On 3/13/2021 at 2:10 PM, Ethan said:

Well, I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about this than me, but walking around down there, it definitely seems like there is space to add another rail line, and I'd bet on there being space for at least two more lines. 

 

Honestly, I'm not sure the courthouse blocks all that much, given how close it is to the start of the red line bridge. (EDIT: by which I mean the level change for the waterfront line). Maybe the line that would exist closest to the entrance of the parking garage, would merge in that space, but the lines that did/would/could exist closer to the existing lines look like they did/would/could merge far sooner. The courthouse is not really the issue, given that the waterfront line already blocks most of that space. 

 

I guess if the courthouse and the waterfront line weren't there you could accommodate more lines merging later, but how many more lines does Cleveland really need? As a separate question, how many lines would the people who read this forum like to see added?

 

There absolutely is space for more tracks down there. The problem is in how to reach them and align them. Look at the alignment/placement of RTA tracks at the west entrance to the station. Since you can't run Amtrak trains on RTA tracks, how do you affordably move the RTA tracks over to create space to allow railroad tracks to take their place? And the columns that support the overhead structures are placed where the old tracks were located. So you cannot easily change the track alignments once you go below and north of Huron Road.

 

Anything is possible if you're willing/able to spend enough money. But not all investments scale with the service levels. That's why a Tower City station didn't make sense for Amtrak in 1984 when the Lake Shore Limited was the only Amtrak service to Cleveland. But spending $100 million to bring Amtrak and CVSR to Tower City probably makes sense when 20+ trains a day and 500,000 to 1 million passenger boardings per year are involved. But does it make sense to spend $200+ million to put the tracks where the pre-1977 station was? What does that get you that the $100 million does not?

6 hours ago, KJP said:

you can't run Amtrak trains on RTA tracks

Ah! That is the missing piece that explains my confusion, thanks! 

 

I see where you are coming from now, and I see the difficulty. Considering all of this it seems like the most cost effective action may just be to leave Amtrak in its current location. While it isn't in a good location presently, if the land bridge is ever built, Amtrak could be expanded in conjunction with the land bridge, and it would then be in a very good location. Near some of Cleveland's biggest attractions, and being right off the waterfront line, it would theoretically be an easy connection to Tower City. (Which will hopefully one day use it's parking garage space for an RTA rail expansion). The numbers we have been throwing out are about 100m for a land bridge or a new Union Terminal. It seems like you could bundle the two together and save if you leave Amtrak in its current location. 

 

Practically speaking, what are the differences between the two locations? Right now Amtrak is very inaccessible, though with a land bridge, the two locations would be a fairly short walk away from each other. Would one line add significantly more time to certain trips? Will one location shorten all trips? I don't know. Tower city is definitely a more central location, though not by much, a land bridge connected amtrak would also be fairly central, but in a different, sightly more tourist focused, way. I like that a revival of Cleveland Union Terminal looks to our city's past for inspiration, but I think there are also some interesting forward looking possibilities that we could embrace by sticking with it's current location. 

 

Anyway, thank you for ameliorating my ignorance! I appreciate it! 

Edited March 15, 20214 yr by Ethan

Both sites have their good and bad attributes:

 

Lakefront:

GOOD

+ Existing Amtrak station site since 1975

+ Near former site of Cleveland Union Station/Pennsylvania Railroad downtown station (1853-1953)

+ Trackage already exists and is in passenger-quality condition for all desired routes

+ There is room to offer a five-track station and three ADA-compliant platforms with overhead access

+ Nearby coach yard site (East 26th Yard) for storage, servicing of passenger rail rolling stock with some land owned by Amtrak

+ Room to add more station facilities for passenger rail

+ Simple intercity rail routing to a Hopkins Airport rail station

+ Access routes to lakefront engineered for higher train speeds

+ Room to add station facilities for intercity bus

+ Easy access to highway system for intercity bus

+ Access to light-rail system (GCRTA Blue/Green lines

+ Access to several GCRTA and Laketran bus routes

+ Pedestrian access to Convention Center, North Coast Harbor, First Energy Stadium, Burke Lakefront Airport, etc

+ City planning underway for development of enhanced pedestrian linkages to CBD

+ Stakeholder planning underway for development of lakefront

 

BAD

+ Frequent rail freight activity on NS Chicago & Cleveland Lines creates conflicts with passenger rail

+ Rerouting through freight traffic off the lakefront to bypass route would be extremely costly and follow part of CUT routing

+ Without rerouting, only two-three station tracks might be guaranteed to be passenger-only, free of freight train traffic

+ Existing Amtrak facilities are aging (1976) and woefully inadequate for existing services, let alone for expansion

