Why not drop the dredgings where the Windmills are supposed to go? Then the lake Eire wind farm will be on dry land. 

 

1) They're wind TURBINES.

2) That would defeat to purpose of the project which is to create a functional lab of sorts to study the construction and operation of fresh water off shore wind farms.

3) Expensive and unnecessary.

4) Pushes out port relocation even further by spending time and dredge material to build these "islands".

DefendCleve seems to hint at the West breakwall site (as proposed in the Lakefront Plan) but he never explicitly states where the port should move or IF the port should move.

You are correct, Hootenany, that my current leaning is toward either the West Breakwall, or as mentioned by Etheostoma Caeruleum, expanding northward - if, as you say, the port should find it (based on true facts, this time) feasible to relocate. That’s the first million dollar (or, more accurately, multi-million dollar) question. So let’s tackle that one first.

 

• I have been tracking the annual audits for CCCPA (available at http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/search.aspx) for the years dating back to 1993 (the only ones available from the state’s site). From ’93 thru ’96, the Revenue and Expenses calculation showed a negative balance every year. Things improved from there, starting in '97 and peaking in 2003, with positive balances recorded each year during that period. Then there was a sharp drop back into the red in 2004 (4 years before the recession, mind you), and things have, not surprisingly, only gotten worse since then, with 2008 (the last year for which figures are currently available) being by far the lowest point ever (albeit, to be sure, the recession had a lot to do with that year's calamity).
   
  
• So, given that record, what does it portend for the future? The short answer is, who knows? Surely not I, although I do think it’s fair to say that there’s going to be some rough sailing, into a stiff head wind, for the foreseeable future. But let’s give CCCPA the benefit of the doubt and let’s presume that Mr. Friedman, the Port’s newest CEO, somehow, someway turns the Port’s maritime operations around, at least back to the breakeven point, sometime in our children’s lifetime (ok, ok, just a joke on that last part). What should the Port do in that case: should they stay, or should they go?
  
• First, let’s say up front, there is no urgency (to put it mildly) that the Port vacate its current premises - for fear of holding up the downtown waterfront development - anytime soon. And let me just add, if I see even the first phase of that development completed before the Tribe’s next world championship, I’ll consider myself (and the CCCPA, and the city) to be very lucky (and the beloved Tribe alas, as usual, unlucky).
   
  
• However, there is some sense of urgency regarding the City’s and Port’s problem of what to do with the river and harbor dredge materials, both in the short term and long. The city’s confined disposal facilities (CDFs) are nearly full. The Cleveland Harbor Dredge Task Force(http://www.portofcleveland.com/site.cfm/Maritime/Dredge-Task-Force.cfm) is currently prioritizing available options for the short term. The Kelley’s Island plan, as we’ve been reading recently, appears dead in its tracks, having been swiftly shot down by OEPA. The two favored alternatives (http://www.portofcleveland.com/assets/attachments/file/Preliminary%20Screening.pdf) at this time appear to be (1) trucking dredge material currently residing in Dike 10B to offsite locations for the purpose of remediating city brownfields (the first on the agenda being a Pershing Avenue site), thereby freeing up the vacated portions of 10B once again for new dredgings; and (2) recycling dredge material on parcels along the river. In the case of the latter, there is also the proposal to construct a sediment trap immediately to the south of the ship channel with adjacent shoreside processing of the dredged materials. Another very intriguing variation on that is the proposal, published in this week’s Crain’s Cleveland Business (http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100614/SUB1/306149985/1074/TOC&Profile=1074 – requires subscription) by Dr. Charles E. Herdendorf, which outlines a plan to “develop a 20-acre dredged management processing facility in the vicinity of the Clark Avenue bridge. This facility could be built at the ArcelorMittal steel mill, where there is available land. This location is ideal because the river's current loses velocity here as it encounters a greater depth, dumping a large portion of sediment before it moves downstream and clogs the navigation channel.” One or more of these interim solutions could also turn into long term solutions, eliminating the need for additional CDFs, and in the process spawning a new, green industry in the valley as a further bonus.
   
  
• So, the big question long term is: do we need another CDF, bearing in mind that the Army Corps no longer pays the full costs for such endeavors and that local costs can easily exceed $100M merely for the construction of the dike walls (the filling, any construction of a port, etc is entirely local cost). Based on what I’ve heard at the original Dredge Summit last Fall and since, the Army Corps would be very happy to not be constructing CDFs at all anymore if other viable solutions can be implemented (as they have been in other cities, including Lorain). And it would seem, Port relocation aside, that processing, rather than dumping, of dredged materials is a more “21st century” solution in any case.

