We've dabbled around the edges on this subject in other threads, but now events are happening which warrant its own thread.

 

Three years ago, while the city of Cleveland was actively developing its lakefront plan, I was contracted to prepare a report to EcoCity Cleveland and the Cleveland Waterfront Coalition for their BLUE Project. The project sponsors asked me to see if it were possible to detour all 70 daily freight trains (and Amtrak passenger trains) off Norfolk Southern's lakefront tracks. My report showed that:

 

+ up to 85 percent of rail traffic could be detoured without negatively impacting local shippers if another route comprised almost entirely of NS-owned rights of way were stitched together south of downtown Cleveland (see map below);

+ capital costs for such a Lakefront Bypass which detoured all intermodal freight train traffic and more than half of all general freight train traffic might be accomplished for about $150 million (a lesser investment of about $68 million could allow NS to detour more than two dozen daily general freight trains off the lakefront);

+ there would be numerous benefits to the community with such a Lakefront Bypass, including affecting fewer residential areas, blocking the mouth of the Cuyahoga River less often, allowing NS trains to access its Rockport Yard (near Hopkins Airport) from both ends of the yard, giving NS a more level routing through Cleveland, allowing new commuter/intercity passenger rail services to reach the lakefront and not interfere with as much NS freight traffic, and other benefits.

 

So here's the news...... I've heard from two sources that NS survey crews are looking at a key missing link of the Lakefront Bypass. This is the only section which doesn't yet have any trackage on it -- a small industrial property beneath Interstate 77 near East 37th Street. This property is the site of a former track connection between the Nickel Plate RR and the Erie-Lackawanna RR. This connection would restore that link and make it possible for at least some lakefront freight trains to be detoured.

 

I don't yet know how extensive this actual bypass would be -- if it would include enough capacity to be a full bypass as I had proposed. At this point, I would say probably not. The reason why I say that is it appears that NS's planning activity is the result of a truck terminal and freight forwarding facility proposed for the former Standard Oil #1 Plant site between Pittsburgh Avenue and Broadway Avenue. There is even talk of restoring the abandoned NS intermodal yard at Broadway and Orange avenues.

 

Other aspects of this is that NS is looking to put into its capital budget (if it hasn't already) funding for replacing hand-thrown track switches in the vicinity of Rockport Yard with electrically controlled and fully signalled switches to ease the flow of traffic into and through Rockport Yard.

 

Now, for the imagery (which are my graphics/proposals, not NS's, so please don't assume this is what NS will specifically do):

 

Here's the overview image of my proposed Lakefront Bypass:

 

 

Here's the "missing link" of the bypass (it's the missing link because a minimum extent of trackage everywhere else except here to detour at least a few trains per day off the lakefront):

 

 

This is a satellite image of the same area showing how it would look if the missing link was no longer missing:

 

 

I'll post more images soon. But suffice it to say, this project could be huge for the city.

 

(SOAPBOX TIME) Remember, the NS mainline through Cleveland is a bypass in and of itself -- of the Panama Canal. Huge ocean container ships from the Pacific Rim cannot fit through the Panama Canal. They must be off-loaded at West Coast ports and reloaded at East Coast ports, with double-stack container trains linking the two coasts. The NS mainline through Cleveland (along with the CSX mainline through Cleveland) are among the few high-capacity east-west mainlines which handles double-stack container trains in significant volumes. So, in other words, what would have gone through the Panama Canal converges on rail lines through Cleveland -- and we've yet to understand that, let alone take advantage of that. If we can use the Lakefront Bypass to create more intermodal terminal locations here, we can tap into that traffic flow and boost our economy from it. (STEPPING DOWN FROM SOAPBOX)

Here's what the area of the "missing link" looks like, looking westward towards downtown from a spot next to the Rapid line. I-77 is overhead. I added a couple of tracks in the manner I'd proposed in the EcoCity report (available at: http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/blue/rail_bypass_sum.html ) ...

 

 

The area of the missing link on this map is just to the southeast (lower right) of downtown, but many more capital improvements need to be made to create a viable, high-volume Lakefront Bypass.

 

^ To me this is a very important post. This is the type of forward thinking that is needed for this town to realize it's capabilities. I have always dreaded the placement of the current rr tracks in this city. If they can be rerouted w/o having a negative impact on the work they do, to me it is a no-brainer. I love BIG changes. Nice work.