+ Substantial new station facility would have to be built

+ Potential station operations and facility design may conflict with high-wide load rail/truck shipments via Port of Cleveland

+ Trains to/from west must cross movable bridge across Cuyahoga River, delaying rail/river traffic

+ Cannot be accessed by Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad

+ Fewer restaurants, hotels, shops, 24-hour interior public spaces within 5 minute walk

+ Relatively few high-frequency/24-hour transit routes within a 5-minute walk of the Amtrak/lakefront multimodal station site 

+ Relatively few employers within a 5-minute walk of Amtrak/lakefront multimodal station site due to malls, harbor & stadium

+ Complicated/limited access during large special events (Browns games, Air Show, etc) along lakefront

+ Site more susceptible to high winds and less favorable walking conditions October-April

 

Tower City Center:

GOOD

+ At/near the heart of Greater Cleveland's public transportation system, including routes from collar county systems

+ Former site of Cleveland Union Terminal (1930-77)

+ Rights of way accessing the site are mostly intact and publicly owned

+ Trains to/from west can cross Cuyahoga River without interruption to rail/river traffic

+ Can be accessed by Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad

+ Former CUT coach yard (between Huron and Canal Rds) remains available for station with six tracks and 3 platforms

+ All of the access and station tracks would be dedicated to passenger rail service (ie: no freight trains)

+ With additional fill next to Canal, this station site could be expanded to 8 tracks and four platforms

+ Sherwin-Williams R&D donated to city and to be abandoned, making way for more direct station track access, longer platforms

+ Many restaurants, hotels, shops and 24-hour interior public spaces within 5 minute walk

+ Relatively more employers located within a five-minute walk of station site

+ Station can be financed as part of a large, mixed-use, private-sector real estate development 

+ Pedestrian access to Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse, Progressive Field, JACK Casino, Canal Basin Park

+ Easy access to highway system for intercity bus

 

BAD

+ Capital costs to restore CUT access tracks are high

+ Former railroad station facilities were removed and inaccessible by trains due to Tower City Center redevelopment, Stokes Courthouse Tower

+ Substantial new station facility would have to be built

+ Access routes would likely add trip times for trains to/from most directions except southeast

+ Some right of way property acquisitions are needed, adding complications

+ Early planning work underway to develop Riverview parking lots would have to be altered

+ Cost to add intercity bus station to Tower City would likely be high

+ Five-minute development/employment radius of station hurt by proximity to Cuyahoga River

+ Hopkins Airport intercity rail station in less desirable location on route from Tower City

+ Sites offering coach yard services are limited and farther away

 

That's all I think of at this time.

Which would you choose?

2 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

Which would you choose?

 

I would try to get Tower City. It gets a downtown station with six passenger-only station tracks and the potential of adding a couple more tracks (or even more if Sherwin-Williams R&D is demo'd and Canal Road is moved or abandoned). A station with 6-8 through tracks should be able to handle 50-100 trains a day, assuming they don't linger at the station. Makes for a great commuter rail station someday, too.

 

But if it doesn't happen, then spend $30 million to reroute some NS freights off the lakefront or, if passenger growth demands it, spend $200 million to reroute them all (except local freight shippers) to create space for passenger service expansion and a station with more tracks and platforms.

Having the high level bridge over the Cuyahoga is such a HUGE advantage for the Tower City location. Also direct connections to all three rapid lines. I hope that happens. 
 

Any thought on how we convince people this is a better use of that right-of-way than the RedLine Greenway?

5 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Having the high level bridge over the Cuyahoga is such a HUGE advantage for the Tower City location. Also direct connections to all three rapid lines. I hope that happens. 
 

Any thought on how we convince people this is a better use of that right-of-way than the RedLine Greenway?

 

The greenway and the CUT rail line can coexist on the short stretch that they would share. The one part where they cannot coexist is across the Cuyahoga Valley viaduct. Fortunately that's the only section where the greenway does not yet exist and will not exist for at least several more years until RTA is done rehabilitating the bridge deck.

On 3/16/2021 at 6:12 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Any thought on how we convince people this is a better use of that right-of-way than the RedLine Greenway?

A few thoughts:

 

2) If the only part that can't coexist is the viaduct as @KJP says than I think it would be very easy to reroute the bike trail in this instance. It could go up Scranton Peninsula and connect to the Towpath, or it could go through the Irishtown Bend Park currently in the works. It could also go down Columbus (or they could throw a lot of money at making the viaduct accommodate both, but I see no justification for that given all the other options).

