Sent via e-mail today by All Aboard Ohio:

 

Dear Supporter of Passenger Rail,

 

Soon, the House Appropriations Committee in Congress will be finalizing their budget items before the Congress adjourns for Summer break.  Two items are of vital importance to the future of passenger rail and transportation for Ohio.

 

Representatives Marcy Kaptur (D-Toledo) and Tim Ryan (D-Youngstown) are supporting the Ohio Rail Development Commission's request for federal funding of the Environmental Impact Study of the Ohio Hub Plan and the Alternatives Analysis for the Lorain to Cleveland Westshore Corridor Commuter Rail Service.  Both Representatives Kaptur and Ryan need to hear your support of the development of better passenger and freight rail in Ohio by Wednesday, July 11th. 

 

If you live in the district of Marcy Kaptur (OH-9) or Tim Ryan (OH-17), please call them and thank them for their support of the ORDC's request for the Environmental Impact Study of the Ohio Hub Plan and the development of the Lorain to Cleveland Westshore Corridor Commuter Rail Service.

 

If you live in another Ohio district, please ask your Representative to support the funding request by Representatives Kaptur and Ryan for the development of more and better passenger and freight rail in Ohio.  This request is part of the House Transportation & Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill.  Please mention this fact as it will help in the communications process.

 

Please keep in mind that these are the ONLY actionable items for our cause at this time.  The Ohio Rail Development Commission has already released promising economic numbers with the first study of the Ohio Hub Plan and the Westshore Corridor continues to move forward in the planning phases.  It is now time to reconnect Ohio's cities, grow our economy, and provide better transportation solutions by moving the Ohio Hub Plan and others forward.

 

For information on how to contact your Congressional Representatives, please

visit http://www.allaboardohio.org/cms/index.php/content/action

 

Also, feel free to contact me with any questions.

 

Andrew M. Bremer

Executive Director

 

[email protected]

614-228-6005

I saw the summary of the appropriations bill, but there was no mention of the earmarks.  Will the earmarks also be announced or is this at a later date?  In other words, any news on if the Ohio Hub earmark was approved?

Didn't see this posted anywhere...

 

http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2007/07/16/daily10.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Ohio Rail Development Commission picks chief

Business First of Columbus - 1:53 PM EDT Tuesday, July 17, 2007

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission has offered its top job to Matt Dietrich, its treasurer and acting executive director.

 

Dietrich's appointment is pending approval of the full commission at its next meeting, scheduled for Sept. 13.

 

Dietrich was among two finalists considered for the job but was initially passed over. Mike Bradley, director of project planning for the Central Ohio Transit Authority, was offered the job but the two sides couldn't agree on a contract. The commission had said when it voted in May to offer Bradley the post that it would offer Dietrich the job if a contract couldn't be worked out with Bradley.

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission is part of the Ohio Department of Transportation and oversees the expansion, safety and economic development aspects of Ohio's freight and passenger rail system.

It was found out on Tuesday that the Ohio Hub Environmental Impact Study funding request did not make the cut in the House Appropriations Bill.  The effort is now being made to ask Senator Sherrod Brown to make it part of the Senate Approps Bill.  It would be more than worth while to be contacting either Sen. Brown's Ohio offices or his Washington office by phone or e-mail to urge him to do so.

Senator Sherrod Brown contact information

 

you can use the link below and fill out the online form

http://www.sherrodbrown.com/contact

 

OR

 

Campaign Headquarters

2280 Kresge Drive

Amherst, OH 44001

Phone: 1-800-587-4180 or 440-282-3314

 

Cuyahoga County Field Office

13434 Cedar Rd.

Cleveland Heights, OH 44118

(216) 320-9380

 

Franklin County Field Office

203 E. Broad Street

Columbus, OH

(614) 223-1789

 

Washington County Field Office

112 Putnam Street

Marietta, OH 45750

(740) 376-7231

Ohio Rail Development Commission picks chief

Business First of Columbus - 1:53 PM EDT Tuesday, July 17, 2007

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission has offered its top job to Matt Dietrich, its treasurer and acting executive director.

 

Dietrich's appointment is pending approval of the full commission at its next meeting, scheduled for Sept. 13.

 

Dietrich was among two finalists considered for the job but was initially passed over. Mike Bradley, director of project planning for the Central Ohio Transit Authority, was offered the job but the two sides couldn't agree on a contract. The commission had said when it voted in May to offer Bradley the post that it would offer Dietrich the job if a contract couldn't be worked out with Bradley.

