Uh, OK, forgot to look on the port's website for the PR. Here it is....

_________________

 

http://www.portofcleveland.com/news/newsdetail.asp?NewsID=146

 

News Releases

Contact: Khaled M. Salehi

Assistant V.P. – Strategic Development

 

(Click for Print Version)

 

Port Authority and City to Continue Review of Port Relocation

Posted: 10/16/2007

 

Preliminary site analysis identifies three sites as having most economic potential

 

CLEVELAND– October 16, 2007 – In the coming months, the potential sites for the relocation of Cleveland’s international shipping operations will undergo a final analysis and public review, according to the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority (“Port Authority”) and City of Cleveland. 

 

Based upon an initial site review, three sites best meet the criteria for the proposed relocation that would yield the highest opportunity for economic gain and allow for the redevelopment of downtown waterfront property for public use.

 

The three preferred sites include land off of the west breakwall, the northeast end of Burke Lakefront Airport, and a site east of Burke Lakefront Airport.  Dredged materials would be used to create the additional land. 

 

“We have much more work to do,” said Adam Wasserman, president & CEO of the Port Authority, “but these three sites appear to present the most catalytic potential for both more robust shipping operations and transformational economic impact.

 

“Each of these sites has a significant advantage presented by the many acres of land around them that would enable this community to create a ‘port trade district’ that would attract complementary businesses and jobs, optimizing our commercial potential as a waterfront city.”

 

The initial site review was based on location, ability to meet size requirements, infrastructure connections and availability of adjacent port “hinterland” for economic development purposes. 

 

Further analysis will continue as additional information is collected and public hearings are held. Cost estimates have yet to be concluded.

 

Mayor Frank G. Jackson’s goal is to redevelop the lakefront in a way that provides better access for the citizens of Cleveland as well as economic development opportunities. 

 

“We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity with the relocation to stimulate investment and open up the waterfront for our residents,” Mayor Jackson said. “The City and Port agree that we must continue to deliberate thoughtfully about how our economy will benefit most and consider all opportunity costs.”

 

The Port Authority, City and County commissioned a study last year to examine potential sites for state-of-the-art port facilities last year. 

 

That study was temporarily delayed to incorporate a review, commissioned this year by Wasserman, of the port’s long-term potential to attract the additional maritime business line of containerized cargo and also integrate the Port Authority’s vision of developing underused nearby industrial land to attract manufacturing and distribution centers near port facilities to create a substantial quantity of new jobs.

 

While no sites have been eliminated from consideration, the initial analysis suggests the other sites are not as feasible for a variety of reasons because of limitations such as ship access, size and transportation connections.

 

Wasserman said that the goal was to have a full and complete assessment of the sites to present to the Port Board in three to four months, and upon approval, present the final recommendations of preferred sites, in collaboration with our partners at the City and County, to the public to gather comment.

 

Board Chairman John J. Carney added:  “This is a multi-million dollar proposition that will have long-term economic consequences for northeast Ohio, and we are taking the time to do it right.  We want to educate the public about the options using very objective criteria before making any final decisions.”

 

Following the public meetings and acceptance of a site by the Port Authority Board, the relocation plan will be submitted to the City of Cleveland Planning Commission for approval.

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority helps the regional economy grow and keeps local industries connected to the world by supporting thousands of jobs and providing area businesses a competitive advantage through maritime and development finance partnerships.

 

-30-

Here's the PD's take on it, including some Pro's and Con's of each site:

 

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga port authority down to 3 possible sites

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

Port officials are looking at one site west of the Cuyahoga River and two to the east for a new, larger home. Officials with the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority and the city of Cleveland announced Tuesday that an $850,000 relocation study has whittled eight sites down to three.

 

more at:

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1192610009273970.xml&coll=2

 

The Burke option seems by far the best to me.  The other two are are part of or too close to areas that we had wanted to open up to public use.  Since Burke is staying, it comes down to a question of using that excess land on the far side of the airport for expanding the airport, or for a lake port.