 

@KJP

Edited April 2, 20214 yr by Ethan
Incorrect info

1 minute ago, Ethan said:

A few thoughts:

 

1) This may be an unpopular opinion here, but Amtrak/passenger rail is an underutilized resource at all levels, nationally, in Ohio, and in Cleveland. Honestly, it is hard to make the case for giving more space for rail lines, when Amtrak can barely fill up the few trains that they do use.

 

Obviously this is a complex problem that requires many different things to change to address, all of which need to be addressed more or less at the same time, a new CUT could be a one of those things, but if we don't address the many other problems passenger rail faces in the United States, then it probably isn't worth getting rid of the greenway, as we'd still be left with underutilized passenger train service that takes up newly valuable space.

 

If Amtrak got to the point where it was easily filling up its trains, this would be a very easy argument to make. The fundamental problem to solve with public transportation, is that if any level in the public transportation network lags behind it hurts all the other levels. (By levels I mean, local, regional, long-distance, etc.) If people need to resort to cars at any point in their journey, a lot of people will just drive the whole way. (And quite frankly it is a hard sell to the average person if you tell them the train takes longer AND is more expensive) 

Amtrak set ridership records each of the several years prior to the pandemic. Filling trains is not a problem. Lack of frequency is definitely a problem. Note that doubling frequency more than doubles ridership. The improved schedule makes the train a more viable option. And driving is only cheaper for people who pretend gas is the only expense of driving.  (Unless you have a bunch of people in the car.)

@Ethan I encourage you to ride Amtrak to/from Cleveland before opining further. Before the pandemic and likely after it, Amtrak regularly sells out its trains through Cleveland. These four nightly trains regularly carry 650,000 riders per year. To put that number into perspective, it would take a dozen fully loaded Boeing 737s per day to carry the passenger loads that those trains carry.

Okay, I suppose I had an incorrect assumption. In the future I'll be slower to share my opinion in this sub-forum, and I'll leave answering questions to the more knowledgeable. The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, is that there are reasons that I, and people like me, don't ride Amtrak. Trains, are my preferred way to travel, all else being equal, and I frequently check to see how feasible it would be to do my trip via rail, but I can never justify it compared to other modes of travel in the USA (cars, buses, planes) when cost, time, and other considerations are taken into account. I like trains, but I'm not passionate enough about them to override material considerations, which I am pretty sure is the situation a lot of people see themselves in. Anyway, thank you both for answering the questions I had. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Okay, I suppose I had an incorrect assumption. In the future I'll be slower to share my opinion in this sub-forum, and I'll leave answering questions to the more knowledgeable. The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, is that there are reasons that I, and people like me, don't ride Amtrak. Trains, are my preferred way to travel, all else being equal, and I frequently check to see how feasible it would be to do my trip via rail, but I can never justify it compared to other modes of travel in the USA (cars, buses, planes) when cost, time, and other considerations are taken into account. I like trains, but I'm not passionate enough about them to override material considerations, which I am pretty sure is the situation a lot of people see themselves in. Anyway, thank you both for answering the questions I had. 

All of the other concerns you shared are on point; I just wanted to clear up usage. I’ve learned a TON from Ken ( @KJP) on this forum since I joined a couple years ago. I actually went back through all the transportation  threads and I learned a bunch. 
 

When it comes to transit, this is what impacts ridership:

1. Cost (to the passenger)

2. Reliability 

3. Frequency

4. Speed

 

So when we evaluate capital spend, that is the order those items should be prioritized. 
 

Like you, I don’t use trains here, but I’d really like for them to be a more practical option.  I go to Milwaukee for work all the time. In ANY other industrialized country that would be a 2.5 to 4 hour train trip and it would be a no brainer compared to either flying or driving. Here it’s 10 hours, with a connection, and it departs and arrives in Cleveland in the middle of the night. Just brutal, and not a practical option for me. 
 

I also frequently drive to Columbus. I want a train option so bad. I might not use it all the time, but I would use occasionally, as long as it runs multiple time per day. 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

And driving is only cheaper for people who pretend gas is the only expense of driving.  (Unless you have a bunch of people in the car.)

 

And the cost of storing your car when you get to your destination. Who wants to deal with parking a car in Chicago or New York.

 

Cleveland manages around 50,000 (de)boardings per year on a couple trains in the middle of the night. That alone should be proof there is untapped demand for more trains.

I have friends in Albany NY and often take the train to go visit them. They take the train to come and visit me too. Our experiences are that that is heavily used train and a driving-competitive trip time-wise and certainly comfort-wise especially in Winter. The train goes no matter how deep the snow.  Every time I take the train (a 10+ car train) during at least some point of the trip, every seat is taken.