• The problem is, we don’t know whether or not the Port will need to be relocated. A large portion of their present site is currently underutilized (to put it mildly) and could be developed without any need for the Port to relocate at all. In addition, the Port’s current modest footprint could, as mentioned by Etheostoma Caeruleum, be extended northward if necessary – such plans have been on the books since as far back as Dec 4, 1970, when the Plain Dealer had a front-page spread, renderings included, entitled “Cleveland Harbor – 1990,” showing port expansion inside the east breakwall, just north of the current site.
  
• How about the West Breakwall Harbor site? Its advantages include (1) lower costs (as outlined in my reply to McCleveland), (2) adherence to the City Planning Commission’s approved Waterfront District Plan, (3) preservation of the existing State Parks and recreational facilities on the city’s east side (also in adherence to the WDP), (4) minimal impact on citizen access to the lake. Its disadvantages? (1) Cost – although less than the enormous E55th price tag, it will still be a very significant and shaky investment by a region strapped for money; (2) it would negatively impact the “viewshed,” most drastically from Wendy Park, but also to lesser degrees from Edgewater Park on the west and Voinovich Park on the east; (3) it will have its own impact on the environment (although again, not to the extent documented for the E55th St project).
  
• Given all of that, my personal preference? Stay put at least until (1) it has been demonstrated (by vastly improved maritime revenues, by detailed professional market analysis, by detailed professional cost-benefit and ROI analyses) beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Port truly needs more space, or (2) we see the completion, or near completion, of three of the four phases of the downtown development, and there is overwhelming support, and funding in place, for the final phase to proceed (requiring relocation of the Port at that point). None of this is easy, none of it is simple, and there's no magic bullet (although there are a lot of good and creative ideas being generated). In any case, for what it's worth, that's my take on where we currently stand.
  

 

...Ken

These soliloquies are wearing me out!

 

DefendCleve seems to hint at the West breakwall site (as proposed in the Lakefront Plan) but he never explicitly states where the port should move or IF the port should move.

You are correct, Hootenany, that my current leaning is toward either the West Breakwall, or as mentioned by Etheostoma Caeruleum, expanding northward - if, as you say, the port should find it (based on true facts, this time) feasible to relocate. That’s the first million dollar (or, more accurately, multi-million dollar) question. So let’s tackle that one first.

 

• I have been tracking the annual audits for CCCPA (available at http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/search.aspx) for the years dating back to 1993 (the only ones available from the state’s site). From ’93 thru ’96, the Revenue and Expenses calculation showed a negative balance every year. Things improved from there, starting in '97 and peaking in 2003, with positive balances recorded each year during that period. Then there was a sharp drop back into the red in 2004 (4 years before the recession, mind you), and things have, not surprisingly, only gotten worse since then, with 2008 (the last year for which figures are currently available) being by far the lowest point ever (albeit, to be sure, the recession had a lot to do with that year's calamity).
   
  
• So, given that record, what does it portend for the future? The short answer is, who knows? Surely not I, although I do think it’s fair to say that there’s going to be some rough sailing, into a stiff head wind, for the foreseeable future. But let’s give CCCPA the benefit of the doubt and let’s presume that Mr. Friedman, the Port’s newest CEO, somehow, someway turns the Port’s maritime operations around, at least back to the breakeven point, sometime in our children’s lifetime (ok, ok, just a joke on that last part). What should the Port do in that case: should they stay, or should they go?
  
• First, let’s say up front, there is no urgency (to put it mildly) that the Port vacate its current premises - for fear of holding up the downtown waterfront development - anytime soon. And let me just add, if I see even the first phase of that development completed before the Tribe’s next world championship, I’ll consider myself (and the CCCPA, and the city) to be very lucky (and the beloved Tribe alas, as usual, unlucky).
   
  
• However, there is some sense of urgency regarding the City’s and Port’s problem of what to do with the river and harbor dredge materials, both in the short term and long. The city’s confined disposal facilities (CDFs) are nearly full. The Cleveland Harbor Dredge Task Force(http://www.portofcleveland.com/site.cfm/Maritime/Dredge-Task-Force.cfm) is currently prioritizing available options for the short term. The Kelley’s Island plan, as we’ve been reading recently, appears dead in its tracks, having been swiftly shot down by OEPA. The two favored alternatives (http://www.portofcleveland.com/assets/attachments/file/Preliminary%20Screening.pdf) at this time appear to be (1) trucking dredge material currently residing in Dike 10B to offsite locations for the purpose of remediating city brownfields (the first on the agenda being a Pershing Avenue site), thereby freeing up the vacated portions of 10B once again for new dredgings; and (2) recycling dredge material on parcels along the river. In the case of the latter, there is also the proposal to construct a sediment trap immediately to the south of the ship channel with adjacent shoreside processing of the dredged materials. Another very intriguing variation on that is the proposal, published in this week’s Crain’s Cleveland Business (http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100614/SUB1/306149985/1074/TOC&Profile=1074 – requires subscription) by Dr. Charles E. Herdendorf, which outlines a plan to “develop a 20-acre dredged management processing facility in the vicinity of the Clark Avenue bridge. This facility could be built at the ArcelorMittal steel mill, where there is available land. This location is ideal because the river's current loses velocity here as it encounters a greater depth, dumping a large portion of sediment before it moves downstream and clogs the navigation channel.” One or more of these interim solutions could also turn into long term solutions, eliminating the need for additional CDFs, and in the process spawning a new, green industry in the valley as a further bonus.
   