Have to agree, of the 3 choices Burke is the best.

 

I would hate to see the marinas being affected though. If they had to relocate, I hope that something could be worked out to their benefit.

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority appears to favor site near East 55th Street

 

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Top port officials appear to favor building a man-made island north of East 55th Street as the port's new home.

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4695

this would be great for the city!!

fine, but wow would that take a long time before the port property downtown is freed up for residential, etc. development.

fine, but wow would that take a long time before the port property downtown is freed up for residential, etc. development.

 

It would, but given the length of time necessary for FEB, Pesht, etc. to finish planning, building, and fill up, that length of time might be desirable in order to avoid depressed rents and a surplus of vacant space downtown.

 

I guess I see it as the middle step in downtown's longterm redevelopment:

 

Near term (5-10 years):  FEB, Pesht built

Mid term (20 years):  Downtown expansion north to the lakefront

Longterm (30+ years):  Full realization of lakefront plan

 

Obviously, that's over-simplified and ignores a lot of projects, but it's just my idea of an overall framework for development in that particular area.  Especially because our economy is still fragile, I don't think that taking things a little bit slowly is necessarily bad.  We shouldn't wait so long that opportunities pass us by, but we should take as much time as we need to adequately plan and execute development.

fine, but wow would that take a long time before the port property downtown is freed up for residential, etc. development.

 

Certainly would be a long time. I believe there was talk some time ago about filling in the new island with some other sort of infill material. Using it would decrease the time it took to move the port. Anyone remember that?

when i think of something comparable i think of battery park city on the westside of downtown manhattan. that was made out of landfill from the wtc next door. it is only now being completely filled out. that took over 25 years.

Certainly would be a long time. I believe there was talk some time ago about filling in the new island with some other sort of infill material. Using it would decrease the time it took to move the port. Anyone remember that?

 

I do!  ;)

 

I guess I see it as the middle step in downtown's longterm redevelopment:

 

Near term (5-10 years):  FEB, Pesht built

Mid term (20 years):  Downtown expansion north to the lakefront

Longterm (30+ years):  Full realization of lakefront plan

 

 

At the time, the Waterfront Plan was promoted as a 50 year plan.

 

 

when i think of something comparable i think of battery park city on the westside of downtown manhattan. that was made out of landfill from the wtc next door. it is only now being completely filled out. that took over 25 years.

 

Depending on what happens in regards to the West Shoreway and the Innerbelt reconstruction, it should not take that long. Part of the planning process concluded the new island would use the construction debris from the two freeways as fill. Additionally, all of the fill as a result from the Regional Sewer District work would be used, too.

 

At the time, the Waterfront Plan was promoted as a 50 year plan.

 

 

I'm aware of that, hence the "+" in "30+."  I meant it as an ongoing process.

That was directed to those who may not have known the time frame.

At East 55th Street, officials might have to close a popular, state-operated marina to make way for a new port.

 

This would be a horrible loss, hopefully one that could be avoided even if they chose to relocate there. Personally, I think there's a lot of opportunity for asset-based development around the Marina, not unlike what's occurring in Battery Park based on tandem with access to Edgewater ... particularly given the relative success of high-end Quay 55.

cleveland.com:

 

Port recommends move from downtown to north of E. 55th

Posted by Tom Breckenridge December 11, 2007 19:06PM

Categories: Breaking News, FYI

 

Top port officials recommend that the port relocate to a man-made peninsula north of the East 55th Street lakefront.

 

...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/12/port_recommends_move_from_down.html

The Sound of Ideas® Archive: January 2008

 

Ship Shape: The Changing Role of the Port of Cleveland

Aired Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Since taking over the helm at the Port Authority, Adam Wasserman has made a few noteworthy changes, but proposing to move the port uptown to East 55th Street is not actually the biggest change. Wasserman has said he wants the Port to take an active role in the region's economic development. Instead of financing anyone who asks, he says, they'll finance only the projects that will improve the region's economic health.