So I did some cost estimating for Cleveland Union Terminal, mostly using "placeholder" type cost data. Something that is going to be very attractive to Amtrak is to have freight-free access to CUT. To move all of the through-freight trains from the lakefront could cost something in the neighborhood of $200 million to open up the Lakefront Bypass for Norfolk Southern. That provides nearly freight-free tracks from downtown to near the Airport and to the North Broadway neighborhood of Slavic Village, to add to the freight-free route that Amtrak already has from downtown to Collinwood. Add another $100 million to $150 million gets a lakefront train station building and station tracks. Another $50 million or so gets Amtrak a train storage/layover/maintenance yard at East 26th (Amtrak owns some property there going back to the 1970s). So we may be looking at up to $400 million for a lakefront station.

 

Or.... Approximately $100 million gets the CUT minimum access routes shown below in blue. Perhaps another $30 million extends a passenger-only track to Collinwood. Another $40 million or so improves rail traffic fluidity near Rockport Yard-Hopkins Airport. Another $100 million to $150 million gets a CUT train station building and station tracks. Another $50 million or so gets Amtrak a train storage/layover/maintenance yard at East 55th (site of NS's former yard). Oh, and shift the Red Line Greenway through Ohio City while adding a new trail on the soon-to-be-abandoned Flats Industrial RR. So it could be nearly $400 million for restoring CUT.

 

.......KEY.......

Blue line -- CUT tracks (access, station & East 55th servicing yard)

Yellow area: CUT station platforms

Green line: Red Line Greenway & First Railroad Heritage Corridor

Other lines: RTA rail system

 

 

 

 

^And CUT gets the high level bridge that the Lakefront station wouldn’t have. That’s such a huge difference. 

I have followed developments concerning Tower City and the Lakefront Amtrak station for years. Here are a few factors (some already mentioned) to consider:

 

a) Ease of access for motorists - favors the Lakefront station.

 

b) Airport stop - favors the Lakefront station

 

c) E 25th St yard available for equipment layovers

 

BUT...

 

c) Tower City directly connects to the downtown hub for RTA - huge advantage - RTA connections not as good at the Lakefront station.

 

d) Essentially zero rail freight or river traffic to deal with.

 

e) Tower City has greater capacity to grow - poss 8 tracks vs. maybe 3-4 at the Lakefront.

 

It's really a tossup. I like either one.

 

Incidentally, I'm that friend from NY who KJP mentions and I'm here to tell anyone who will listen that Amtrak is ALWAYS well patronized despite "serving" Cleveland in the wee hours. I also lived in Ohio for many years and advocated for better train service during that time. I used to post here as well, under the name Buckeyeb, but drifted away when I moved out of Ohio. Some good things appear to be happening, so I'm back under the neony name (North East Ohio - New York).

Its pretty crazy that there are two possible downtown locations for serious passenger rail train stations that have similar cost scopes. 

  There are some serious external concerns in regards to other projects that are going to affect land use in the area of the lakefront location: the future of Highway 2 over or under the Cuyahoga, a proposed landbridge over the tracks from the convention center, a future transportation hub for greyhound buses, possible land use in area for parts of justice center/ parking, future of lakefront stadium. 

  I’m thinking the combination of the above makes it a more ideal situation to have a hub at CUT. 

  What about having the typical evening 3am service continue going through the same location in Cleveland and any new service starting at CUT?

3 hours ago, audidave said:

. 

  What about having the typical evening 3am service continue going through the same location in Cleveland and any new service starting at CUT?

What is benefit of splitting passenger rail between those two locations? That doesn’t make any sense. 

@KJP-- what do each of the colors represent on your maps above? The Terminal Tower makes FAR MORE SENSE for an amtrak station than the Lakefront as train stations are supposed to be in city centers---hence the difference from air travel. Though the current  lakefront location is Downtown, it is still a hike from the center of things and feels very remote. You can't "go next door" and grab a beer or a burger.

@Pugu  I added a color coding key above the maps

 

@Boomerang_Brian  Having a railroad bridge with clearance above the Cuyahoga means more to boaters than to the railroad since the railroad has the right of way at the NS bridge near the mouth of the Cuyahoga. Amtrak is more concerned about freight train interference and congestion. That was the first issue that they raised with me on a phone call about this last night.

 

The second issue is how the station relates to downtown and the rest of the city.  Amtrak brought up the Burnham plan and said what a nice station that was and how it would have related to downtown. I brought up the Van Sweringen plan and said how nice that station related to not only downtown but the entire city.

24 minutes ago, KJP said:

@Boomerang_Brian  Having a railroad bridge with clearance above the Cuyahoga means more to boaters than to the railroad since the railroad has the right of way at the bridge over the Cuyahoga. Amtrak is more concerned about freight train interference and congestion. That was the first issue that they raised with me on a phone call about this last night.

