September 21, 201113 yr Does anyone know if there would be any potential growth at the port due to the use of marcellus shale in eastern Ohio for oil and natural gas?
September 21, 201113 yr Possibly. Europe might want to get its natural gas from America rather than from Russia. But inflows of products and materials to aid in drilling may have to go to another port, such as Ashtabula, given that Youngstown/Warren is probably the most aggressive region in developing an industrial service center for exploitation of the Marcellus/Utica region. There are direct rail lines from Ashtabula to Warren, Youngstown and Sharon. Cleveland has no direct rail line to Warren, Youngstown and Sharon anymore.... The "Missing Mile" at Ravenna: "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 24, 201113 yr 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# I see their strategic plan is available on the web....... http://www.portofcleveland.com/assets/attachments/file/Strategic%20Plan_Web(2).pdf "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 25, 201213 yr Good news. I may post this e-mailed press release in the rail freight section too... Port of Cleveland’s Cargo Volume Grew 31 percent in 2011 More growth expected as Port expands rail system in largest construction project in a decade JANUARY 25, 2012 – The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority reported that overall cargo tonnage increased 31 percent in 2011, largely the result of growth in steel, iron-ore and oversized “project” cargo handled by Port facilities. The Port handled 3.4 million tons of cargo last year – the highest volume since 2008. General cargo volume rose 16 percent as both steel and project cargo posted increases; while bulk cargo increased 33 percent, as more iron ore was handled by Port operations. “Trade through our port showed strong growth in 2011, which is another indicator of an economic rebound underway in our region,” said Port CEO Will Friedman. “With this momentum we are working harder than ever to develop better waterborne freight connections with global markets to help Ohio firms compete for and win business, and ultimately create new jobs.” Overall tonnage transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway increased 2.5 percent in 2011. Separately the Port Authority’s Board of Directors agreed today to enter into a contract for nearly $3.9 million to construct an on-dock rail loop that will make the Port more competitive. The Port selected Great Lakes Construction Company, a Cleveland-based company to build the 5,500 feet of additional track. The project is slated to be completed before the end of October, and was made possible by an Ohio Department of Development Logistics and Distribution Stimulus Loan of $3,025,000. The Port will fund the remainder of the project from its capital budget. “We are excited to move forward with the rail expansion, which exemplifies the strategic investments the Port is making to grow its maritime operations and spur more economic activity in Greater Cleveland,” said Board Chair Bob Smith. “We are also grateful to the Ohio Department of Development for its vital role in turning this project into reality.” The rail loop will connect existing on-dock tracks, giving the two Class 1 railroads serving the Port access to the entire general cargo facility and providing enhanced opportunities for rail-to-ship and ship-to-rail cargo handling. This expanded rail service will give local companies more efficient and cost-effective shipping options, and better position the port to handle more railcars at one time, increase exports, and reach customers in a broader geographic area. Cleveland Commercial Railroad, LLC will manage the scheduling and operations of the Port’s expanded rail system, and market it to area companies. The board also authorized the Port to enter into a contract for up to $65,000 with Martin Associates to analyze the business case for launching regularly scheduled liner service between Cleveland and ports in Europe, and possibly Canada. Such service would provide new options for transporting both containerized and non-containerized cargo, offering Ohio shippers a competitive and reliable alternative to established routings, and advancing the Port’s strategic aim of diversifying its cargo base. Regularly scheduled service could also provide unprecedented opportunities to export goods from Northeast Ohio by ship directly to world markets. Martin Associates previously completed market analyses for the Port Authority and recently concluded a bi-national analysis of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway System. Under the new contract it will conduct market research and identify viable service design options that the Port can use as the basis for an ocean-carrier solicitation program that will begin later this year. The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority operates the Port of Cleveland, a leading gateway for waterborne trade on the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway System. Nearly 18,000 jobs and 1.8 billion in economic activity result from the roughly 13 million tons of cargo that move through the Cleveland harbor on average each year. The Port also provides innovative financing services for a wide range of development projects in Northeast Ohio, and is leading initiatives to solve critical infrastructure challenges along Cleveland’s waterfronts. -30- "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 27, 201213 yr more development...no big deal... Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority to start $3.9 million rail project Published: Thursday, January 26, 2012, 8:00 PM Brie Zeltner, The Plain Dealer By Brie Zeltner, The Plain Dealer CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority has secured funding and a builder for its first capital project in a decade -- a $3.9 million on-dock rail loop that it hopes will continue to drive growth and enhance its competitive edge. And there's good reason to think it will: the port is growing. For the second year in a row, cargo volume is up and is at its highest level since 2008. "This represents the beginning of capital expenditures that we believe will lead to new business," said William Friedman, the Port's chief executive. He joined the organization in 2010 and is overseeing a sweeping strategic plan unveiled in July. The Port Authority manages maritime operations at the Port of Cleveland, which occupies more than 150 acres on both sides of the Cuyahoga River. The port includes eight international cargo docks that move shipments of steel and heavy machinery into and out of the city. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/port_authority_to_start_39_mil.html
January 27, 201213 yr "The board also authorized the Port to enter into a contract for up to $65,000 with Martin Associates to analyze the business case for launching regularly scheduled liner service between Cleveland and ports in Europe, and possibly Canada. Such service would provide new options for transporting both containerized and non-containerized cargo, offering Ohio shippers a competitive and reliable alternative to established routings, and advancing the Port’s strategic aim of diversifying its cargo base. Regularly scheduled service could also provide unprecedented opportunities to export goods from Northeast Ohio by ship directly to world markets." Is this as big a deal as it sounds?
March 10, 201213 yr A "new" (as of last year) railroad formed in Cleveland by the same folks who began Cleveland Commercial RR.... http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:6964959581570171::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:2017499 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 10, 201213 yr Does this investment make it harder to move the port eventually out of its current location? I know is not the plan right now, but should happen down the road.
March 11, 201213 yr I suppose. But if there's no plan to move the port, why should investments at the port not be made? "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 11, 201213 yr ^I didn't say investments should not be made esp. if they're needed for current operations or for growth. And who knows, maybe the new rail line could eventually be used for a passenger/transit service for a new community built there 50 years from now....
March 26, 201213 yr Found an interesting article in Salon. On the waterfront, the battle rages on That dock would make a great park. The water view is perfect for a new loft. Will gentrification kill shipping? By Will Doig In October, when an Australian metal-recycling company purchased two deep-water berths in Providence, R.I., Mayor Angel Taveras hailed it as “a major accomplishment in the city’s efforts to revitalize its waterfront industries.” Five months later, locals are unhappy about the “eyesore” their new neighbor has created: a 50,000-ton hill of steel. “Where did the scrap metal pile come from?” asked a Providence TV station. It’s the epilogue to a battle that’s been raging in Providence for several years — on one side, a developer who wanted to turn the shoreline into apartments, offices and hotels. On the other, the maritime industries that have been working there since the turn of last century. In the end, industry won, but the complaints that followed — who put this big, ugly heap of metal on our lovely industrial port? — say something about our attitude toward working waterfronts. “I think the average person likes the idea of a working waterfront,” says Jordan Royer of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in Seattle, a shipping industry trade association. We picture barnacled vessels from foreign ports, distant foghorns, a bad-ass Marlon Brando strolling cobblestone streets — not 20-story gantry cranes and deafening machinery running ’round the clock. “Our tank barges have to test their alarm systems every time they go out,” says Robert Hughes, vice president of Hughes Bros. marine company in New Jersey, “and they go out according to the tides and the currents.” Such clutter and clamor makes for an awkward fit in today’s high-design cities, where “reclaiming” waterfronts for parks and dining, and “reconnecting” neighborhoods with their harbors, is seen as a way to lure high-earning residents. “The idea of promoting more traditional forms of waterfront use doesn’t necessarily fit with the image that many cities are trying to portray,” says Brian Doucet, a lecturer in urban geography at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “Cities are trying to attract the ‘creative class’ and visitors, and make themselves seem like an attractive place to live, invest and play.” More here: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/on_the_waterfront_the_battle_rages_on/singleton/
March 26, 201213 yr I imagine that if done right new condominiums can be in close proximity to a functioning port. I think it would be very cool to be living next to a thriving port at the month of the Cuyahoga River. I remember going to church at St. Malichi's in the 90s hearing the steamboats and freighters come into town. Obviously there will need to be considerations taken with the amount of noise the port will create and ensure it does not reach such a high threshold that living near a port is unbearable. Another challenge for any lakefront development is creating connected public space or parkland between the east bank of the flats and the east 9th pier. This will be a challenge with a functioning port inbetween.