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission is part of the Ohio Department of Transportation and oversees the expansion, safety and economic development aspects of Ohio's freight and passenger rail system.

 

I like Matt and think he will continue to do a great job, but I was all geared up for working with Mike Bradley as the new E.D. Mike has a very good track record and had some terrific ideas. I'm very disappointed that Chairman Betts could not come to an agreement with Mike!

I was very surprised at this development. My jaw dropped! :?

Hey, at least ORDC is in familiar hands.  Bradley would have been a great choice, but I'm told he held out for more than he should have and blew his chance to escape from never-never land at COTA and help advance the Ohio Hub.

His loss, I guess. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was disappointed with Matt. But I do know Mike better from working with him over a longer period of time. I really need to talk more with Matt on a less formal level. And I do look forward to it.

It was found out on Tuesday that the Ohio Hub Environmental Impact Study funding request did not make the cut in the House Appropriations Bill.  The effort is now being made to ask Senator Sherrod Brown to make it part of the Senate Approps Bill.  It would be more than worth while to be contacting either Sen. Brown's Ohio offices or his Washington office by phone or e-mail to urge him to do so.

 

Here is how my message read:

 

Senator Brown,

 

I urge you to make the Ohio Hub Environmental Impact Study part of the upcoming Senate Appropriations Bill.  Rail transit is something that has long been lacking in the great state of Ohio, and I believe that it can make a major impact for our state economically, financially, environmentally and even help retain more young educated people like myself.

 

It seems like this demographic is fleeing the state in rapid numbers, I hope that you as well as Ohio's other leaders can take proactive steps to improving Ohio's chances in this global economy and making Ohio a better place for everyone.  Thanks!

Right on.  An excellent point about younger demographics, which politicians love to court but are doing little to address their desire and need for more transportation options and their greater sense of place as a determining factor in deciding where to live.

Let's hope Sherrod can get this into the Sen Appropriations bill -- he's of a progressive mindset, particularly on transportation/transit issues, to do so...

 

 

 

I'm hearing that the Ohio Hub Funding request did not make the cut in either the Senate or the House, but that an effort will be made in the next round of requests.  Stay tuned.

 

Meanwhile, check out a video on what passenger rail has done for economic development in the State of Maine with the Downeaster service between Portland & Boston.  BTW: they just added a fifth frequency to the route.

 

Here's the link to the video:

 

http://www.thedowneaster.com/economicdev.html

^damn... why did it go down this time? 

 

Checked out the video-- the Downeaster is a good example for Ohio to look to. 

I'm told it didn't go down on its merits.  Most of the reason is that Members of Congress were told their earmarks would be severely limited, so they had to go with those that were most needed in thier home districts. Just gotta keep pressing the issue in the next round.

 

Your absolutely right about the Downeaster. Oddly enough, like Ohio, it didn't happen overnight.  It took a long citizen-based petition drive, a lot of political arm-twisting, developing support in three states, and negotiating with a railroad (Guilford) that didn't want passenger trains on their corridors and did everything they could to throw up obstacles.

 

Like someone once said.... it's not the size of the dog in the fight.... it's the size of the fight in the dog.

So what earmarks did Sherrod prefer over the Ohio Hub?

I'll be able to report on that in a couple of days.

I think each member of the delegation needs to sacrifice a little something in his/her own district  for the sake of the economy of the entire state,  and support the earmark for the Hub.

The final Ohio Hub Study report is now posted to the project website: www.ohiohub.com , as is the Executive Summary.

 

It is a large report, but it is also available in "chapter" form on the website for easier viewing and printing.  The results of the Economic Impact Study are also available on the website as well.

Not sure this is the best place for the article below, but it could have some impact on the Cincinnati Station Location

 

vision for Union Terminal

Plan revitalizes, expands facility

 

By Joe Wessels

Post contributor

 

Union Terminal was built upon 287 acres at a cost of $45 million. It opened as a train station in 1972. Regular passenger service ended in 1972.

 

Operators of Union Terminal, home of the Cincinnati Museum Center, are working on a multimillion-dollar plan to renovate and revitalize the historic building, expand the museums inside and create a multi-use retail, housing and greenspace development in what is now the center's parking lots.

 

Museum Center leaders - who lease the 74-year-old building from the city of Cincinnati - have commissioned a highly detailed report, compiled by Philadelphia-based Hillier Architecture and Cincinnati-based Glaserworks, that outlines the plan. In it, the proposed "district master site plan" calls several new and improved features for the approximately 130-acre campus.