  
• So, the big question long term is: do we need another CDF, bearing in mind that the Army Corps no longer pays the full costs for such endeavors and that local costs can easily exceed $100M merely for the construction of the dike walls (the filling, any construction of a port, etc is entirely local cost). Based on what I’ve heard at the original Dredge Summit last Fall and since, the Army Corps would be very happy to not be constructing CDFs at all anymore if other viable solutions can be implemented (as they have been in other cities, including Lorain). And it would seem, Port relocation aside, that processing, rather than dumping, of dredged materials is a more “21st century” solution in any case.

• The problem is, we don’t know whether or not the Port will need to be relocated. A large portion of their present site is currently underutilized (to put it mildly) and could be developed without any need for the Port to relocate at all. In addition, the Port’s current modest footprint could, as mentioned by Etheostoma Caeruleum, be extended northward if necessary – such plans have been on the books since as far back as Dec 4, 1970, when the Plain Dealer had a front-page spread, renderings included, entitled “Cleveland Harbor – 1990,” showing port expansion inside the east breakwall, just north of the current site.
  
• How about the West Breakwall Harbor site? Its advantages include (1) lower costs (as outlined in my reply to McCleveland), (2) adherence to the City Planning Commission’s approved Waterfront District Plan, (3) preservation of the existing State Parks and recreational facilities on the city’s east side (also in adherence to the WDP), (4) minimal impact on citizen access to the lake. Its disadvantages? (1) Cost – although less than the enormous E55th price tag, it will still be a very significant and shaky investment by a region strapped for money; (2) it would negatively impact the “viewshed,” most drastically from Wendy Park, but also to lesser degrees from Edgewater Park on the west and Voinovich Park on the east; (3) it will have its own impact on the environment (although again, not to the extent documented for the E55th St project).
  
• Given all of that, my personal preference? Stay put at least until (1) it has been demonstrated (by vastly improved maritime revenues, by detailed professional market analysis, by detailed professional cost-benefit and ROI analyses) beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Port truly needs more space, or (2) we see the completion, or near completion, of three of the four phases of the downtown development, and there is overwhelming support, and funding in place, for the final phase to proceed (requiring relocation of the Port at that point). None of this is easy, none of it is simple, and there's no magic bullet (although there are a lot of good and creative ideas being generated). In any case, for what it's worth, that's my take on where we currently stand.
  

 

...Ken

 

Do you provide Cliffnotes?

Easy there, everybody.  I actually appreciate DefendCleve's treatise on the intersection of Port relocation and dredging issues, especially since it saved me the effort of providing that synopsis myself.

 

Assuming that the Port has to be relocated due to a need for increased capacity (and based on the studies from the various consultants to the Port, this is speculative at best), there are two additional disadvantages to a West Breakwater site:

 

1. Docking could only take place on the City-side of the constructed island due to the wave action on the Lake-side, and the island would have to extend well inside of the breakwater due to the way it was originally constructed (the cross-section of the wall is pyramidal, not vertical, which would preclude docking boats of any appreciable size).

 

2. Relocating the Port to the West Breakwater site was predicated on the construction of the West Bank Connector. Due to topographical reasons and the desire to keep trucks off of the Shoreway, all truck traffic was to be shunted to a road that would begin at the West Breakwater island, skirt the Whiskey Island Bulk Terminal to the west and south, go under the Norfolk Southern tracks, go across the Willow Street Bridge, and then head along the vacated railroad right of way that parallels Center Street to the west and then goes along Rivervbed Street on the way to Quigley Road.  Because of several issues, including that pesky subsidence issue on Irishtown bend, the West Bank Connector is kaput.

And your number two is why i was saying I don't even think the west break wall is feasible.  I also had someone once actually drive me down to the tunnels which would be used for truck traffic just to drive the point home.  And this isn't even beginning to cover rail and truck bridges to the island port.

 

i will respond to the rest of this hopefully in the next day or so.

Do you provide Cliffnotes?

 

Trust me, 3231, I realize I don't get a better grade by writing long posts.

