the dozen buildings of Downtown Cleveland’s Tower City Center complex, Nora Romanoff parks her car where more than 100 railroad passenger trains a day once pulled into or out of a labyrinth built as Cleveland Union Terminal. Just as rail travelers did from 1930-1977, she rides an escalator up into a grand railroad concourse that was significantly remodeled in 1988-90 to become today’s retail-heavy The Avenue at Tower City.

 

MORE: 

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/03/21/tower-city-center-lacks-coherent-future-without-more-development-rail-access/

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Tower City Center lacks coherent future without more development, rail access

By Ken Prendergast / March 21, 2025

 

Like many who work in one of the dozen buildings of Downtown Cleveland’s Tower City Center complex, Nora Romanoff parks her car where more than 100 railroad passenger trains a day once pulled into or out of a labyrinth built as Cleveland Union Terminal. Just as rail travelers did from 1930-1977, she rides an escalator up into a grand railroad concourse that was significantly remodeled in 1988-90 to become today’s retail-heavy The Avenue at Tower City.

 

MORE: 

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/03/21/tower-city-center-lacks-coherent-future-without-more-development-rail-access/

 

I do find it interesting yet frustrating that Gilbert essentially embraces a rail component back home but won't consider it for the property he owns that literally was built to serve rail. I can't call it favoritism but boy the differences in how he treats both cities are beginning to become stark. This is especially true when you realize he offered subsidized rents to national retailers like H&M at his Detroit developments to attract them downtown but won't do the same here. 

27 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

This is especially true when you realize he offered subsidized rents to national retailers like H&M at his Detroit developments to attract them downtown but won't do the same here. 

I hope his Hudson Tower is a success so he can possibly produce something similar on the old nucleus site and possibly offer similar incentives. Maybe subsidizing the rent in Detroit will encourage brands to trust Dan and pay full rent in Cleveland  

 

Should note Hudson tower’s success in similar vain is in a way subsidized synthetically by GM leaving their infamous RenCen building which will now possibly implode two of its tower, kinda sad but at least the rest will be repurposed 

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I do find it interesting yet frustrating that Gilbert essentially embraces a rail component back home but won't consider it for the property he owns that literally was built to serve rail. I can't call it favoritism but boy the differences in how he treats both cities are beginning to become stark. This is especially true when you realize he offered subsidized rents to national retailers like H&M at his Detroit developments to attract them downtown but won't do the same here. 

LOL, if things are becoming, as you say, "Stark," all we would have there would be a big parling lot.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

54 minutes ago, urb-a-saurus said:

LOL, if things are becoming, as you say, "Stark," all we would have there would be a big parling lot.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I thought about that when I typed the word lol. 

Frustrating IS the word to describe Bedrock and Tower City. What does Tower City need? PEOPLE! It needs foot traffic. It needs people to walk by its empty storefronts. But if it got that foot traffic it could fill those stores with actual customers. Also, taking advantage of those empty park and ride lots by building apartment buildings would of course add to the foot traffic at Tower City. The merger of an already built terminus of shopping/office space with a rail network of RTA, Amtrack and CVSR is so obvious even a blind man could see it. The solution is right there. It's mostly done already. Just add the little rail connection and suddenly the solution will explode into a vibrant space. All the parts will come together to create life. 

 

I like to talk about the fact that often a great idea, a great solution just needs a champion. Here is a chance for Bedrock to be not just a champion for themselves because they already control a mostly dead Tower City and dead river front but a champion for a  new rail network to use an already existing rail center. The seeds are mostly in place, dorment. The just need a rainmaker to bring them to life. That would be you Bedrock. Save your not inconsequential investment there and bring to life rail, housing, tourism and the graditude of an old rust belt city that's trying reinvent itself. 

 

The ball's in your court Bedrock. 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, KJP said:

Tower City Center lacks coherent future without more development, rail access

Good commentary, good read.  If I were to critique the editorial though, I'd say it seemed a bit harsh and pessimistic.