 

Specifics include:

 

" The Gateway Park District," a mixed-used development of buildings - none more than three stories high - that would line the existing parking lots on the north and south sides.

 

Greenspace and a park in front of the terminal on what is now a circular drive, plus enhancements on the existing median landscaping.

 

New parking garages on either side of the terminal, with connecting bridges to the main building.

 

Safety improvements to the Dalton Street tunnel that runs underneath the front of Union Terminal.

 

A high-speed rail station on the rear of the building to service future high speed trains, if they are built.

 

More outdoor event and exhibit spaces, and better sight lines for the center from Interstate 75.

 

Museum officials need a re-zoning of the property to accommodate a high-density mixed-use project, the report says.

 

The report - which museum officials stress is preliminary and could be all, part or nothing like what may eventually happen at the site - also outlines needs for improvements and long-delayed, needed maintenance to Union Terminal itself. The report says, based on 2006 cost estimates, that $111.5 million is needed to repair or upgrade the facility, including major upgrades to the interior architecture of the building.

 

Some 80,000 square feet of space needs "intense conservation treatments," the report said.

 

Other repairs or upgrades to the building include repairing steel beams in the building that are showing signs of stress.

 

Another $50 million would be needed for parking garages and converting the surface parking to greenspace, plus other improvements. No cost estimates for the mixed-use development were available, and the plan did not identify possible funding sources for the project.

 

Museum Center spokesman Rodger Pille acknowledged the building is in need of major repairs and the outside improvements are part of a "dream" for the site. Volunteers and staff of the museum have said that the building is not energy efficient and the roof leaks badly.

 

"Since it (re-opened as a museum) in 1990, we have undertaken our role as caretakers very seriously and spent a lot of money on the building," Pille said. "We are a collections and research facility as well, and we think of Union Terminal as our single greatest artifact. And it's an expensive one."

 

The structural problems with Union Terminal are not a big secret, Pille said.

 

"We knew when - even as recently as run-up to the 2004 Hamilton County tax levy campaign - we had some issues on the building," he said. "It's a 75-year-old building next year. Things are needing some updating that couldn't be done in 1986 when the building was renovated to be turned into the Museum Center."

 

Pille stresses that there is no timeframe for the completion of the plan, nor have exact sources of how to pay for the proposed projects been identified. A countywide tax levy generates about $4 million a year for the facility.

 

The report does, however, suggest dividing the project into smaller $10 million chunks that could be phased in over a 20-year-period.

 

"We definitely dream big, like everything we do around here," Pille said, adding a public announcement of the first phases was still several months away.

 

Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory said Tuesday that he was planning to meet with museum officials to discuss renovation and restoration concerns about the building but was unaware of any other plans to improve the building or the areas around it.

 

A proposal was floated in the 1970s to tear down the building, but then-City Council member Jerry Springer wrote a song about the building and campaigned to save the structure.

 

"We have Jerry Springer to thank for the fact that we have Union Terminal today," Mallory said. "(Springer) wrote a song called "Save Union Terminal" and put on a dashiki, I think, and strummed a guitar and sang this song ... on the grass there surrounding himself with children."

 

Mallory said the memory has a special place for him.

 

"I was one of those kids who was sitting around as he strummed that song. If you bring that story up to (Springer) today, he'll immediately start singing that song, which is kind of scary. But he'll go right into it."

 

Mallory called Union Terminal "one of the most recognizable buildings in the city of Cincinnati."

 

And it was ranked 43rd among buildings of American architecture according to a poll sponsored by the American Institute of Architects released in February. Paul Brown Stadium, listed at No. 101, was the only other structure in Ohio to be ranked.

 

Lincoln Park - formerly one of the city's most popular parks and gathering spots - was located on the eastern edge of the terminal's property. Many who lived and grew up in the West End recall the park fondly, with its lake, gazebo and bandstand. Before the park, the land had a home for people suffering from contagious diseases.

 

Steve Schuckman, planning superintendent for the Cincinnati Park Board, said he is not yet involved with any plans for park space at Union Terminal, but said the plan coincides with the park board's master plan.

 

"If there is greenspace, then that would be a welcome addition to the West End," he said. "Much of what (the park board is) talking about over the next 20 years will come about through partnerships and collaborations."