March 26, 201213 yr I imagine that if done right new condominiums can be in close proximity to a functioning port. I think it would be very cool to be living next to a thriving port at the month of the Cuyahoga River. I remember going to church at St. Malichi's in the 90s hearing the steamboats and freighters come into town. Obviously there will need to be considerations taken with the amount of noise the port will create and ensure it does not reach such a high threshold that living near a port is unbearable. Another challenge for any lakefront development is creating connected public space or parkland between the east bank of the flats and the east 9th pier. This will be a challenge with a functioning port inbetween. Right. I wish the article focused on coexistence, which I think is the formula for success here in CLE. On that front I definitely like what I'm hearing from the new Port director so far. Sadly the biggest limitation on new development here just might be not the Port, but the project housing.
July 3, 201212 yr Port authority receives some funding: Northeast Ohio funds win $4 million in state New Markets Tax Credits, to aid business expansions Published: Monday, July 02, 2012, 6:45 PM By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer • Northeast Ohio Development Fund, LLC, which also will receive $1 million. Controlled by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, the fund is looking at 10 potential projects. "The goal would be to have it out by the end of the year," Brent Leslie, the Cleveland port's chief financial officer, said of the tax-credit allocation. "We have $5 million in federal New Markets Tax Credits remaining, and they need to be coupled together." http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/07/northeast_ohio_funds_win_4_mil.html
July 12, 201212 yr Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority plan would raise tax rate 400 percent CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Port Authority board's Budget and Administration committee voted to recommend a nearly 400 percent increase in taxes for the port this morning. If the new levy passes, homeowners will pay about $20 per $100,000, to raise an estimated $18 million a year for the port. Property owners currently pay about $3.50 for every $100,000 of assessed home value, raising about $3.2 million to $3.3 million a year. The new levy would last five years to raise $90 million in all. Nearly half of that would be used to fix bulkheads along the Cuyahoga River and the crumbling hillside at a section of the river called Irishtown Bend. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/07/cleveland-cuyahoga_county_port_1.html
July 25, 201212 yr Cleveland: Port levy officially okayed for ballot CLEVELAND -- Voters county-wide will face a November levy that will produce revenue to make improvements keeping up the Port of Cleveland, the lakefront and mouth of the Cuyahoga River. On Wednesday, the Port board voted to put a 5-year, 0.67 mill property tax hike on the ballot. The proposed levy would increase taxes from a present $3.50 to $20 per $100,000 of property values. It would bring in $18 million a year through tax year 2017 http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/253728/3/Cleveland-Port-levy-officially-okayed-for-ballot
October 13, 201212 yr There is an argument that the Port Authority is duplicated by the new county government and could be dissolved. For that matter, if they are trying to do "development", why not use the Ohio Department of Development to float bonds? ---Cleveland Magazine--- Port Nowhere The Port Authority doesn’t deserve a tax increase. It deserves to be dissolved. Michael D. Roberts [email protected] This is a pivotal time in the relationship between the new Cuyahoga County government and Cleveland City Hall. It is also a pivotal moment for County Executive Ed FitzGerald, who supports the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority levy on the ballot this November. The port is asking Cuyahoga County residents for a 400-percent increase in the taxes they pay to it. Instead, FitzGerald should have considered suing to dissolve the Port Authority to create a savings for taxpayers. The Port Authority is an agency whose time has passed, especially with the creation of a new county