I was more thinking about political capital and betterment of the city at large. Reducing the amount of time that large boats are blocked at the mouth of the Cuyahoga is a good thing. Considering how many Americans just don’t have any idea of the benefits of passenger rail, I think it’s important to identify potential arguments against rail and mitigate those challenges. 
 

Great stuff as always - thank you for your efforts!

In regard to the Cuyahoga lift bridge, even if Amtrak is relocated to the Tower City, NS freights will still use the bridge and that means the current situation regarding boaters will remain. NS likely has zero interest about raising the bridge to allow enough clearance for most boats to pass underneath when the span is in its lowered position, unless someone else is willing to foot the bill. The only other choice would be to relocate the NS main away from the waterfront, as KJP has discussed elsewhere. Either would be costly.

Can we assume Bedrock would be "on board" with the CUT option?

40 minutes ago, skiwest said:

Can we assume Bedrock would be "on board" with the CUT option?

 

Unknown. Bedrock has something in mind for the Riverview area but we don't yet know that is. If trains and Bedrock's long-term vision for the Riverview phase can coexist, then we have a winner.  All of the stakeholders have been contacted so we may soon find out.

On 3/16/2021 at 3:42 PM, KJP said:

I have friends in Albany NY and often take the train to go visit them. They take the train to come and visit me too. Our experiences are that that is heavily used train and a driving-competitive trip time-wise and certainly comfort-wise especially in Winter. The train goes no matter how deep the snow.  Every time I take the train (a 10+ car train) during at least some point of the trip, every seat is taken.

I've had a similar experience just going Cleveland to Buffalo.   High speed daytime service would only boost this, especially with all the Western NY Plates, Bills flags etc I see in Cleveland these days.  

On 12/20/2010 at 2:33 PM, KJP said:

Here is how.....

...

 

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/cleveland-proposed2passengerrail-s.jpg

 

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/cleveland-proposed2-cut-s.jpg

This map is interesting. I would have assumed that passenger rail on the RTA viaduct would mean that the line would run parallel to the Red Line all the way to the airport in the same RoW. But apparently it would only run parallel until the turn to the west near Fulton road. So I take it that the slightly further south RoW that goes to Linndale must have intact track. Your map says it is Norfolk Southern - is that line actively used? And I can’t remember - was that one of your lakefront bypass options for NS? (It’s also reassuring that this proposal can coexist with the RedLine Greenway.)

 

On the other side of town, one of my favorite things about your CUT proposals is that it would make it easier to have a UC station next to the RTA station (especially if we could get that streetcar expansion through UC). East of there, do you think it makes more sense to follow the tracks that go north, or the tracks that continue northeast? Both end up in Euclid, so I’m curious why you might think one option would better than the other. (It looks like your proposal would use the tracks that go straight north.) I don’t remember which railroad owns which line. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

This map is interesting. I would have assumed that passenger rail on the RTA viaduct would mean that the line would run parallel to the Red Line all the way to the airport in the same RoW. But apparently it would only run parallel until the turn to the west near Fulton road. So I take it that the slightly further south RoW that goes to Linndale must have intact track. Your map says it is Norfolk Southern - is that line actively used?

 

Yes, NS runs about 15-20 trains a day on that double-tracked line. So it could certainly accommodate 15-20 daily passenger trains but I suspect NS will respond as if we're sawing off their fingers or something.

 

 

And I can’t remember - was that one of your lakefront bypass options for NS? (It’s also reassuring that this proposal can coexist with the RedLine Greenway.)

 

Yes, that was the NS Lakefront Bypass. So if Amtrak chooses the lakefront, this route through Linndale is going to need even more public investment to accommodate 70 +/- freight trains that now go via the lakefront. Most of the Red Line Greenway can be accommodated. The CUT right of way (including underpasses of West 25th and Lorain) was designed so that it could be expanded to four tracks, plus the rapid transit tracks (6 total). That doesn't include the Cuyahoga Viaduct which was designed only for four tracks (2 CUT, 2 RT). So any extension of the greenway over the CUT viaduct won't happen if Amtrak goes to Tower City. Thus, I'm suggesting that downtown access from the Greenway go via the Flats Industrial RR, which is no longer operational and will likely be sold. This was the first railroad line in Cleveland, going back to the 1840s. Alfred Kelley, the village of Cleveland's first president and the first Ohio Canal Commission chairman was also an early investor in the Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati Railroad. He helped get this first railroad built. It needs to be celebrated in such a way. If not as a railroad, then as a heritage trail that tells the story of Cleveland's first railroad.

 

On the other side of town, one of my favorite things about your CUT proposals is that it would make it easier to have a UC station next to the RTA station (especially if we could get that streetcar expansion through UC).