Here's a couple more images of the "missing link" area of the bypass, in the vicinity of I-490 and I-77, looking generally westward toward downtown and the location shown previously, near East 37th Street.

 

 

A zoomed-in view, from the same location as above

 

With the West Shoreway boulevard under development and a Cleveland lakefront plan that puts housing units along much of the southern curb of the new Shoreway (as well as Battery Park and misc Detroit-Shoreway developments), I would love to see much of the train traffic re-routed. (Even from the Edgewater Park 'green', the trains that pass are frequent and very audible) This new developable lakeview space along the Shoreway should be as desirable as possible.

 

Great news of a great opportunity.

Norfolk Southern has already made some recent capital investments in new/additional track capacity along several segments that could be used for the Lakefront Bypass. Here are a couple of them:

 

Looking generally northeastward from the Denison Avenue overpass, this stretch of NS line was double-tracked in the late 1990s with heavy-duty rails. Back in the day, this was a five-track-wide rail line, and was the west approach for passenger trains into Cleveland Union Terminal. Perhaps a third main track (not including the diverging track at right for the Big Creek valley and the steel mills) would need to be added here to absorb detouring the full 85% of freight traffic off the lakefront....

 

 

NS put more than $44 million into taking what was a low-speed, twisting streak of rust into the double-tracked, medium-speed Cloggsville Connection linking the former Cleveland Union Terminal right of way at left to the former Nickel Plate RR mainline bound toward Buffalo. The double-tracked Cloggsville Connection (a very old railroad name) is seen at right from a northeasterly vantage point below the Fulton Road overpass....

 

So what's the best case scenario in terms of opening up land on the lakefront to redevelopment?  What I'm getting from this is that 15% of taffic would still have to go through the lakefront, right?

Allow me to add my two cents worth here. As I understand what KJP has, there still would be some freight traffic to Whiskey island, which can't be routed any other way. Also, this does not take passenger train service into account. Amtrak would still operate via the lakefront as would the Westshore Lorain-Cleveland service becomes reality.

 

The lakefront station is really the only feasible location for a passenger or intermodal hub. The other location, Tower City, was lost years ago. That means that if and when service is added or the Ohio Hub plan is implemented, many more passenger trains could serve the lakefront station.

 

I wanted to mention that to dispel the idea that all the trains might come off. That is not going to happen. Any development would have to be built over the tracks in the form of air rights. That should not be much of a problem, since the tracks are below street level. Keep in mind also that RTA Waterfront line shares this same trench, making it unlikely that it would be filled in.

 

However, moving the freight traffic WILL make it possible to run many more passenger trains. Already Amtrak is in possession of a yard east of downtown which could be used to stage these passenger trains. This will be key if we are to have any modern rail passenger service. Imagine, what could happen: A multi-story building housing offices, shops, entertainment venues and a new convention center, tied to nearby attractions. Below that, a new intermodal hub that includes intercity rail, regional/commuter rail, bus, pedestrian and other connections. It'd be positively European!

 

 

It would also be positively Torontonian, or Chicagoan -- both cities moved most/all their freight operations off their respective lakefronts. Passenger services remained, and were increased over the years.

 

Although it's not wise (and often too expensive when it comes to paying liability insurance) to build offices/hotels/housing over freight railroad tracks, it's very common to build those things over tracks hosting lighter passenger trains (and which, of course, do not carry hazardous cargo). If there's a passenger station on the lakefront, that's all the more reason to develop next to it and over the tracks.

 

See Toronto, Chicago and other cities for examples. But I specify those two cities -- especially Toronto -- which moved their freight to bypass routes away from their central business districts.

 

Here's some visual samples. A key issue is for planners to consider dealing with diesel exhaust from trains operating beneath structures. But, as you can see in several of these views, that's an issue that can be dealt with (often by leaving a side area open for natural air distribution and venting):

 

All trains are diesel locomotive-hauled beneath this series of structures built over and near Chicago Union Station...

 

 

All trains are electrically powered into Chicago Randolph Street Station and below the lakefront parks near it...

 

 

Mix of diesel and electrically powered trains operate beneath Chicago's massive McCormack Place convention center (including freight trains using the line that curves off the upper-right top of the image)...

 

 

All trains are diesel-powered through Toronto Union Station, including a couple of local freight trains per day. This is an older image, which doesn't show the CityPlace development at the left side of the image...

 

In fact, there's a stop for South Shore (weekends and auto show only) and Metra Electric trains under McCormick Place (23rd Street). Damn cold open-platform wind tunnel in winter, too, let me tell you!