government. ...snip... http://clevelandmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=E73ABD6180B44874871A91F6BA5C249C&nm=Article+Archives&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1578600D80804596A222593669321019&tier=4&id=63D56E2EB5434BAEAEEEEEAA8072B7EF ----And from Scene Magazine:--- The Dredge Report The port authority levy is asking for too much, too late by Michael D. Roberts Last week Cuyahoga County residents received glossy postcards in the mail asking approval of a levy that would increase taxes collected by the city-county port authority by some 400 percent. The card failed to mention that suburban tax dollars will be siphoned off to shore up a city government that has failed miserably in vision, achievement, and day-to-day performance. Not only are county taxpayers being asked for millions; they are unfairly represented on the port board, which is politically stacked by Cleveland City Hall. The money generated by the levy would be used for dredging the Cuyahoga River, building a pedestrian bridge on the waterfront, and stabilizing a crumbling hillside that threatens to block the river. The implication is that thousands of jobs are at risk if the levy fails. ...snip.... http://www.clevescene.com/gyrobase/the-dredge-report/Content?oid=3071860&showFullText=true What the hell, I'll throw in Roldo Bartimole's comment: Nice job, Michael. As with so many institutions the Port Authority never gets the media coverage it sorely needs. One of the big problems with these organizations is that they wall seem to want to be Economic Developers. The Port brags that since 1993 it has helped finance "70 companies, developers, local governments and non-profits." It has let bonds for some $130 milllion for the East Bank Flats project alone. What we have are government entities - instead of taking care of their constituents - are providing financing for developers. Developers who build unnecessary projects that simply "steal" customers from the last project financed. The Port Authority wasn't formed to do this, however, its vast powers provide no limitations. We can limit it only by voting against the levy and stop it from becoming a more powerful destructive instrument. Roldo Bartimole
October 13, 201212 yr <<Rant on>> Sorry, but the State of Ohio has long been anti-urban. They deserve fewer powers and funding, not more. Instead, give power and money to port authorities, especially in urban areas. The old Ohio Department of Development and its successor does much to further sprawl and kill established communities by extending sewer lines or building suburban industrial parks. Or, the Ohio Department of Transportation spends 99 percent of its budget on highways. It does zilch for rail, waterways and transit. Ports engage in little or no duplication of existing agencies, who know nothing of ports, rails, intermodalism, logistics and non-highway infrastructure. I just don't think people realize how much port authorities do, or how widespread their powers are, or where in Ohio they can use them (ie: anywhere -- did you know Crocker Park's parking garages were financed by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority??). But the port authorities deserve blame for not tooting their own horns enough. When in doubt, remember that if Roldo is against something, that's a real good reason to be for it. Of course, Roldo is usually against everything, so maybe the better advice is if Roldo is "for" something, you should probably be against it. :) <<Rant off>> "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 15, 201212 yr Roldo is going to love me. To better compete at a regional level I would propose that the port is allowed to take over Cleveland airport system, intercity passenger rail development, passenger and provide a regional blueprint for Freight rail. By doing so It can Develop comprehensive inter regional master plan for the county something that the maze of different entities that currently manage or don't mange can not do. The goal would be to best leverage our transportation Assets Air, rail, and Water to the best advantage of our county. generally speaking each sector in transportation operate in silos and in competition with each other, by merging these sectors at the county or regional level, you can gain efficiencies that you cannot get within the current system. I will expand on my thoughts later. got to run.
October 15, 201212 yr They can't even get a riverbank full of dirt moved and you want them to do all that?
