May 23, 20232 yr 2 hours 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: I understand how it currently works. My concern is precisely here:
May 23, 20232 yr @Ethan Waterfront Line track stays at/near the Carter Road elevation until it finishes curving toward Tower City and emerges from its portal. Then it rises up to Tower City track level. Its curving track would be entirely covered rather than just partially covered as it is now. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 23, 20232 yr Fingers and toes are crossed on this. It's probably the last chance to get intercity trains back in Tower City.
May 24, 20232 yr I would prefer to see Amtrak in Tower City over the lakefront station, is this still a live possibility? Are the right people in the right places still talking about / considering this?
May 24, 20232 yr 31 minutes ago, Luke_S said: I would prefer to see Amtrak in Tower City over the lakefront station, is this still a live possibility? Are the right people in the right places still talking about / considering this? Not yet. Going to try to get them interested. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 24, 20232 yr Trying to... Bedrock seems interested in getting CVSR extended to downtown. So why not put its station right inside Tower City Center? There is an opportunity to this in the coming years as GCRTA changes from a dual-mode rail (heavy- and light-rail) system a standardized light-rail fleet. GCRTA doesn't need such a big station at Tower City Center anymore. So why not use it for CVSR and move GCRTA's Tower City station into the old Shaker Rapid station (a light-rail only station) which is immediately north of GCRTA's existing dual-mode station? Convert the existing transit station into a railroad station. In fact, the eastbound through track at the GCRTA station used to be a railroad track. It can be redesigned as a railroad station with four through tracks and two platforms which would offer enough capacity to handle not only CVSR (six daily trains on most days), not only the existing Amtrak service (four daily trains) but also Amtrak's proposed Connects US plan that could add another 20 daily trains. Even with just the existing CVSR and Amtrak services, up to 200,000 annual passenger boardings would be added at Tower City. If the Amtrak Connects US plan comes to fruition, as many as 1 million annual passenger boardings could occur at Tower City -- equivalent to an FAA Small Hub Airport in the Central Business District. GCRTA's tracks and platforms are long enough to accommodate Amtrak and CVSR trains. The existing EB through track (the one that used to be the railroad track) can have 9 railroad cars on straight track next to a station platform to comply with ADA regarding level-boarding and minimum gaps between train and platform. The WB through track can accommodate an 8-car trains at the platform. If two more through tracks were added, they could also accommodate 8-car passenger trains on straight track next to a station platform. Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited and some CVSR trains are 10-11 cars long, including baggage cars and head-end power cars which don't need to be on the straight track. There are, of course, engineering challenges. The first is that Tower City's old Shaker station has only one through track and one stub-end track. It used to have more. To add a second through track means relocating that station's overhead access, plus parking facility support structures for the Terminal Tower apartments and the Renaissance Hotel Cleveland parking deck. It also means making sure that the Stokes Court House expanded plaza doesn't block this new westbound track from being relocated slightly, closer to West Superior Avenue. And, of course, the railroad tracks to Tower City are long gone. But CVSR could be restored to Tower City the "easiest." New track about 1 mile long with a 2 percent grade (pretty steep for freight but not for passenger trains) could climb from the CSX line, cross Canal Road below the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge, and continue climbing up to Tower City track level where it would use former GCRTA track spaces into the Tower City Station. Another more expensive option, but one that would allow CVSR to travel faster (and possibly share costs with Amtrak access) and at a 1 percent grade would be go under Norfolk Southern tracks just east of East 9th Street Extension. That option would involve 2-3 miles of new track with curves engineered for 50-60 speeds. Getting Amtrak into Tower City Center would be harder, but not impossible. About 7 miles of new track on existing roadbed at about $5 million per mile would need to be constructed in addition to the CVSR track. A passenger-only track starting from near Clark Avenue and West 41st Street on the West Side to near Union Avenue and East 82nd Street on the East side would have to be constructed, as well as connecting tracks with new crossover tracks ($5-10 million each) on the double-tracked mainline railroads at four locations -- Clark/West 41st, Union/East 82nd, near the Main Post Office on NS and another one just east of Worden Road in Wickliffe. The biggest challenge may be the redesign of GCRTA's west approach to Tower City, as posted earlier in this thread. To do that would avail two track spaces between the GCRTA tracks and Stokes Courthouse Tower for railroad passenger traffic to reach a four-track railroad station. That would require putting the outbound/westbound Red Line track between the outbound Waterfront Line "chute" track and Superior Avenue. The inbound Waterfront Line chute track would have to stay near Carter Road level while it is curving into position next to a relocated inbound/eastbound Red Line track. Then it would start climbing to Tower City track level. It will likely cost tens of millions of dollars. But it could be paid for by Federal Railroad Administration funds, along with a new GCRTA Tower City station, and may not reduce GCRTA's federal formula funds for other urgent transit capital needs. Here's the kicker... If you had to expend the same or similar amount of money and effort to achieve two outcomes, wouldn't you rather expend it for the outcome that achieves the better result? To achieve the Amtrak Connects US plan for Cleveland, would you rather build the infrastructure necessary to return trains to Tower City Center or construct the Lakefront Bypass for freight to be able to run two dozen daily passenger to/from Cleveland's lakefront? Potential track construction/reconstruction necessary to implement the Amtrak Connects US Plan serving a station on downtown Cleveland's LAKEFRONT with CVSR extended to near Tower City Center (Dark Blue is Amtrak Connects US trackage, Orange is CVSR infrastructure and turquois is a Lakefront Bypass for most NS freight traffic including replacing the existing NS Cuyahoga Viaduct with a new triple-tracked bridge and movable span).... Potential track construction/reconstruction necessary to implement the Amtrak Connects US Plan serving a station at downtown Cleveland's TOWER CITY with CVSR extended into the same station in Tower City Center. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 25, 20232 yr I think all of us rail fans on this forum pine for the days of passenger trains using the old Terminal Tower for what it was originally built for. I know that is probably wishful thinking but man if what Ken is writing about were to come true we would all be ecstatic.