 

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/NEWS01/707260384

 

Yeah...I've already posted the article in the SW Ohio Projects and Construction section, but this definitely gives the Ohio Hub rail plan a clear stopping point for Cincinnati.  A point that seems to already be embraced/equiped to handle the future system.  Nothing like good planning!

 

Here is the plan for the site...you can see an area marked for a HSR station on the far right portion of the image.

It opened as a train station in 1972. Regular passenger service ended in 1972.

 

Huh?

 

But one major problem that must be resolved before Union Terminal can host Ohio Hub and Midwest Regional Rail trains is the fact that the adjacent Qeuunsgate Rail yard is at capacity and there is literally no room for 6 to 8 trains a day from both systems using Union Station under current conditions.

 

Don't get me wrong; I think CUT is the best possible location, but the City is going to have to engage the railroads (NS and CSX) and work with them on a solution.  Perhaps a deal that would help the railroads re-locate some of those freight operations to another and better location?  I don't know.  But what is certain is that a lot of good ideas for rail service in this nation die and early death because no one bothered to ask the people that own the rail corridor .... the railroads.

 

BTW: This looks like a great redevelopment plan for the area around CUT.  I hope some progress can be made as it would tie in very well with future high speed rail plans, as well as light rail and streetcars if and/or when they happen.

as ohiohub.com appears to be down right now (suffering from overloading?), the study can also be found at this less-user-friendly URL:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/theproject.html

It's also available at www.ohiohub.org

 

I just tried it and it came right up with no problem.  You're right that the ohiohub.com might be overloaded.... but hey, that's a good thing.

 

 

i was disappointed with no money for environmental impact studies, but then i read KJP's post over at gcbl.org, and it seems that all is not lost.

 

apparently service could start on corridors that have existing rail traffic, up to 79mph, without any additional studies.  that the studies are needed for higher speeds or corridors that don't currently have active rail service.  is this accurate?

That's not what I said. I said some types of services can be initiated without an environmental impact analysis. There would still have to be planning work done, including specific market studies for the actual level of service desired, fares, final station locations and so on. There will also have to be an operational analysis of railroad traffic patterns and how passenger train(s) might mesh with the traffic flows. From that, there would be engineering done on specific improvements (track and signal work, grade crossing improvements, stations, etc.) prior to a service startup. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

It also not true that there is "no money" for environmental impact studies (EIS).  The request for the EIS funds just didn't make it through the appropriations process in Congress... this time.  It will likely be applied for again, and there are other sources from which those funds could be sought. 

 

The current reauthorization legislation for Amtrak includes a provision for grants $$$$ that would be accessible to the states on a matching basis.  Depending on which version of the bill that is passed, that amount could be $50-million or $100-million.  Still not a lot of $$$, but it's still money that can advance projects like the Ohio Hub.

 

BTW: The good news is that the Lorain-Cleveland commuter rail proposal did get $350,000 dollars in federal funds for further study.  Let's hope this is a good sign for the future of passenger rail in Ohio.

Rail investment would bring economic benefits

Saturday,  September 1, 2007 3:30 AM

Columbus Dispatch Letters to the Editor

 

 

The recent jumps in Amtrak ridership on the rescheduled eastbound Lake Shore Limited train, which departs Cleveland at 7 a.m., should come as no surprise to anyone. It shows there is unmet demand for convenient train services.

 

It is sad that three of Cleveland's four daily trains serve the city mostly during the middle of the night. However, Amtrak is in discussions to get the westbound Lake Shore Limited rescheduled to depart Cleveland during daylight hours. This is encouraging, because Ohio deserves better from Amtrak.

 

Ohio also can do better for itself. The state should work with Amtrak, the freight railroads and the cities of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown and others to extend existing intercity passenger-rail services from New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania into Ohio.

 

This would be a logical starting point for implementing the proposed Ohio Hub plan, which will connect all of Ohio's major cities with fast, frequent passenger schedules on trains with speeds of up to 110 mph. The Ohio Hub also would address the state's critical need to increase its freight-transport capacity. The Ohio Hub would create more than 16,000 jobs and generate more than $9 billion in economic development -- a solid return on investment.

 

Other states have invested in improved passenger-rail services, including California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. These states not only have seen jumps in train ridership as a result, but their investments also are being rewarded with economic development.

 

Investing in rail would help Ohio's economy, improve Ohio's energy security, enhance our quality of life, benefit the environment and provide a mobility option that would benefit everyone, especially business travelers, seniors, the disabled and discretionary travelers.