 

If it makes you and MyTwoSense feel any better, though, be assured it's probably been a lot more painful to write them than it's been to read them. It's definitely not my cup of tea to spend 3-4 hours researching and organizing/writing a response to this complex set of issues, but I feel that's what needs to be done to avoid just adding a baseless opinion to the discussion - which gets us nowhere. Focusing on complex and messy substance sometimes results in a complex and messy posting. 

 

Cliffnotes version of this post: "Yeah, I've been long-winded, but not because that's my goal. But I'll keep your suggestion in mind for the future  :wink:"

 

...Ken

DefendCleve--thank you for your insightful analysis and post (Reply #301, above). It is indeed meaningful to have such detail and not a 'cliffs notes' gloss over the underlying issues. Thanks.

Great writing, DefendCleve!  All of it.

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority to pay $415,000 for advice on sludge, other issues

Published: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 5:00 AM   

James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer

 

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority will pay consultants $415,000 for advice on disposing of sludge, improving its shipping business and relocating docks.

 

William Friedman, the authority's new president and chief executive, told board members Wednesday that he would have preferred to keep the work in-house, but needed the expertise of consultants.

 

"We have big decisions with substantial economic consequences for the entire state that need to be made," Friedman said. "But we don't at this time have many of the facts to intelligently make these decisions. Soon we will."

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/cleveland-cuyahoga_county_port_15.html

• Hello all...
   
  Attached are two letters from CCCPA CEO, William Friedman, one to "Friend of the Port", the other to the US Army Corps of Engineers:
   
  
  • 2010.06.23 Friend of Port.pdf ("Today I am asking the Port Authority Board of Directors to take action to address both of these critical issues: 1. Eliminating E55th Street as the preferred site for dredge disposal. ... 2. Engaging port experts to help us obtain the information needed to plan the port's future.")
    
  • 2010.06.23 USACE Letter FINAL.pdf("We acknowledge that the alternatives we would like to pursue must be more cost effective than the existing plans to construct 20 years of dredging capacity. ... Alternatives, such as beneficial re-use of dredged material, extension of existing but smaller CDFs, need to be pursued, as well as all other options that would provide environmentally acceptable and cost-effective interim and long-term capacity for the disposal of dredged material.")
     
    

 

 

It appears as though a new day has dawned at CCCPA.

 

...Ken

^Thanks!

We seem to be in good hands with William Friedman:

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=139311&catid=45

Very interesting news...

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority sets $3.2 million plan for rail loop on lakefront docks

By JAY MILLER

1:21 pm, August 3, 2010

 

New Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority CEO William Friedman today told Port Authority board members of a $3.16 million plan to create a new rail loop on the lakefront docks.

 

The loop would make the transfer from ships to rail easier and attract a new customer interested in importing steel through the Port of Cleveland.

 

Mr. Friedman would not disclose the name of the importer, but said it would shift business from an East Coast port. It also would require the Cleveland port to be able to accommodate as many as 70 rail cars at a time to handle the unloading and shipment of steel to inland destinations.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100803/FREE/100809954

 

 

Definitely. I'm wondering if the company importing the steel is Cleveland Track Material which is typically Amtrak's largest supplier in Ohio. Cleveland Track Material imports steel from Ukraine via East Coast ports. But the CEO said he was doing that because he get's a better price from the East Coast ports -- he didn't say anything about capacity issues being a problem at Cleveland's port. So it may not be them.....

Wow, 70 rail cars at a time...not exactly congruent with the toothless Lakefront Plan that we wasted so much time with.

 

Very interesting news...

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority sets $3.2 million plan for rail loop on lakefront docks

By JAY MILLER

1:21 pm, August 3, 2010

 

New Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority CEO William Friedman today told Port Authority board members of a $3.16 million plan to create a new rail loop on the lakefront docks.

 

The loop would make the transfer from ships to rail easier and attract a new customer interested in importing steel through the Port of Cleveland.

 

Mr. Friedman would not disclose the name of the importer, but said it would shift business from an East Coast port. It also would require the Cleveland port to be able to accommodate as many as 70 rail cars at a time to handle the unloading and shipment of steel to inland destinations.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100803/FREE/100809954

 

 

This could have gone in the rail freight thread too, but it's more specific to the port of Cleveland....

 

Friday September 3, 2010 

Port's planned rail loop could improve shipping capabilities

By JAY MILLER

4:30 am, September 3, 2010

 

Making good on his commitment to expand shipping business through the Port of Cleveland, William Friedman, the new CEO of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, is pursuing a plan for a $3.16 million rail loop that would make it easier and less expensive to move cargo from the port's docks by rail.

 

Mr. Friedman said a foreign steelmaker is looking to abandon its traditional East Coast port of call in favor of a port further inland that would keep its steel slabs on water longer. He said he has had discussions with company representatives, but he would not identify the importer.