October 15, 201212 yr Roldo is going to love me. To better compete at a regional level I would propose that the port is allowed to take over Cleveland airport system, intercity passenger rail development, passenger and provide a regional blueprint for Freight rail. By doing so It can Develop comprehensive inter regional master plan for the county something that the maze of different entities that currently manage or don't mange can not do. The goal would be to best leverage our transportation Assets Air, rail, and Water to the best advantage of our county. generally speaking each sector in transportation operate in silos and in competition with each other, by merging these sectors at the county or regional level, you can gain efficiencies that you cannot get within the current system. I will expand on my thoughts later. got to run. I like what you're cooking here.
October 15, 201212 yr They can't even get a riverbank full of dirt moved and you want them to do all that? yep. no one else can do it. NOACA is handicapped by it's federal mandate, transit agencies are restricted by federal regulations and state laws. port authorities on the other hand are less restricted and have eminent domain powers defined by something that is not in RTA's or the City of Cleveland mandate Economic Development it is beyond me how RTA's vision does not include Economic development when it's primary source of funding is the sales tax ( better the economy does the more revenue they receive), imagine ODOT not actively trying to increase VMT or gas tax revenue. The Airport system is run by the City of Cleveland to serve the entire region. it is fully funded by revenues and fees. not from general city revenue. the rail network is extensive, but there has never been a plan AFAIK to optimize the flow of rail freight through our Region (county) and to optimize this flow for optimal economic development potential. To overcome the silo mentality of the Class Is and to better connect available industrial land to the Rail network. Opportunity would be for the Port to actively pursue reactivation of rail ROW in the county to facilitate mode change (Freight off Roads) and economic development.
November 7, 201212 yr I was very disappointed about the levy failing, and it failed big. I am not sure how we'll be able to keep the hill above Irishtown Bend from falling into the Cuyahoga River and keeping the steel mills and upriver industries open. Without additional funding, there is no way to fill the $20 million funding gap for the multi-modal transportation center. The port won't run out of money right away, but they will have to put another levy attempt on the ballot again soon. I blame the port authority for not communicating this more, and for the business community for not funding a better education campaign to explain why this levy was so important. Last night I was surprised to learn that the Cleveland City Council president did not know the port authority was a replacement at a higher rate, not a renewal at the current rate. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 7, 201212 yr Without additional funding, there is no way to fill the $20 million funding gap for the multi-modal transportation center. Why does additional funding need to come from tax increases? Why can't the port secure private investment or federal grants?
November 7, 201212 yr Without additional funding, there is no way to fill the $20 million funding gap for the multi-modal transportation center. Why does additional funding need to come from tax increases? Why can't the port secure private investment or federal grants? I was wondering the same thing. Even though I voted for the levy (as an absentee). I know they have already been applying/exploring federal funding, they are both very favorable to recieve at least partial federal funding as well as other means, therefore they may have been asking for too much/putting too much of a burden on the taxpayer for these particular projects. I know the detractors were really focusing on the fact that it was a 400% increase in taxes.
November 7, 201212 yr The port authority is just coming off an embarassing scandal. It needs some positive PR. It needs to articulate what its role is and what its plan is.
November 7, 201212 yr Without additional funding, there is no way to fill the $20 million funding gap for the multi-modal transportation center. Why does additional funding need to come from tax increases? Why can't the port secure private investment or federal grants? I was wondering the same thing. Even though I voted for the levy (as an absentee). I know they have already been applying/exploring federal funding, they are both very favorable to recieve at least partial federal funding as well as other means, therefore they may have been asking for too much/putting too much of a burden on the taxpayer for these particular projects. I know the detractors were really focusing on the fact that it was a 400% increase in taxes. Yes it was from $5 for every $100,000 to $20 for every $100,000. Not exactly an enormous amount of money that they were asking for, but I do agree that there was a lack of education by the Port and Business Community. There were a few radio ads I heard but it seemed to get lost under the larger increase for CMSD. I also think that by putting on a Presidential Election they put it at a bit of a disadvantage. Just look at all of the 'burbs school levys that failed as well. This increased turnout among those that would have been against a levy for Santa Claus.