Could be a record -- seven years between posts in a thread?

 

Issue: September/October 2013

Improving Cleveland's Lakefront: Part One — The Toronto Model

By Dick Clough

 

Re-routing mainline rail traffic away from the lakefront would be good for both Cleveland and the Norfolk-Southern Railway.

 

Almost since the day Moses Cleaveland landed here, Lake Erie has been used to develop Cleveland’s economic muscle. When the railroads arrived in the 1800s, industrial prosperity exploded, but with a side effect that has continued to hamper lakefront development: The rail corridors were built to afford the most direct route to ports, factories and stockpiles of raw materials, creating a barrier between the city and the water.

 

Do these rail barriers have to remain in place, and are there alternative routes for the lakefront mainlines? Complete removal of lakefront rail is neither envisioned nor practical. The Port of Cleveland requires spur lines to move goods to the major railroad classification yards east and west of the city. Amtrak’s downtown station behind the convention center serves several hundred thousand passengers annually boarding four daily trains to New York, Boston, Chicago and Washington. And RTA’s Waterfront Line serves three stations, including the busy station below East Ninth Street, bringing passengers from Tower City to lakefront attractions.

 

What is possible is the rerouting of 75 to 80 long, heavy freight trains that lumber through the lakefront corridor day and night, eliminating track and repurposing the right of way.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://ibmag.com/Main/Archive/Improving_Clevelands_Lakefront_Part_One_The_Toront_12467.aspx

Nice KJP.  I'm confused though, probably from the way the author worded this article.  What is left to be built to full see this bypass to completion?  It makes it sound like most everything is done?

I know you talked about this bypass before, and I hope city leaders seriously explore it... As you note, the facilities exist to reroute freight traffic off the Lake, notably that belt line that cuts south from Collinwood through Univ. Circle and  parallels Brookpark road.  As the article notes, even though a lot (if not most) factories have closed along the lake, the Port still requires service, but could be handled via night and/or shuttle service.  Toronto's TTC Harbourfront Line should be a model for RTA's Waterfront Line... Hopefully the expanding FEB and Mayor Jackson's plan for E. 9th Street will make it more useful, draw more residents, offices and retail to the Lake and River fronts and help encourage removing those noisy through-line freight trains off the Lake, since we have the railroad facilities to do so.

Here's a map of the potential routing (all of it NS-owned property).....

 

 

And these are diagrams following the Lakefront Bypass route from west to east, showing the proposed improvements (including some options)....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And a couple of views of what a couple of critical locations would look like (using the computer graphics available to me in 2003). This is the only section of missing track, but all other sections need attention, as you can see above:

 

Looking west toward I-77 from the RTA Rapid tracks...

 

 

 

Looking west toward the prior location...

 

Could the existing track somehow be repurposed for commuter transportation?  Particularly from points west of the city and take some movement off of the Shoreway?

Could the existing track somehow be repurposed for commuter transportation?  Particularly from points west of the city and take some movement off of the Shoreway?

 

Absolutely. It's a potential side benefit of moving freight traffic to the south of downtown, just as what Toronto gained by moving freight to the beltline north of downtown where passenger service was allowed to grow and feed the downtown core.

Is there any reason to go that far north, besides staying in Norfolk Southern property?  The NS intermodal is in Maple Heights, literally abutting my old company, and is surrounded by seriously underutilized real estate. 

 

Would you be able to expand that intermodal and put the bend back towards Hopkins closer, perhaps paralleling SR-17?  You'd still have the existing lines to serve the city itself.

 

I'm not sure how Maple Heights would react.  They inexplicably opposed the intermodal originally, but Jeff Lansky is not stupid and approached properly might reconsider.

Is there any reason to go that far north, besides staying in Norfolk Southern property?  The NS intermodal is in Maple Heights, literally abutting my old company, and is surrounded by seriously underutilized real estate. 

 

Would you be able to expand that intermodal and put the bend back towards Hopkins closer, perhaps paralleling SR-17?  You'd still have the existing lines to serve the city itself.

 

I'm not sure how Maple Heights would react.  They inexplicably opposed the intermodal originally, but Jeff Lansky is not stupid and approached properly might reconsider.

 

Staying on NS property is the dominant reason. The railroads don't play well together unless it is in their financial best interest to do so. And then they have to be wary of antitrust issues just by railroads talking to each other. Railroads aren't afraid of much, except re-regulation driven by shippers who claim collusion.