 

“Rail is becoming more important for moving freight” as fuel costs rise, Mr. Friedman told members of the Port Authority's maritime committee earlier this month.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100903/FREE/309039999

I bet this was a site to see!

 

http://www.heavyliftpfi.com/content/NewsItem.aspx?id=2043

 

October 4 - Jumbo Shipping's Stella Prima arrived at the Port of Cleveland carrying a shipment that included a 286 tonne transformer destined for an AEP power plant in East Brilliant, Ohio.

The port says that the transformer is the heaviest piece of cargo that it has ever handled.

 

Stella Prima used its own cranes to unload the massive transformer directly onto an on-dock 16-axle rail car, specifically designed for such heavy cargoes.

 

 

Does anyone know if the port has hired anyone? The new guy said he would hire 2 people in September.

^^Did that arrive today?  I think it was last week that I saw a four or five crane operation down at the port.  It was the biggest I could remember.

Gee, why aren't they putting that on a truck?  :-P

 

New Container Shipping Sevice Would Be The First On Great Lakes

 

Read more at:http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/news/32635

^Already being discussed in the Cleveland Business thread, but probably a better fit here.

 

It seems like the idea is more geared towards exports, than it is towards imports, judging the last sentence in that article.  Also, I understand that it is just a start-up process.... but 2 ships?  They would only be here every couple weeks.

 

If the goal is to reduce shipping costs, I wonder how the math adds up.  Shipping a container from Europe to Cleveland has to be significantly faster if you use one of the east coast ports, then to come down the St. Lawrence, right?

It's called "short sea shipping".....containers (brought by rail & truck) are put on a smaller ship and taken to ports in Nova Scotia (Halifax, Sydney, Port Hawksberry) and transferred to larger ocean-going container ships.  The concept is for both export and import raffic.

I get the concept, but I believe it was examined awhile back and found to be more time consuming and more expensive than using an eastern sea port.  Hopefully, they have found a way to close that gap, both in time and money.

^Already being discussed in the Cleveland Business thread, but probably a better fit here.

 

 

Yeah, for some reason I was retarded the other day when I posted that and couldn't find this thread.

http://gc.kls2.com/

3754 mi Cleveland to London

 

3729 mi Norfolk, Virginia to London

http://ibmag.com/Main/Archive/Port_Order_11765.aspx

 

This is a more comprehensive article on Friedman's vision going forward with the Port.  Specific discussion about the planned neighborhood north of the stadium.  Nice jab at Indy at the end  :-)

Cleveland Port Authority looks to improve its operation. 

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20101207/FREE/101209867

 

"Brent Leslie, the Port Authority's chief financial officer, told board members at a committee meeting this morning that the Ohio Development Finance Advisory Council has approved the Port Authority's application for a $3 million state logistics and distribution loan. The Port Authority would use the money, and $1 million of its own money, to add 5,000 feet of track to its rail spur on the docks in order to make the transfer of cargo from ships to rail easier."

 

"Jeff Sweeney of Martin Associates, a Lancaster, Pa., transportation consulting firm, told board members that if the stars line up correctly cargo through the Port of Cleveland could more than double by 2020"

 

 

Port officials take a shot at diverting some imported liquor shipments from East Coast to Cleveland

 

By JAY MILLER

4:30 am, December 13, 2010

 

A spokeswoman for the Ohio Division of Liquor Control said her agency convened a meeting in Columbus on Oct. 20 to open the discussion with spirits importers about the feasibility of rerouting shipments of scotch, vodka and other liquors. The shipments, now received at East Coast ports, could be sent up the St. Lawrence Seaway to the docks of the Port of Cleveland.

 

The longshoremen's union for many years has been pressing the Port Authority to expand its maritime operations to make more work for local stevedores. Now, with a new maritime leader recently hired, the Port Authority is focusing on expanding business along the Cleveland waterfront.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20101213/SUB1/101219971#

NPR's Marketplace talked about Great Lakes shipping and mentioned a Youngstown company, Butech Bliss and their efforts to deliver giant steel cutters to Germany.

 

I got home after hearing this on the radio and checked the Marketplace website and found the slideshow. Apparently I got a first hand look at part of this thing. When a part of it was on the move I was leaving the Pond Brook Conservation Area on Rt. 82 between Aurora and Twinsburg where it was approaching and I was prevented from entering the roadway by Highway Patrol. I thought it was crazy big but apparently so big it wasn't allowed to pass through PA and MD.

 

Photos and text of the segment and interview with Bill Friedman among others.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/standard/display/slideshow.php?ftr_id=86331

NPR's Marketplace talked about Great Lakes shipping and mentioned a Youngstown company, Butech Bliss and their efforts to deliver giant steel cutters to Germany.