November 7, 201212 yr Why does additional funding need to come from tax increases? Why can't the port secure private investment or federal grants? Because transportation (especially infrastructure) isn't profitable. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 7, 201212 yr I was very disappointed about the levy failing, and it failed big. I am not sure how we'll be able to keep the hill above Irishtown Bend from falling into the Cuyahoga River and keeping the steel mills and upriver industries open. Without additional funding, there is no way to fill the $20 million funding gap for the multi-modal transportation center. The port won't run out of money right away, but they will have to put another levy attempt on the ballot again soon. I blame the port authority for not communicating this more, and for the business community for not funding a better education campaign to explain why this levy was so important. Last night I was surprised to learn that the Cleveland City Council president did not know the port authority was a replacement at a higher rate, not a renewal at the current rate. Wouldn't this have been a candidate for Stimulus funds? Or was it not shovel-ready enough to qualify? Where was Dennis! and Fudge? The fact that this is even a possibility, that jobs would be lost and the mills closed should the bank collapse, should be enough to send our city and county leaders marching on Columbus and Washington. But like the Innerbelt bridge, they'll probably wait until it whacks them over the head.
November 7, 201212 yr Industrial shipping lanes? Pish posh. Your mind's in the 1950s! We have apartments to tear down, we have roads to reformat, we have greenspace to install. Focus on priorities!
November 7, 201212 yr In an ideal world, we'd fund the slope stabilization and bulkheads through a special assessment on the waterfront property upriver. I understand, though, that we fear doing anything to tick off employers. Still, I imagine some portion of no voters who understood the issue wonder why Arcelor-Mittal and other industrial users shouldn't just pay to keep their shipping lane open.
November 8, 201212 yr Wouldn't this have been a candidate for Stimulus funds? Or was it not shovel-ready enough to qualify? Not "shovel ready" yet for federal funds. In an ideal world, we'd fund the slope stabilization and bulkheads through a special assessment on the waterfront property upriver. I understand, though, that we fear doing anything to tick off employers. Still, I imagine some portion of no voters who understood the issue wonder why Arcelor-Mittal and other industrial users shouldn't just pay to keep their shipping lane open. Interesting. Might be worth considering, as long the Army Corps of Engineers isn't the sponsoring agency. In fact, I searched to see if I could find anything about the Corps undertaking such special assessments for keeping waterways open. I found nothing. The only thing I found is where a stakeholder can apply for a federal permit to undertake dredging of a navigable waterway. But that requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. I can't remember who on this board is familiar with NEPA, so I'll provide a backgrounder for all..... Most Cuyahoga River stakeholders wanted the port authority to take the lead on this project even though the Corps typically oversees keeping navigable waterways open. But, as you probably know, the Corps is horribly under-funded (ask folks in New Orleans about this) and the projects it sponsors are bound by NEPA because the Corps is a federally funded agency. Compliance with NEPA could take only weeks with a Categorical Exclusion document for a federally funded action that has few or no consequences on the natural or built environment. But for a federally funded action that causes more consequences, compliance with NEPA could take years if not decades. Indeed, the average time to conduct environmental impact studies for federally funded projects is 10 years. Anyone want to roll the dice as to whether the slope above Irishtown Bend will still be intact or collapsed into the Cuyahoga River in 10 years? Maybe the Cuyahoga River will be a poster child again.... It was the poster child for the clean water movement 40 years ago. Maybe it will be the poster child for the neglect of this nation's infrastructure and that federal leadership is needed to address this neglect, not spot fixes like port authority levies. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 8, 201212 yr Message from the port authority following the levy's defeat.... http://www.portofcleveland.com/media-center/ceo-letters-to-stakeholders-2/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 8, 201212 yr They are going to have to do a better job educating the county residents about why the levy is needed, and what the funds are to be used for. Hardly anyone I spoke with leading up to the election even knew there was going to be a request by the Port on the ballot.