May 25, 20232 yr Up to this point I was sitting on the fence about the Lakefront location vs. Tower City, but this shifted my opinion decisively to the latter. It's no contest now. BTW, this is the end result of a conversation between KJP and myself, which itself was an outgrowth of a discussion between Gildone and I. I wasn't too sure about the idea of building a new station at the old CUT coach yard and suggested maybe it might be better if trains simply went back to CUT as they did in the old days. The problem with that is that the current garage would have to be removed. I asked KJP about that and he immediately suggested having intercity and CVSR trains use the current RTA station, with RTA trains being shifted to the dormant Shaker terminal. This was a masterstroke that made the whole idea a winner. Simply brilliant. If this works, the beauty of it is that it gives Bedrock a completely free hand when it comes to developing the coach yard and river front areas as there will be no rail infrastructure to deal with. It eliminates the need for that goose necked viaduct over Canal St to access the coach yard from the west as well. It also connects transportation shards and puts them all in one place in an intermodal terminal for the first time and that fact could make a compelling case to the feds for funding. It's a winner. One other thing: This is about more than simply putting a new station under Tower City. It's also about restoring the rail approaches east and west, as well as adding a layover facility somewhere. Fortunately, the old CUT right of way still exists but new tracks will have to be laid. Also, the NS yard at E 55th St might make a good layover location. It's a major project. KJP's diagrams show this. The first step will have to be an engineering study. I think I can speak for KJP, Gildone and myself when I say we are very excited about this possibility! Still, we have to temper our enthusiasm since it's still just an idea and there could be any number of issues which would cause problems. Fingers and toes are crossed!
May 25, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, KJP said: Here's the kicker... If you had to expend the same or similar amount of money and effort to achieve two outcomes, wouldn't you rather expend it for the outcome that achieves the better result? To achieve the Amtrak Connects US plan for Cleveland, would you rather build the infrastructure necessary to return trains to Tower City Center or construct the Lakefront Bypass for freight to be able to run two dozen daily passenger to/from Cleveland's lakefront? What is the incremental cost increase on this proposal then? Assuming CVSR returns to TC and at least some of those costs can be shared, and the money for the lakefront station and infrastructure improvements is going to be spend anyway, how much more is this actually going to cost us? I would think Bedrock would have a pretty huge incentive to help with these facility improvements. The increased traffic from CVSR and more so from Amtrak would help stabilize TC and make it easier to get shops and restaurants in. Also, I realize no one is talking about this, but if the old plans for a commuter train between Cleveland and Akron were resurrected, would there be room at the Tower City station to accommodate those trains as well? Edited May 25, 20232 yr by Luke_S
May 25, 20232 yr KJP probably has a better idea as to costs, but I'm betting we are looking at $250 million or more. A lot this could be paid for by the feds. I did mention a possible Cleveland-Akron-Canton commuter train to Glidone and KJP. It's a natural fit. If we have a four track terminal, there should be room for these trains. Edited May 25, 20232 yr by neony
May 25, 20232 yr Hi @KJPtwo clarifying questions. One, 17 hours ago, KJP said: relocating that station's overhead access, plus parking facility support structures for the Terminal Tower apartments and the Renaissance Hotel Cleveland parking deck Does this mean removing the parking entirely, or just reconfiguring/re-engineering the support structure? Two, is the freight rail bypass (your turquoise line) something that is currently being proposed, or is this just something you think is necessary to properly deliver passenger rail service?