 

Furthermore, the recent collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis is a prime example of how we are expecting too much from our highway system, which was not designed for the loads it is now carrying. It's long past time to relieve highways of some of their traffic burden by investing in rail.

 

Extending existing passenger-rail services into Ohio and building the Ohio Hub would require investments in track, signals and station facilities. Some say we can't afford to make such investments, but the truth is we can't afford not to. Investing in rail makes sound economic sense.

 

Let's reconnect Ohio with trains now.

 

BILL HUTCHISON

President

 

All Aboard Ohio

 

Columbus

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2007/09/01/Hutchison__SAT_ART_09-01-07_A13_KE7OV1I.html?sid=101

 

Yeah, but the writer of that letter is a weirdo....

I hear he's a bit of a foamer... :jo:

You kids play nice.

We are. We all know each other.

"The recent jumps in Amtrak ridership on the rescheduled eastbound Lake Shore Limited train, which departs Cleveland at 7 a.m., should come as no surprise to anyone. It shows there is unmet demand for convenient train services."

 

Or could it be that the Plain Dealer featured the eastbound Amtrak route from Cleveland in their travel section? - which I thought was great, by the way. Does anyone know if the positive PR and free marketing might have been responsible for increased ridership?

Vulpster, the ridership increase was noted in the PD article. So how could that article have had an impact on ridership?

Hey KJP,

Maybe I missed this somewhere in this thread (I haven't read all 18 pages); where would the Cleveland station for the Cleve-Columbus-Cincy line be located? Would it be on the lakefront or somewhere in the flats? On a side note, could Tower City ever handle inter-city rail traffic again in the future (assuming huge infrastructure investments) or has that train left the station (pun intended)? I often wonder what it would look like and/or how it could work in the future.

Just curious.

Wouldn't it be great if people traveling from all around the state could take the train to a meeting place--adjacent to the train station--with reservable meeting rooms and other amenities?  Hmmm, what would we call it??  Maybe a "Convention Center" ???

 

3.2 Passenger rail stations would be located in downtown centers, in suburban areas near interstate

highways and adjacent to the Detroit and Cleveland international airports. The primary means of

accessing stations would be by automobile, public transit, or by walking. Stations would have

automobile drop-off areas and long-term parking lots. Most stations would be served by taxis,

regional transit, feeder bus and shuttle bus operators. Downtown stations would be within

walking distance to major trip generators and employment and activity centers.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/Ohio_Hub_Final_Docs/Chapter_3_Operating_Strategies_Station_Locations_and_Fleet_Requirements.pdf

Hey KJP,

Maybe I missed this somewhere in this thread (I haven't read all 18 pages); where would the Cleveland station for the Cleve-Columbus-Cincy line be located? Would it be on the lakefront or somewhere in the flats? On a side note, could Tower City ever handle inter-city rail traffic again in the future (assuming huge infrastructure investments) or has that train left the station (pun intended)? I often wonder what it would look like and/or how it could work in the future.

Just curious.

 

A likely location would be on the lakefront, possibly in the vicinity of the current Amtrak station. To improve pedestrian and vehicular access, a station built at that location for Amtrak/Ohio Hub trains would probably have to be built over the tracks with vehicle access directly from East 9th Street and/or West 3rd. It could include pedestrian access through the corridors of the existing convention center, a new walkway over the Shoreway to North Coast Harbor/Browns Stadium, and a pedestrian entrance to East 9th. There has been some conceptual planning of this in the past, with the most recent and detailed work done in the mid-1990s by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. I have a copy of the planning report and it includes some interesting graphics.

 

Tower City could handle intercity service again, but possibly only as a stub-end station. The only way around that, meaning restoring through-station track, might involve moving the Red Line off the RTA's Cuyahoga Valley viaduct and relocating it via West 25th Street and the lower deck of the Detroit-Superior Bridge. However, it might cost less to relocate freight train traffic off the lakefront to make the lakefront tracks almost exclusively passenger-only. It would be interesting to compare the two options.

Those 2 scenarios you listed are incredibly intriguing.

The possibility of bringing rail passenger service back to Tower City is just exciting, (while unrealistic, I know)to say the least. Combining that with the proposed CVSRR platform and existing RTA lines and you've got the makings of an incredibly lively transportation hub, (albeit with an enormous amount of $$ spent on infrastructure).

 

The more realistic option is probably the lakefront site, especially if/when the CC goes to TC. Building a new, modern passenger station bridging the tracks and connected to the existing CC would provide the missing link to the lakefront and could spur transit-related development in the old CC. Connect this station to the proposed ferry terminal, and add a bus connection from the CC and you've got a serious intermodal passenger operation on your hands.