 

Might make for a nice commuter rail station if we provide the infrastructure east into Lake County.

 

East of there, do you think it makes more sense to follow the tracks that go north, or the tracks that continue northeast? Both end up in Euclid, so I’m curious why you might think one option would better than the other. (It looks like your proposal would use the tracks that go straight north.) I don’t remember which railroad owns which line.

 

I'm torn on which way to go. The CUT right of way went north to Collinwood Yards where the CUT electric locomotives were exchanged for steam locomotives, and vice-versa. But Amtrak doesn't need to go that way to get on CSX to Buffalo and beyond. It could use the NS line east to near Willoughby and then transfer over to CSX, which is a better engineered (ie: faster -- for example, compare the two lines' degree of curvature through Willoughby) route to Buffalo. Amtrak doesn't like making unnecessary transfers between different railroad company-owned lines because the dispatchers for each company have to hand-off the trains to their counterparts at the other company. And if the dispatcher is busy doing other stuff for their own company's trains, they'll get around to giving your Amtrak train a green signal someday.

 

The NS line isn't as busy. It sees about 20 freight trains a day. It becomes single-tracked east of Euclid (near Lincoln Electric). So if NS's double-track was extended east of Euclid to Willoughby, for example, and the Amtrak trains used a connecting track over to CSX, continuing that track east into Mentor (with a suburban Amtrak station), there would be more than enough capacity to accommodate six daily Amtrak trains and add a few commuter trains each way per weekday between Mentor and Cleveland.

 

 

4 hours ago, KJP said:

continuing that track east into Mentor (with a suburban Amtrak station)

Out of curiosity, where would you choose to place the station if it was up to you? 

50 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Out of curiosity, where would you choose to place the station if it was up to you? 

I’d put a Mentor station between Reynolds and Center St. (The tracks are about halfway between 2 and Euclid Ave.) I’d combine it with a local bus / shuttle that follows Tyler that whole stretch. There are a bunch of both manufacturing and office jobs along that road, so you could get a bunch of reverse commuters, especially if there is a station at University Circle, which is already a hub for east side bus routes. 

3 hours ago, Ethan said:

Out of curiosity, where would you choose to place the station if it was up to you? 

 

I'd put it at the new Plaza Boulevard crossing. It's near Laketran's transit hub at Great Lakes Mall. In fact, I'd move the transit hub to the train station and make it a larger multimodal transportation center.

Historically station used to be on what is now the aptly named "Station" street.   There is still an old freight depot being used as a restaurant.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentor_station

On 3/14/2021 at 5:30 PM, KJP said:

Since you can't run Amtrak trains on RTA tracks

Is that a loading gauge issue? I thought the redline was standard loading gauge. 

1 hour ago, Henryefry said:

Is that a loading gauge issue? I thought the redline was standard loading gauge. 

 

Federal Railroad Administration crash-worthiness standards incompatibility. If an Amtrak train crashed into an RTA train, the RTA train would be obliterated. Europe believes in signal systems that avoid crashes. USA wants vehicles (and the people inside them) to survive crashes.

FYI....

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

AND

 

 

 

And...

 

5 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Our very own @KJP mentioned in this article...

 

Rail advocacy group wants Cleveland Amtrak station back at Tower City

Updated 2:05 PM; Today 2:05 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio — All Aboard Ohio, a passenger-rail advocacy group, voted this week to recommend moving Cleveland’s Amtrak station back to Tower City Center, in anticipation of a dramatic increase in train service in the coming years.

 

Ken Prendergast, public affairs director for All Aboard Ohio, said the Tower City location is more centrally located, offers more connectivity to RTA trains and buses, and is closer to downtown hotels, businesses and tourism sites.

 

More at:  https://www.cleveland.com/travel/2021/04/rail-advocacy-group-wants-cleveland-amtrak-station-back-at-tower-city.html

 

 

^One of my faves!

 

Cross-posted from the Tower City development thread......

 

Can't see Amtrak having two downtown stations in Cleveland. The advantage of the lakefront station site is that it can be expanded incrementally -- with or without the land bridge. Thus, the disadvantage of the Tower City site is that it would require a large, up-front investment just to get trains to the site, let alone the station facilities itself. Even if Amtrak decides today to have its Cleveland station at Tower City Center, it might be at least a decade before the first train could enter it. Amtrak expansion can and probably will happen incrementally, one line at a time, and then expanding service/increasing speeds on those lines. And in the absence of local leadership, the easiest thing to do is to keep expanding incrementally at the current station site.