November 8, 201212 yr They are going to have to do a better job educating the county residents about why the levy is needed, and what the funds are to be used for. Hardly anyone I spoke with leading up to the election even knew there was going to be a request by the Port on the ballot. Absolutely correct. I realized that, when I got the tweet with the link to the post-levy message from the port authority, it was the first one I can recall getting from them throughout the entire campaign! If that's how they handle a levy campaign, then maybe it was the smart move by voters to shoot down their levy issue. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
December 16, 201212 yr The Cleveland Port Authority made a huge payment to Steven Latourette's second wife, a lobbyist: *** Over the past week, Jennifer LaTourette informed the U.S. Senate's lobbying office that she's no longer representing the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, the University of Akron, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and Summa Hospitals Foundation. The port authority paid Jennifer LaTourette's firm $150,000 for lobbying work last year and was pleased with her performance but decided to sever ties with Van Scoyoc "to avoid even the appearance of conflict," confirmed spokeswoman Barbara Grano. http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2009/02/rep_steve_latourettes_lobbyist.html So, all Cuyahoga County property tax payers had to pay the local Congressman. For what? Federal appropriations? Would Latourette *not* have advocated for the Port Authority without that donation?
November 6, 201311 yr Good news! With nearly all of the precincts reporting, the levy renewal was passing quite easily....... Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority 978 of 1,047 precincts Tax renewal, expenses Yes 151,297 No 82,337 "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 6, 201311 yr ^that's great. I was surprised that it passed with such a healthy margin! And Metroparks passed as well.
November 21, 201311 yr Ocean-going freight service between Cleveland and Europe to begin next spring By JAY MILLER 12:49 pm, November 21, 2013 Regular ocean-going freight service between Cleveland and Northern Europe will begin next spring. This morning, Nov. 21, the board of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority signed an agreement to underwrite monthly cargo sailings by the Amsterdam-based Spliethoff Group between Cleveland and Antwerp, Belgium. This will be the first direct cargo service between a Great Lakes port and Europe. At present, cargo originating from or ending up in the Midwest is shipped to an East Coast port and then put on a train or a truck. The Port Authority and Spliethoff believe they can attract customers by keeping cargo on a boat that sails into the Port of Cleveland and offering service at a lower overall cost. Delivering cargo to Antwerp will connect with a Spliethoff transportation network that extends into the Baltic Sea area and east on to Kazakhstan. READ MORE AT: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20131121/FREE/131129937 Port of Cleveland seals deal to bring container shipping to the Great Lakes By Robert L. Smith, The Plain Dealer on November 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, updated November 21, 2013 at 2:50 PM Here come the Dutch. The board of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority this morning approved an agreement with a Dutch shipping giant that will commence an era of cargo runs between Cleveland and northern Europe. The Cleveland-Europe Express will become the first regularly scheduled container service on the Great Lakes upon its maiden voygage in March, when the Saint Lawrence Seaway opens for a new season. Dutch shipping executives were at the board meeting at the Aloft hotel in the Flats to witness the historic vote and to see their new port of call. READ MORE AT: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/port_of_cleveland_seals_a_deal.html "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 19, 201411 yr So what will be cheaper for Chinese containers heading for Rotterdam? Stay on the train and go to the east coast, or disembark in Cleveland and get on the boat? I have to suspect it's the latter.