 

(This is an interesting audio file .. Adam talks about his desire for building relationships with the business community, especially the Cleveland Clinic and UH .. moving the port and how this can affect the waterfront. It's almost an hour long, but it's definitely worth a listen. Stream it while you work.)

 

http://www.wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/soi/9552/

 

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/pdf/press/20080207453.pdf

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

February 7, 2008

COMMUNITY MEETING SCHEDULED TO PRESENT

CLEVELAND PORT RELOCATION PLAN

 

Plan for public comment envisions relocation of commercial shipping docks

from downtown to a new land area on the lakefront near East 55th Street

 

CLEVELAND – The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Buffalo District and the City of Cleveland invite the public to view and comment on the potential development

of a new, 200-acre land area on Cleveland’s lakefront near East 55th Street. This site is being considered by

the Army Corps for a new facility to hold material dredged to maintain Cleveland Harbor that would become

the future site of commercial maritime docks developed by the Port Authority.

 

The community meeting is free and open to the public:

 

Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

St. Philip Neri Community Center

799 East 82nd Street

 

Since 2004, the USACE has been developing a twenty-year plan to manage disposal of materials dredged

each year to maintain federal shipping channels along the Cuyahoga River and Cleveland’s lakefront. In

December 2007, the Port Authority asked the Army Corps to consider a site near East 55th Street that would

accommodate relocation of existing downtown maritime facilities and expansion into new areas of

commercial shipping that could reduce transportation costs for industries located throughout northeast

Ohio.

 

At the February 19th community meeting, the USACE will present a preliminary plan for the East 55th

Street facility. The Port Authority will present a conceptual layout for maritime docks and identify

modifications that may be needed to accommodate interstate highway and rail access. The Port Authority

and the City of Cleveland will begin the community dialogue to identify ways to maintain and enhance

recreational boating and shoreline fishing opportunities that may be impacted by relocation and expansion

of commercial shipping activities in the East 55th Street area.

In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of spin-off development envisioned by those seeking the port's relocation, and in exactly the location they envisioned it -- in and near East 55th, north of St. Clair to the lake. I'm not surprised by this development and look forward to more of it in neighboring locations.

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE

 

CLEVELAND PORT RELOCATION PLAN

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Buffalo District and the City of Cleveland invite the public to review and comment on the potential development of a new, 200-acre land area on Cleveland’s lakefront near East 55th Street.

 

The meeting is open to the public.

 

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

St. Philip Neri Community Center

799 East 82nd Street (off of St. Clair Ave.)

Cleveland, O. 44103

Cleveland port's planned move sounds good to civic leaders

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Prominent city and business leaders signaled their support Tuesday night for a proposal to move Cleveland's port near Cleveland Browns Stadium to a man-made peninsula at East 55th Street.

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority made its first community pitch for the relocation plan to about 150 people at St. Philip Neri Community Center on East 82nd Street.

 

...

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4695

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/120350002940130.xml&coll=2

Several speakers said the port must guarantee that public access and green space will be part of any development on the port's current site.

 

Not to mention minimizing the impacts to existing parkland and waterfront access from Dike 14 and Gordon Park, west to the new port facilities.  The bike path goes through there and the existing parks can't be overlooked. 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/03/planners_ok_moving_clevelands.html

 

Planners OK moving Cleveland's port eastward

Posted by Tom Breckenridge March 07, 2008 12:32PM

 

Cleveland's port leaders won a key approval today for their plan to move the port from the downtown lakefront to a manmade peninsula north of East 55th Street.

 

...

boy, I hope Whiskey Island/Wendy Park area and environs is off the table. That would break my heart. If it looks like they will consider this again, I will dust off my boxing gloves.  The dirty dogs didnt destroy me last round.

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Because of its isolated setting, Whiskey Island/Wendy Park just doesn't have the potential for spin-off development that the East 55th site has. And this relocation is ultimately about spin-off development.