 

 

Actually it's in Salem. But it's only about 20 miles from Youngstown.

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority approves plans for expanded rail service

By JAY MILLER

3:20 pm, January 19, 2011

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority has approved plans to expand rail service at the Port of Cleveland and has helped close the books on what could have been a thorny financial problem in University Heights.

 

At its regular monthly meeting, the Port Authority selected Parsons Brinckerhoff to handle the design and construction of a planned rail loop on the docks. The agency will pay the Chicago company $469,000 for construction and design services. The $4 million new track would make it easier to move cargo off the docks by rail.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110119/FREE/110119803

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority approves plans for expanded rail service

By JAY MILLER

3:20 pm, January 19, 2011

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority has approved plans to expand rail service at the Port of Cleveland and has helped close the books on what could have been a thorny financial problem in University Heights.

 

At its regular monthly meeting, the Port Authority selected Parsons Brinckerhoff to handle the design and construction of a planned rail loop on the docks. The agency will pay the Chicago company $469,000 for construction and design services. The $4 million new track would make it easier to move cargo off the docks by rail.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110119/FREE/110119803

 

The project is also up for a grant from the Ohio Rail Development Commission to rehabiltate a rail spur.

 

BTW: here's the release from the Port Authority:

 

http://www.portofcleveland.com/assets/attachments/file/1_19_11%20CCR.pdf

 

1375 E. Ninth St., #2300

Cleveland, OH 44114

216.241.8004 (tel)

216.241.8016 (fax)

For Immediate Release Contact: Nancy Lesic, 216.696.7686

 

RAIL CARRIER WILL BETTER LINK CLEVELAND BUSINESS TO PORT AND WORLD MARKETS

Port enters into agreement with Cleveland Commercial Railroad

 

CLEVELAND – January 19, 2011 – Businesses in Greater Cleveland will soon have a much more efficient connection to the Port of Cleveland and the rest of the world.

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority today approved an agreement with Cleveland Commercial Railroad Company, LLC (CCR) – a "shortline" railroad that already operates two lines totaling 23 miles that serve a portion of Cleveland’s industrial economy.

 

This pilot agreement calls for CCR to locally market rail services to and from the port and manage scheduling and operations of the port’s rail system.

 

The arrangement will not require any expenditures by the Port Authority. CCR will earn revenue through proceeds generated by the service. CCR will pay the Port Authority a sliding rate after annual volume exceeds 500,000 tons.

 

"We believe this partnership will help upgrade the port’s rail service – something critical to our competitive position," said Will Friedman, CEO of the Port Authority. "Improved rail access will make the port more accessible to businesses looking to cut their shipping costs and improve their international reach."

 

Port Authority Board Chairman Steve Williams said the partnership is the "next step in improving the port’s connection to Greater Cleveland’s existing rail lines, and will provide a new channel to market the port locally and nationally."

 

The partnership between the Cleveland-based railroad and the port is a natural fit, said Bill Brown, CCR’s chief financial officer and one of three owners.

 

"Cleveland Commercial Railroad has enjoyed steady growth, even in challenging economic times," said Brown. "We will better connect the port to a rail network – which extends beyond our own 23 miles of track – and will promote the use of the port. This will mean easier, better, more efficient, and less expensive shipping for many Cleveland area businesses."

 

CCR will be responsible for negotiating switching agreements and scheduling protocols with Norfolk Southern and CSX railroads, which both currently service the port via separate tracks. CCR will also

 

provide advice on designing the planned rail loop, which will connect the tracks at the port. The loop will also add more than a mile of additional track to the port, allowing more rail cars to be brought in and switched on site.

Rail is a reliable, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable alternative to all-truck transport. In addition railroads can transport products such as steel coils that may exceed highway weight limitations.

Port Authority officials said the partnership’s work will begin immediately and the rail loop improvement project will be completed later this year.

I didn't know that CCR got a contract to service the port. That's a potentially huge coup for them, especially if they can negotiate trackage rights agreements with CSX and NS to link the port with their trackage on the southeast side. That includes two rail corridors servicing the old industrial area of Harvard-Broadway, and extending to the southeast -- the former Erie-Lackawanna to Solon (it used to go all the way to Youngstown) and the former Wheeling & Lake Erie to Glenwillow (where the W&LE takes over to Kent, Akron, Canton, Steubenville, Pittsburgh and beyond.

I would think this could get a lot of use especially if wind turbines start to be made in Cleveland to be shipped to other locales.

 

I can't find much information on CCR on the web.. It looks like a hobbyist railroad company from what I can gather from Youtube videos.  A couple of locomotives and a caboose and 23 miles of track soon to be 24.. 

I would think this could get a lot of use especially if wind turbines start to be made in Cleveland to be shipped to other locales.