February 19, 201411 yr Here's New York's counterattack strategy if Cleveland starts eating into the Port of New York's business. http://www.marinedelivers.com/sites/default/files/documents/NewYork-ballast-water-bkgrd-revised.pdf
February 19, 201411 yr So what will be cheaper for Chinese containers heading for Rotterdam? Stay on the train and go to the east coast, or disembark in Cleveland and get on the boat? I have to suspect it's the latter. It probably will be the latter. The reasons why it isn't obviously cheap is that the container ships into Cleveland will be much smaller and I've heard from Cleveland shippers that the Port of Cleveland charges higher rates than some East Coast ports. I don't know exactly what that means, but one shipper brings in steel from Ukraine into an East Coast port and trucks it to Cleveland. The Cleveland steel fabricator says its cheaper than either using domestic steel or shipping the Ukranian steel into the Port of Cleveland. But another steel fabricator in Warrens brings in about 3,000 truckloads of steel per year from the Netherlands into the Port of Cleveland. So there's that. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 18, 201411 yr The Port of Cleveland gets ready for the Cleveland Europe Express CLEVELAND, Ohio--The Fortunagracht, a 12,000-ton cargo ship from Amsterdam, is threading the Saint Lawrence Seaway on its way to Cleveland and maritime history. She's the lead ship in the Cleveland-Europe Express--the first regularly scheduled container shipping between the Great Lakes and Europe. The vessel is expected to sail into the Port of Cleveland Friday night or Saturday morning with a load of machinery, specialty steel and windmill parts. She'll load up with Midwest exports and steam back to Europe, but not before experiencing a Great Lakes greeting. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/cleveland_gets_ready_to_shout.html#incart_m-rpt-1
April 19, 201411 yr The anticipation builds :) Cleveland's ship has come in, but will exporters climb aboard? By Robert L. Smith, The Plain Dealer ] April 18, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated April 18, 2014 at 9:12 AM CLEVELAND, Ohio--When the Dutch ship Fortunagracht steams into Cleveland Harbor on Friday night or early Saturday, having sailed nearly 4,000 miles from Antwerp, Belgium, and threaded an icy Saint Lawrence Seaway, it will find a motley assortment of cargo waiting at the docks. A yellow school bus. Road-building equipment. Red steel containers resembling giant shoeboxes and stuffed with car parts, machine parts, chemicals, hydraulic pumps and hoses, nuts and bolts and fasteners. On Thursday morning, a front-end loader took a shipping container off a flatbed truck at the Port of Cleveland, adding it to a stack of cargo destined to cross the Atlantic on the Cleveland-Europe Express. The so-called liner service, which will bring seldom-seen container ships to the lakefront, offers far more than spectacle. Suddenly, a Great Lakes city is offering the options of an East Coast seaport: containerized shipping direct to foreign harbors. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/clevelands_international_ship.html
April 19, 201411 yr Pretty cool. I hope the port makes their $850,000 per month nut on that charter though! I'm surprised a public body was allowed to do such a thing?
April 29, 201411 yr She has left the Port. Some NPR coverage on the CLE-Europe Express: "If you want to ship something from the U.S. to Europe, or the other way around, you're probably going to need to go through a port on the East Coast. Or at least that's the way things have been. But a new direct route between Belgium and the Port of Cleveland, Ohio got going last week with a vessel that included a bus, some beer, and high hopes on its way to Antwerp...." http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/28/cleveland-europe-express
April 30, 201411 yr From the article: "He says they expect 12 days' transit time on the direct trading route between Antwerp and Cleveland, four to five days sooner than using East Coast ports." I think we sometimes forget that the mouth of the St. Lawrence estuary is at about 50° N, roughly the same latitude as Rotterdam and London, and is therefore much closer to those ports than the east coast competition. Boston, the furthest north, is 42° N.
April 30, 201411 yr From the article: "He says they expect 12 days' transit time on the direct trading route between Antwerp and Cleveland, four to five days sooner than using East Coast ports." I think we sometimes forget that the mouth of the St. Lawrence estuary is at about 50° N, roughly the same latitude as Rotterdam and London, and is therefore much closer to those ports than the east coast competition. Boston, the furthest north, is 42° N. Still i find the stat remarkable. You would think it would be faster to keep it on a train to the east coast, then have open ocean to traverse rather than locks and river traffic. Then again, I bet things move a little slower at those ports than they do in Cleveland....
Create an account or sign in to comment