 

Someday this will happen.

Those 2 scenarios you listed are incredibly intriguing.

The possibility of bringing rail passenger service back to Tower City is just exciting, (while unrealistic, I know)to say the least. Combining that with the proposed CVSRR platform and existing RTA lines and you've got the makings of an incredibly lively transportation hub, (albeit with an enormous amount of $$ spent on infrastructure).

 

The more realistic option is probably the lakefront site, especially if/when the CC goes to TC. Building a new, modern passenger station bridging the tracks and connected to the existing CC would provide the missing link to the lakefront and could spur transit-related development in the old CC. Connect this station to the proposed ferry terminal, and add a bus connection from the CC and you've got a serious intermodal passenger operation on your hands.

 

Someday this will happen.

Following from what KJP said and from the guidelines in the Ohio Hub Final Docs (url in my earlier post), they want rail stations where the train passes through, not a station where it has to back out of the station before it gets on its way.  The exception is if it is the end of the line. 

 

So, that puts the ORDC train station back on the lakefront.  The RTA Waterfront line could serve the purpose of getting arriving passengers to the Convention Center at Tower City quite well.  They could even send cars over to the train station to meet every arrival.  RTA could have the same cars leave TC in time to meet the train, and then just wait to pick up the arriving passengers. 

Under the Ohio Hub plan, most trains serving Cleveland would terminate there. And, while traveling in Europe, I was surprised to see that the Frankfurt Main station was a stub-end station, yet many trains serving it operate through Frankfurt (including the train I rode). Now, most trains I saw in Germany operate push-pull or bidirectional. But that still meant that all trains had to go in/out of the Frankfurt station via the same throat. Granted, the station has 26 station tracks, but it is served by a daily average of nearly 350 intercity trains and nearly 300 regional/commuter trains. According to Deutsche Bahn Magazine, Frankfurt is the second-busiest train station in the world. It sees 350,000 passengers daily -- or, in 30 days, it handles the passenger volume that Cleveland Hopkins or Chicago Midway airports handle in an entire year.

 

Moral of the story -- stub-end stations can be high-capacity as long as they have a high-capacity access routes into the station. Check out the variety of track approaches to Frankfurt Main, seen in the background in this picture.....

 

Looks like Rome.  I guess Cleveland would be "the hub" in the Ohio Hub system and hence the trains would start there.  A consequence of the lake constricting all the traffic to go past the city 

I think a well-planned lakefront station would have incredible potential; especially once The FEB and Pesht are built-up. Imagine pulling into Cleveland in the future from the west, cruising right through the middle of those 2 neighborhoods, glimpsing the skyline, and either connecting to a ferry to Canada or catching the Waterfront line to TC for a convention or just a weekend in the city.

I'm convinced the future of the existing CC is tied to a potential station on the lakefront.

 

I'm repeating myself, but I believe the future economics of this nation will demand that this happen (and not just here).

KJP, are there any other sites I can go to related to this (Besides OhioHub)? Are there renderings of a Cleveland station floating around in cyberspace somewhere? This topic and the potential of it just fascinates me.

I know I've posted somewhere on this forum a rendering of RTA's 1995 proposal for a North Coast Transportation Center. I don't know if it's still on here.

 

EDIT: Yes it is. From a post of mine from 2004, no less! Here's the rendering (looking east)....

 

god, even in that rendering the browns still suck

And one of those two trains on the right is bound for Detroit. Get your Browns-hating backside back to the D!

Vulpster, the ridership increase was noted in the PD article. So how could that article have had an impact on ridership?

 

I guess I was just wondering if there was any link between the PR and increased ridership.

May be too soon to say, since some people plan their trips a long time in advance. But if there was any impact, it should show up soon.

Here's a look at what once was envisioned for Cleveland's "Union Station" before the Van Swearingen brothers decided they wanted Terminal Tower as the passenger rail "hub".  This is an old postcard image I came across.

 

The design was part of architect/planner Daniel Burnham's vision for Downtown Cleveland which, I beleive, included the designs for the existing City Hall and Courthouse.  Burnham also designed Grand Central Station in New York City and the late, lamented Columbus Union Station.

I've always enjoyed that rendering of the proposed Group Plan Union Station for downtown Cleveland. Here's another, also from 1903, although I don't like it as much since it's black and white...