 

I can't find much information on CCR on the web.. It looks like a hobbyist railroad company from what I can gather from Youtube videos. A couple of locomotives and a caboose and 23 miles of track soon to be 24..

 

They started as somewhat of a "hobby railroad", but are a serious business now.  They have been able to get a lot of track work upgrades done on lines that were pretty much given up for dead by the big railroads and have actually started to grow business along those lines from steel companies, scarp yards and other shippers.  Getting this contract to serve the Port is a big step up.

Exactly. If I remember correctly, Bill Brown was the president of CCR and also its only employee. I met him a few years ago when I wrote an article for Sun about the Midwest Railway Preservation Society's work to upgrade the West 3rd Street Roundhouse (Brown was also president of MRPS). He used to seek shipping customers for CCR while on a cell phone as he was at the controls of CCR's only locomotive! Now that's being an entrepreneur!

Exactly. If I remember correctly, Bill Brown was the president of CCR and also its only employee. I met him a few years ago when I wrote an article for Sun about the Midwest Railway Preservation Society's work to upgrade the West 3rd Street Roundhouse (Brown was also president of MRPS). He used to seek shipping customers for CCR while on a cell phone as he was at the controls of CCR's only locomotive! Now that's being an entrepreneur!

 

I think they have three employees today.

and not a website developer among them!  So at what number of employees does a railroad become a serious company and not a serious hobby? Personally, I'm thinking 5..

and not a website developer among them!  So at what number of employees does a railroad become a serious company and not a serious hobby? Personally, I'm thinking 5..

 

As one who is well acquainted with one of the partners who owns the CCR, I feel that your posts about this railroad are somewhat condescending. The partners who own CCR may well be railfans, but they are serious railroaders. please recall that the former owner of the Ohio Central, Jerry Jacobson, is a railfan and also a railroader. If it weren't for "railfans" like Mr. Jacobson and the partners with CCR, you would be looking at more abandoned rail lines in this state.

    It was on their excellent reputation that they were able to get the contract with the Port Authority as well as the lease of the former Erie line from Norfolk Southern.

   

I don't think the above poster meant any offense. But yes, I know plenty of 'serious companies' with less than five employees, and I'm very happy to have professionals like CCR & Mr. Jacobson taking advantage of available opportunities.

It would be condescending if my railroad company were far superior to CCR, alas it is not...  My point is that such a highly capitalized company that's function is intrinsically based upon better logistics will not be particularly efficient with 3-4 employees wearing 3-4 types of hats unless there is some serious amount of outsourcing:  I'm thinking payroll, accounting services, etf transactions, edi transactions, and legal services.  If they have that all covered then I'll take back what I said.

 

I wish them the absolute best.  I just feel they need to employ some more people.

First international ship of the season arrives at Port of Cleveland

Ceremony welcomes Polish ship carrying steel from the Netherlands

 

(Cleveland)--A sure sign of spring in Cleveland as the first international ship of the season arrived at the Port of Cleveland Wednesday. The bulk carrier Isolda, which loaded in the Netherlands, delivered 10,000 tons of steel coils to Cleveland.

 

The Port Authority's president and CEO Will Friedman and port stakeholders welcomed the captain and crew of the Isolda, which is a Polish-owened ship. Friedman says the Isolda's arrival symbolizes not only a new year of maritime activity, but also a re-energized Port of Cleveland.

 

Friedman says, "We expect to see more ships and cargto at the port this year, bringing economic benefits that ripple through the Northeast Ohio economy." This year, the port plans to install a $4 million rail line to improve ship-to-rail and rail-to-ship cargo loading.

 

The captain and crew of the Isolda received tickets to the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame and Museum and assorted apparel from Cleveland's professional sports teams.

 

http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=122520&article=8432154

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority outlines basics of new strategic plan

By JAY MILLER

2:53 pm, April 14, 2011

 

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority is planning for wind turbine shipping and assembly in its future, even as it sketches container shipping and cross-lake ferry traffic into its master plan.

 

At a meeting of its maritime committee this morning, the Port Authority board heard a preview from staff of a new strategic business plan that is expected to be completed in the next 60 days. The plan focuses on the Port Authority's cargo-handling business and its most optimistic growth scenario anticipates total cargo tonnage growing from 450,000 tons a year at present to 2.5 million tons in 2030.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110414/FREE/110419918#

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority's big plans

Published: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 4:20 PM

By Plain Dealer staff

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Big news coming out of the Cleveland Cuyahoga-County Port Authority meeting earlier today.

 

The Plain Dealer's Michele Jarboe detailed the Port's plan to buy a three-story brick building at 1100 West Ninth St., at the edge of the Warehouse District. The property sits immediately south of the Port's waterfront property and just east of the Flats East Bank development site -- a strategic move placing the authority near development it wants to foster.