 

"It was frustrating to hear that Bedrock didn’t have a stronger answer on how to reactivate Tower City because, to me, the answer was at best not considered and at worst outright rejected. And I wasn’t the only one frustrated."

 

The factors that have led to Tower City's struggles (suburban sprawl, auto dependency, de-population) have been decades in the making.  Frustration that Bedrock has not yet figured out how to reverse these trends in the 10 years (someone can fact check that, I got that from a different article) they have owned Tower City, seems a little unfair.  Additionally, in the ten years they have owned it, there was Covid, the rise of work from home, and the continued growth of online shopping.  Most of this wreaked havoc across the entire real estate world.  Despite all of this they have acquired dozens of acres of surrounding riverfront land, created a 30-year master plan, spearheaded the creation of  TIF district to fund it all, started construction on the river bulkheads, started construction on Phase 1 (Cavs Facility), announced and secured a TMUD for Phase 2.  I would argue that in ten years, this is incredible progress towards the long term revitalization of Tower City.

 

I think it's fair to highlight areas where Bedrock could be doing better, but in my opinion, frustration directed only at Bedrock is misguided.  

 

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/01/19/csx-makes-cvsr-downtown-extension-infeasible/

CSX is one of the biggest obstacles to the CVSR Tower City extension.  Does Bedrock really have the power to broker deals between two railroad lines.  NOACA, City, County, Feds, maybe they could intervene?

 

GCRTA

I loved that the commentary highlighted their role, and lack there of, in all of this.  But the majority of the frustration should be on them, not Bedrock, for not doing more to bolster TOD around their stations.

 

Amtrak/Brightline

Sure, it would be good if Bedrock was contacting them, I suppose.  But is Amtrak and Brightline just sitting by the phone, waiting by the phone for a call?  They must be studying routes and locations; the phone works both ways.

 

Generally, I like that this article highlighted how enough isn't being done to support and grow one of Cleveland's greatest assets.  However, I think it places too much of the responsibility on Bedrock, it discounts the level of investments that they are undertaking, and it doesn't do enough to acknowledge that something like this can't be accomplished by Bedrock alone.

7 minutes ago, Dino said:

Good commentary, good read.  If I were to critique the editorial though, I'd say it seemed a bit harsh and pessimistic.

There's no doubt that Bedrock is starting from a rough place and has done a lot in the past decade, with more (hopefully) to come.

 

But you're missing what I thought was @KJP's main point -- the IDEA of making Tower City a rail hub again needs a Sponsor, a Leader, to champion that cause.  Bedrock is uniquely positioned to benefit from making that happen, they should be rallying the city and county and RTA to advocate (to Ohio government, Congress, Amtrak, Brightline) for that to happen.  Who better to lead than the party with the most to gain (outside of the Cleveland region generally), and why aren't they pushing for it?

20 minutes ago, Foraker said:

There's no doubt that Bedrock is starting from a rough place and has done a lot in the past decade, with more (hopefully) to come.

 

But you're missing what I thought was @KJP's main point -- the IDEA of making Tower City a rail hub again needs a Sponsor, a Leader, to champion that cause.  Bedrock is uniquely positioned to benefit from making that happen, they should be rallying the city and county and RTA to advocate (to Ohio government, Congress, Amtrak, Brightline) for that to happen.  Who better to lead than the party with the most to gain (outside of the Cleveland region generally), and why aren't they pushing for it?

 

Wouldn't you expect that kind of push to start with city government? They didn't have to give up authority over the CSX approach into downtown. They didn't have to agree to moving Canal road for Bedrock's site plan without stronger support for future rail lines. It isn't hindsight to be aggravated with Cleveland over the situation we're in now. Talks about bringing CVSR to downtown started years ago.

 

That said I agree with the tone of KJP's article. Bedrock should absolutely be pushing for more rail traffic into Tower City. It's confusing that they aren't to be honest. The city though made it easy for them to veto.

Edited March 21Mar 21 by Mendo