Just out of curiosity, what's the current price tag on this?  And is NS even interested?

 

Just out of curiosity, what's the current price tag on this?  And is NS even interested?

 

 

My estimate 11 years ago was $144 million. It was peer-reviewed by several consulting firms, including LTK Engineering, Wilbur-Smith & Associates, and Parsons Brinckerhoff.

 

NS is content with what they have. If they wanted something different (like the Lakefront Bypass), they would either be building and paying for this themselves, or making the request for funds combined with a financial contribution of their own. Any interest expressed by NS in this bypass means they will be asked to pay something. And the private sector never pays for anything when the public sector is willing to pay.

Just out of curiosity, what's the current price tag on this?  And is NS even interested?

 

 

My estimate 11 years ago was $144 million. It was peer-reviewed by several consulting firms, including LTK Engineering, Wilbur-Smith & Associates, and Parsons Brinckerhoff.

 

NS is content with what they have. If they wanted something different (like the Lakefront Bypass), they would either be building and paying for this themselves, or making the request for funds combined with a financial contribution of their own. Any interest expressed by NS in this bypass means they will be asked to pay something. And the private sector never pays for anything when the public sector is willing to pay.

 

Do any of our local politicians have an interest in this?  I would think Matt Zone would take interest given the traffic through his ward in the city's "hottest" neighborhood.

Do any of our local politicians have an interest in this?  I would think Matt Zone would take interest given the traffic through his ward in the city's "hottest" neighborhood.

 

None have spoken up about it, and few if any advocates like me have said much to them about it since I did the study 11 years ago.

Do any of our local politicians have an interest in this?  I would think Matt Zone would take interest given the traffic through his ward in the city's "hottest" neighborhood.

 

None have spoken up about it, and few if any advocates like me have said much to them about it since I did the study 11 years ago.

 

Detroit Shoreway is a different place from 11 years ago.  I bet he would be very interested in hearing about this. 

Wasn't there talk about making Cleveland a container-capable port?    During shipping season, how would that compete with trans-shipping through to the east coast?

Wasn't there talk about making Cleveland a container-capable port?    During shipping season, how would that compete with trans-shipping through to the east coast?

 

Yes.....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1795.msg684472.html#msg684472

This project in Milwaukee has some similarities to the key piece of the Lakefront Bypass in Cleveland....

 

https://www.wpr.org/news/wisconsin-to-receive-nearly-73m-in-federal-funds-freight-passenger-rail

 

...It is about 2.2 miles of new double-track or roughly 4.4 track-miles for freight trains to bypass the downtown intermodal transportation center. We could do something similar here in Cleveland. The minimum trackage needed for a Lakefront Bypass might require a single-track, 2.4-mile mainline railroad on the right of way of the former Erie RR mainline in the North Broadway neighborhood. That could accommodate the permanent reroute of up to two dozen trains a day, out of the 70 daily freights that currently go via the lakefront. 

 

To level it up a notch, a second main track could be built and, with a more gradual curve at the east end of the bypass near Union Avenue/East 82nd, freight trains could travel faster. That and the second main track would dramatically increase capacity, potentially handling 30-50 freight trains per day. That might require 2.8 miles of double track or 5.6 track-miles for the bypass, plus a realigned track to the lakefront about 0.5 miles long, for about 6.1 new track-miles. This version is shown below.

 

That Lakefront Bypass' second option would still be limited by the existing curves and Rockport Yard switching activity at the west end of the bypass, near Hopkins Airport. To address and reroute all freight traffic from the lakefront, that isn't serving lakefront route shippers (maybe a half-dozen trains a day), it could involve a third main track around Rockport Yard with a gradual curve at the east end of the yard so trains that are just passing through through can maintain speeds of about 40-50 mph.

 

Anyway, here's where the minimum investments might need to be done. That Milwaukee project is a nice model for it.... 

 @KJP I didn't realize you were contributing to Cleveland Magazine?  Saw the story about the Milwaukee bypass on there.  Cool! 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 @KJP I didn't realize you were contributing to Cleveland Magazine?  Saw the story about the Milwaukee bypass on there.  Cool! 

 

 

 

 

Yes, NEOtrans has had a partnership with Cleveland Magazine for nearly two years. We basically act as a wire service for them for a flat fee. We make all our articles available to them and they publish whatever they want. I also write a few original articles just for them.