 

Pete Krouse writes about the Port's plan to spruce up the Cuyahoga River, keep shipping channels open and attract new business to the port.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/07/cleveland-cuyahoga_county_port_21.html

Litt has some good coverage of this - http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2011/07/port_of_cleveland_plan_led_by.html

 

I wonder (fingers crossed) if the stabilization of the bend might be easier (and less expensive) if Riverview Terrace were to be demolished.

Glad to see this moving forward.......

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority

Rail Construction Project Plan

September 20, 2011

 

The  following Rail Construction Plan (the “Plan”) sets forth the proposed construction project to be

undertaken by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority (the “Port Authority”) and describes the

location and the character of the work to be undertaken by the Port Authority.  The Plan has been

prepared pursuant to Section 4582.07 of the Ohio Revised code enacted  effective April 7, 2009, as

amended October 16, 2009.

 

Description of the Project Site:

 

This project will occur on Port Authority property on the West 3rd Parking Lot, the Billet Yard, Docks 20

and 22, and property south of Warehouse A.  This area encompasses approximately 50 acres of the Port

property.  The Port Authority is located on the waterfront in Cleveland, OH, adjacent to Cleveland

Browns Stadium.  The site consists of approximately 93 acres, which includes 4 transit sheds. 

 

Description of the Project:

 

The Port Authority is currently served by two class 1 railroads, the Norfolk Southern (NS) and CSX.  The

NS services the stone and cement operation on the western side of our docks.  CSX services the general

cargo operation at our docks, where steel slabs and coils are unloaded from international vessels. 

Despite the presence of both railroads, the current operation is inefficient in that the two railroads are

not connected, which does not lead to competition among the railroads.  This also hampers our ability

to successfully market rail operations to potential users of the Port.

 

In 2010, the Port Authority solicited and received a  loan from the Ohio Department of Development

which will enable the construction of approximately one mile of new railroad track on Port property. 

This “forgivable” loan provides the Port Authority with approximately $3,000,000 in funds from the

State of Ohio, which the Port will match with $1,000,000.  This project will provide the following

benefits:

 

++ Improve the efficiency of our rail services by connecting the existing railroads.

++ Increase competition among CSX and NS for potential cargoes that require ship to rail or rail to

ship service. 

++ Improve the efficiency of truck access onto the Port through the construction of a new road,

which will relocate truck traffic away from the main operation of our Port, and create a safer

environment in our general cargo operation.

 

A conceptual drawing for the rail as part of this project is shown in Exhibit A. 

 

This project also includes the construction of a new road that will move truck traffic from the center of

the general cargo operation, to a new road which will be constructed south of Warehouse A.  This

project will improve the safety of our general cargo operation by eliminating the majority of truck traffic

from the center of the property, thus avoiding tow-motor traffic that occurs during the unloading of

vessels.  The new road is shown in Exhibit B.  This part of the project will also involve the removal of

approximately 5,000 square feet of Warehouse A, at its southernmost point, to provide ample room for

the construction of the new road. 

 

The construction phase of the project will begin early in the spring of 2012, and will conclude late

spring/early summer of 2012. 

 

READ MORE AND SEE THE SITE PLAN AT:

http://www.portofcleveland.com/assets/attachments/file/Rail%20Construction%20Project%20Plan.pdf

FYI....

 

Will Friedman, President & CEO

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority

Topic:  Port of Cleveland’s Proposed Strategic Action Plan

 

&

 

Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

Topic:  Green Infrastructure Projects within the City of Cleveland

 

Monday, September 19, 2011

at 12:00 p.m. in the 2nd floor Council Conference Room at City Hall.

Leave the Flats East Bank discussion to that thread. Discuss port-authority strategic plans here. Thanks!.....

 

Flats East Bank developers raise late objections to Port Authority strategic plan

By JAY MILLER

3:44 pm, September 21, 2011

 

The developer of the $275 million Flats East Bank project is butting heads with the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority over the maritime agency's plans for its property along the lakefront.

 

Developer Scott Wolstein, in an exchange of emails Tuesday with Port Authority president William Friedman, said the port's new strategic plan “could not conceivably be more offensive to our vision for the development of this area of the city, and, frankly, it may well jeopardize the entire Phase 2 development (of the Flats East Bank) that is based on a significant residential component.”

 

The strategic plan commits the Port Authority to keep its docks at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River and says the agency will work to grow its shipping business by seeking to bring to Cleveland containerized cargo and cargo such as wind turbine parts. The plan also envisions the Port Authority playing a key role in the maintenance of the waterfront and Cuyahoga River channel beyond its docks.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110921/FREE/110929940#