 

While I don't like to make predictions, here's how I could see Amtrak expanding locally:

 

Existing: four daily trains (east/west Lake Shore Limited + east/west Capitol Limited)

2023-25: 10 daily trains (existing + 2 east/2 west Empire Corridor extension + 2 east/west Pennsylvanian extensions)

2026-30: 16 daily trains (existing + 2025 expansions + 3 east/3 west CLE-TOL-DET Corridor)

2030-35: 22 daily trains (existing + 2025-30 expansions + 3 north/3 south 3C Corridor)

 

It feels like this discussion should be here in the transportation thread...

 

 On 4/19/2021 at 9:30 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

OK, let's be clear here - this ISN'T the choice, at least not at this point.  Keeping Amtrak on the lakefront doesn't necessarily deliver the land bridge; and moving Amtrak to Tower City doesn't eliminate the land bridge option.  There will be lots of different funding mechanisms considered (or that at least should be considered) and many can only be used for certain types of projects, so it's pretty difficult to make simple comparisons on a cost basis.  I'd be a lot more curious in WHY you think one version or the other would be better.  For me, the high level bridge across the Cuyahoga alone is enough reason to strongly favor Tower City over the Lakefront.  The river is more useful when the NS rail bridge is open, and not having to rely on a lift bridge makes westbound rail out of Tower City more reliable and timely. And I have previously outlined my entire comparison thought process, as has Ken (via AAO).

 

Another thought: by some pre-pandemic measures, expanding the convention center would have been a reasonable proposal.  Perhaps this proposal could be merged with land bridge concepts as a way to figure out funding, with or without the Amtrak station.

 

On 4/19/2021 at 10:15 PM, Ethan said:

I know that the two aren't actually linked. I was considering the question more as a hypothetical. (Bit in the real world of limited funds a plausible one) I've read your post arguing that a new CUT would be the most important mega project for Cleveland, it was well thought out, but I just disagree.

 

The short version is that what I value most in cities is walkability, and the difference that the land bridge will make in that respect is huge. I wander down the malls every few days, and every time I wish I could walk straight to the lake. What St. Louis did with the gateway arch is what I'd like to see Cleveland do for the Lake / Rock Hall. What I value second most is parks and urban green space, the land bridge also provides more of that.

 

And lastly, it isn't like the lakefront Amtrak station is a bad location (assuming a land ridge is built), this is at best a comparison between a good place to put the station, and a great place to put the station. There are a lot of pluses and minuses. But the one I haven't seen anyone being up, is that while it is slightly farther from Public Square, the whole walk will be down the malls, with great views, and green space the whole way!

 

One negative to the CUT, at least from my perspective, and one that I don't see discussed is that the area south of Terminal Tower that is currently a sea of parking lots, has some tremendous park potential! Downtown doesn't have any truly large parks and I'd love to see the river bank be park from Collision bend to the new Canal Basin Park. It will probably never happen, but I think it would be transformative for downtown to really embrace the riverfront and fill it with parks. 

 

On the whole I just perceive the land bridge as a more valuable addition to Cleveland, particularly if you assume we will get a new Amtrak Station either way. But I recognize it depends on what you prioritize for Cleveland's development. Just my 2¢

 

It seems you feel that this section of the riverfront should be used as a park.  I think it would be easier to justify putting a park here if the train station is moved here.   Without significant development (e.g. a new train station), this area is very disconnected from Public Square anyway - it would be a park with no users.  And consider how much underutilized riverfront there already is - it isn't like this is the only stretch of river begging for a better use.  Furthermore, if we get our dream of extending the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad to downtown, it will be here regardless of the Amtrak station and the tracks will be somewhere between Canal Rd and the river.  (CVSR cannot realistically be connected to the Lakefront station.)  CVSR would give downtown good access to the National Park.  I can't think of any other city that would have such a nice, convenient connection to a National Park.  (Technically the National Mall in DC is a National Park, but that doesn't have the same feel.)

 

16 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

It feels like this discussion should be here in the transportation thread...

 

 

 

It seems you feel that this section of the riverfront should be used as a park.  I think it would be easier to justify putting a park here if the train station is moved here.   Without significant development (e.g. a new train station), this area is very disconnected from Public Square anyway - it would be a park with no users.  And consider how much underutilized riverfront there already is - it isn't like this is the only stretch of river begging for a better use.  Furthermore, if we get our dream of extending the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad to downtown, it will be here regardless of the Amtrak station and the tracks will be somewhere between Canal Rd and the river.  (CVSR cannot realistically be connected to the Lakefront station.)  CVSR would give downtown good access to the National Park.  I can't think of any other city that would have such a nice, convenient connection to a National Park.  (Technically the National Mall in DC is a National Park, but that doesn't have the same feel.)