What about residential development at E. 55th, like Quay 55 which is already there.  Won't the port negatively impact this?   It does seem like it will harm the nearby Lakefront Park.  I thought the longterm Lakeshore plan called for Chicago-type high-rise development around E. 55 complementing Quay 55.

^I do think the developer was very upset about this.

I think it was more mid to low rise, but yeah the Lakefront Plan called for more residential.  I'm a little worried that the Eastside is getting burned here.  They're going to get the port and some unattractive spin-off warehouses for their Lakefront development, while Downtown and the Westside get open space and mixed-use development.

I wonder what options are out there. I agree no one should get the shaft. can it go farther east of  e.55th? I am not sure what is there.

I think Burke is the best spot still.  Don't forget about Musky's AirPort Concept here.

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14198.0.html

(Looking over that link a little better I guess it doesn't have a built out plan for the port and only seems to come from KJP at the bottom.  Hmm)

 

We never found out why Burke was tabled.  I thought it was down to 3 locations then all of a sudden they said... and we don't want to consider Burke anymore because we can't have buildings next to the airport...  What kind of crap is that?!  Its not like the port would be putting in skyscrapers or office parks.  There are always various sized buildings by airports I go to.

I have a really bad feeling about this. I'm all for aggressiveness and moving forward quickly and decisively, but this port move will affect the city for decades at LEAST. I feel like the planning process was kinda wham bam, no?

I fully support the port authority's preference for the East 55th Street site. Yes, there's an apartment complex there. Yes, there's a park nearby. Yes, the city had proposed to develop mid-rise housing in and around East 55th and an extended Waterfront Line.

 

But, here's the thing... No matter where you put the port island/peninsula, you're going to have issues with existing users and conflict with the plans of others. I don't think there's a site in this city where someone doesn't have a plan for it. When you want to build something this big and this impactful, you choose the site where you think it will hurt the fewest and benefit the mostest.

 

A new port island north of Whiskey Island is probably the second best place to put the port. It won't impact residential areas and is already an industrialized area. But it is near parks, including the very busy Edgewater Park and the lesser used Wendy Park. It has highway accessibility issues, and can be accessed by only one rail carrier. But moreso, its port development zone isn't very large and is complicated by the presence of the nearby parks and the old river channel.

 

Drive around the area of East 55th, North & South Marginal Roads, St. Clair and the sidestreets. There's already lots of warehouses in that area, many of which aren't being fully used (some not at all). There are numerous industries like the huge White Motor Plant that are abandoned. The port development zone can be tremendous here. And if you want to put low-skilled warehousing jobs near a large pool of low-skilled labor, you can't beat the East 55th site. There is frequent, 24-hour public transportation service on East 55th and on St. Clair.

 

You have Interstate 90 immediately adjacent. There are two rail lines owned by two separate Class One freight railroads in the area.

 

For me, there is no better place for the port primarily because of how big the port development zone can be at East 55th. There's a million places along the lake where we can build some great housing and recreational sites. But there is only one best place where can build a port and a large development zone that will be of the greatest benefit to the city and its residents.

Exactly. I think it's an excellent location for the above mentioned reasons, too. I think the E55th area has amazing potential to grow as an industrial corridor. Also, I think that, with all of the newly opened lakefront space closer to downtown, there is such potential for replacing the amenities that are being displaced.

 

That is, if everything is planned well. But my hope is that it will be.

Thanks KJP for the eloquent response.  I guess I was thinking that if they are wanting to move what the port has now and do the same thing they've been doing, the airport location would be great.  But if, as you're suggesting, they want to be a full blown port with loading and off-loading facilities and multiple warehouses and multi-modal functionality to handle shipping containers, then I can understand creating a trade zone around E.55.  This makes sense.

I guess if I had my druthers, I'd rather not put the port N. of Whisky Is. closer to Edgewater Park, b/c EP is truly an existing Cleveland treasure -- right now, a people magnet you don't want to jeopardize in any way.  Go east past E. 72/MLK then you run into oh-so wealthy Bratenahl shoreline and, well...

 

No ideal place for the port, but we've got to put it somewhere; it's too vital to our economy.

I don't want to go all NIMBY here, but a Whisky Island location would not only impact this park which every year is showing its potential more and more, but Edgewater was well.  Also the flats could not take much more trucking traffic than what we already have.

I would put it as close to lakewood,as i can.

 

Also Its going to cost a mighty penny to build a railway over the freeway right by 55th. CSX does have a railyard in that area.

Not again...Not again.  It's bad enough I haven't had any coffee in 7 days, but your confusing post just sent me over the top! :x

Not again...Not again.  It's bad enough I haven't had any coffee in 7 days, but your confusing post just sent me over the top! :x

 

Confusing???

 

explain why?

I would put it as close to lakewood,as i can.

 

Also Its going to cost a mighty penny to build a railway over the freeway right by 55th. CSX does have a railyard in that area.

 

So where exactly would you put it? Due north of Edgewater Dr in Cleveland? Why would I not be surprised if you suggested that we put it in North Royalton?

As KJP pointed out the other day, there's no way to please everybody.  No matter where you put it, there's always going to be someone just waiting to complain and talk about how they would've done such a better job choosing a new location. 

OH NO!!! Edsiou is back!

 

Thank GOD I'm leaving for England tomorrow and won't be back for 11 days!!!

 

(But I will be checking in occasionally -- just not as often as I usually do.)

I would put it as close to lakewood,as i can.

 

Also Its going to cost a mighty penny to build a railway over the freeway right by 55th. CSX does have a railyard in that area.

 

So where exactly would you put it? Due north of Edgewater Dr in Cleveland? Why would I not be surprised if you suggested that we put it in North Royalton?

 

Actually if you take glance at the lake erie coast,the west side of cleveland would be much easier to configure for the  port.

Not again...........................I'm so confused.

If you let him confuse you, then you are in serious trouble.

 

We're past the discussion about the port's new location.

Some nice articles from the Beacon Journal...

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/17121691.html

 

Moving port to new location on the horizon

New site called ideal for moving products

 

By Paula Schleis

Beacon Journal business writer

 

 

Published on Saturday, Mar 29, 2008

 

 

The Port of Cleveland could be moved in another decade — to land that doesn't yet exist.  Plans call for the 100-acre port to move from downtown to the shore off East 55th Street, on 200 acres that would be built from mud dredged from Lake Erie's shipping channel.  Port President Adam Wasserman said a proposal approved by Cleveland and Cuyahoga County officials and pending with the federal government could take 20 years to complete, but private investment is being sought to cut that time frame in half.

CHOPPED

 

And a biggie...

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/17121706.html

 

Port eyes shipping expansion

Cleveland and Toledo could be system hubs

 

By Paula Schleis

Beacon Journal business writer

 

 

Published on Saturday, Mar 29, 2008

 

It's been a long time since area manufacturers could export consumer goods using the Port of Cleveland, which today is almost exclusively used for ships bringing in raw materials.  But Adam Wasserman, president of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, is trying to stir up enough interest among the region's companies to change that.  The port could begin ''container shipping'' this year, he said, giving area businesses a new option for moving their products to Europe, India, Southeast Asia and other eastern destinations.

 

CHOPPED

 

 

Why can't this happen even sooner that 10-20 years?  Does the new port site really need rely only on river dredgings to create the new land?  Can concrete from road reconstruction or some other stable material be used as infill?  There must be a way to speed this process.  Any ideas?

^The Army Corps will not create any new dike unless they can dump there for at least 20 years. If they could fill it up in 10, then they wouldn't use that site.

If you want the feds to pay for that, that's the price of it. Besides, 10-20 years isn't that long for a major project. That's how long they take -- many take longer. Think about 1998 or even 1988. Seems like just yesterday!