 

This is a good point, and one I've considered. There may be a way to put a station here and a park such that both things benefit each other. As with many things the devil is in the details. 

 

And you're right putting a park here would require connecting it to Tower city in some fashion. It could be one way to do that is through a new Union Terminal. It's not the only way, but it would certainly do the trick!

 

I think people would use a park here, even without extensive development nearby. (I absolutely would anyway!) Mainly because it has the potential to be a large park, on the water, within walking distance of downtown. Which is something downtown Cleveland doesn't have, and I think needs. A park large enough that people can momentarily 'forget' they are in a big city, and enjoy nature is a draw in and of itself. A nice park could actually catalyze development on its edges. 

 

You're point about CVSR is correct and also a good point. I agree, I would just like to make sure that any station and tracks that are placed here are done so with maximum concern for not impeding pedestrian traffic. I wouldn't want to see a big terminal building near the water that stops people from walking along the river. Or fences along the tracks preventing people from crissing over them. A design that satisfies my concerns seem very doable, but I just want to flag the potential issues early on. 

 

Edit:

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2021/04/remembering-when-cleveland-union-terminal-served-as-railroad-hub-for-commerce-and-travel-photos.html

Edited April 22, 20214 yr by Luke_S

Uh, the "Union Depot in the Terminal Tower complex" didn't exist in 1917. It did on the lakefront, however.

 

3 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Does anyone have any good photos of CUT or Tower City before it's renovations when "long pedestrian ramps descended from the Public Square entrance into the station." I'm too young to remember this. 

Cross posting this here as well. 

This site has some old photos of CUT.  Ramp photos are on page 11.

 

https://www.historic-structures.com/oh/cleveland/union_terminal1.php

Perhaps the biggest barrier to bringing Amtrak into Cleveland Union Terminal/Tower City Center is figuring out how get around the Stokes Federal Courthouse. I think I may have figured out a way to do it -- IF the Amtrak/CVSR station could be put where the current GCRTA station is now (restructured ultimately as a four-track through station) and the GCRTA station is moved to where the old Shaker Rapid platforms were (which GCRTA briefly used when it was rebuilding its Tower City tracks). Since GCRTA will soon go to an all-light-rail system, it doesn't need such a big/long station at Tower City anymore. And there are a couple of ways of bringing CVSR into Tower City. One is cheaper but slower. The other is more expensive and faster, and can share costs with Amtrak as well as a shortline railroad to gain access to the industrial Flats. I'd love to hear your ideas and thoughts about this.

 

This diagram shows the minimum trackage that might be necessary to put existing Amtrak and CVSR services into Tower City, resulting in about 10 trains per day and 150,000-200,000 passenger boardings per year at the outset. More trackage would be needed to accommodate the Amtrak Connects US plan resulting in about 30 arrivals and departures per day and 500,000 to 1 million passenger boardings per year (equal to a small-medium airport in the middle of downtown Cleveland's central business district).

 

 

 

This is the expensive but fast way to get CVSR in/out of Tower City. This could cost-share with Amtrak/FRA funding as well as freight access funding to create linkages between disconnected short-line freight railroads.

 

 

And this is the where the real pinch point is. Here's a less expensive way to get around the federal courthouse IF Amtrak/CVSR can take over the GCRTA station and the GCRTA station can move to the old Shaker Rapid station at Tower City.

 

15 minutes ago, KJP said:

Here's a less expensive way to get around the federal courthouse IF Amtrak/CVSR can take over the GCRTA station and the GCRTA station can move to the old Shaker Rapid station at Tower City.

 

Maybe I just lack imagination, but I have a hard time seeing this working in three dimensions. It just seems like you aren't going to be able to get enough grade change to get the trains to cross over/under. That all seems awfully tight. It'd be cool if I was wrong, but at best this looks like a significant engineering challenge. 

The Waterfront Line trains already do go under the Red Line tracks. The inbound Waterfront Line track would stay at a lower elevation for a little bit longer, until it is alongside the realigned Red Line track and then it completes its climb up to Tower City track level. Here's a comparison between now and proposed....

 

Existing:

 

 

Proposed:

 

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

The Waterfront Line trains already do go under the Red Line tracks. The inbound Waterfront Line track would stay at a lower elevation for a little bit longer, until it is alongside the realigned Red Line track and then it completes its climb up to Tower City track level. Here's a comparison between now and proposed....

 

Existing:

 

 

Proposed:

 

Herr Dr. Professor Ken somehow figured it out - all before the new IBM quantum computer came online at the Clinic. 👨‍🏫👨‍🏫👨‍🏫

love it. I'm afraid the city/county aren't seriously considering the CUT. Hope AAO and other advocacy groups can have some impact.