May 25, 20232 yr 36 minutes ago, Ethan said: Hi @KJPtwo clarifying questions. One, Does this mean removing the parking entirely, or just reconfiguring/re-engineering the support structure? Two, is the freight rail bypass (your turquoise line) something that is currently being proposed, or is this just something you think is necessary to properly deliver passenger rail service? One, I'm not sure. I hope to find out soon. Two, the Lakefront Bypass is something I developed 20 years at the request of Green City Blue Lake and the Cleveland Waterfront Coalition, with extensive engineering input, to determine what it would cost to reroute two different rail freight traffic patterns off the lakefront. One was to reroute only the non-intermodal through freight traffic which is slower and carries potentially hazardous materials. That was about 30-40 trains per day. The other was to detour all through freight traffic away from the lakefront, or about 70 trains per day, leaving only local freight access to the port and online shippers, plus Amtrak. However it is not something that is being currently proposed. To accommodate 24 daily passenger trains in/out of a lakefront station will require significant additional capacity enhancements to the Norfolk Southern mainline. Of that, 12 additional daily Amtrak trains (on top of the four currently operating each day, er night) are proposed. Could more. Could be less. But adding 12 daily passenger trains to the already congested NS mainline between downtown Cleveland and Berea would likely require an additional mainline track here -- a section where there is no room to construct additional tracks. Although the existing West Park Secondary track alongside the mainline could be upgraded to mainline standards with some additional parallel sidings in sections where there are more shippers. That could help alleviate existing congestion. But adding a dozen Amtrak trains will be more problematic. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 26, 20232 yr On 5/25/2023 at 11:10 AM, Ethan said: Hi @KJPtwo clarifying questions. One, Does this mean removing the parking entirely, or just reconfiguring/re-engineering the support structure? Hi @Ethan, got my answer yesterday. I scheduled a tour of the Terminal Tower apartments yesterday including the parking garage (nice apartments, BTW!). Turns out the ramp down to Terminal Tower parking for residents and office tenants would have to be moved. The ramp goes all the way down to track level where the parking is. The ramp is right next to the only remaining through track in the former Shaker Rapid station which would be used for all eastbound GCRTA trains through Tower City station. Once the ramp comes down to track level, the vehicle lane veers away from the GCRTA track to go around a newly added concrete block structure and utilities. To add a second through track for westbound Red Line and Waterfront Line trains (and whatever run-through service to the airport from the Shaker lines GCRTA might want to add), the parking ramp, utilities and several newly added support structures would have to be moved. To make this worth K&D's while, I have a suggestion... I found out in my apartment tour yesterday that only 100 spaces in that 350-space garage are devoted to resident parking and they have to pay $200 per month to park there. There are 300 apartments in the building and 362 residents currently. There is a waiting list of more than 30 people wishing to park in the Terminal Tower garage, also called North Garage. So 262 residents have to park elsewhere. Many park in the Tower City garage which is owned by Bedrock. It is called the South Garage. Others park in a surface lot owned by K&D and managed by ABM between Hotel Cleveland (former Renaissance) and the Terminal Tower parking ramp. Relocating the ramp will mean the loss of at least 20 parking spaces from that 47-space lot. My suggestion is to use federal funds to help build for K&D a new five-level garage in that triangle for 400 cars with a new ramp inside it, down to track level but away from the GCRTA tracks so that a second through track can be restored. I proposed a 400-car garage, lined with retail, a plaza at the corner of Prospect and Superior, and designed so that a structure can be built atop it. If a stick-built structure were desired with optimal floorspaces for apartments, a seven-story, 160-unit apartment building could be built atop this structure. A 12-story structure would be nearly identical in height to the Hotel Cleveland immediate east. K&D should be given first opportunity to develop atop this structure. BTW, the track that's visible in the first image is Track #7. In this view from 1980, from the corner of Superior and Prospect looking east, Track #7 is at far right. To its left is Track #6 which exists only from the closed Shaker station to the east. The ramp to Terminal Tower Parking now occupies the space previous occupied by Track #6. Edited May 26, 20232 yr by KJP Incorrect reference to GCRTA tracks. I referred to the track replaced by the parking ramp as Track 5. it was actually Track 6. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 26, 20232 yr On 5/25/2023 at 10:09 AM, neony said: I think I can speak for KJP, Gildone and myself when I say we are very excited about this possibility! Still, we have to temper our enthusiasm since it's still just an idea and there could be any number of issues which would cause problems. Fingers and toes are crossed! Are you talking to RTA/K&D/City/County officials (and are they reading this site?) who can actually act on these ideas? (Please!)
May 26, 20232 yr 43 minutes ago, Foraker said: Are you talking to RTA/K&D/City/County officials (and are they reading this site?) who can actually act on these ideas? (Please!) A presentation has been developed and meetings are just starting to be scheduled. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 27, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Whipjacka said: write sone neotransblog posts. give people something to pass around I've been asked to write a piece for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. I'll probably cross-post it on NEOtrans. I'd like to publish it on Sunday but my son is playing in a soccer tournament this weekend. Priorities! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 27, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, Foraker said: Are you talking to RTA/K&D/City/County officials (and are they reading this site?) who can actually act on these ideas? (Please!) This idea just came into being last weekend and we have been excitedly working to flesh out the details ever since. Part of this is research into whether the supports under Tower City will allow this (looks like a yes) and what other structures have been built that might be in the way. As KJP says, a presentation has been developed and meetings are just starting to be scheduled.
May 27, 20232 yr Part of our research was to find out what was built originally. Here are some historical pics from Cleveland Memory's CUT collection - when CUT was being built: L to R: CUT coach yard, Huron Rd, Steam (intercity) railroad concourse in the foreground and Prospect St. Detroit-Superior bridge in background. The proposed RTA tracks would be in the excavated area next to Superior. Early plans were for the coach yard to be moved to another location as development proceeded. This never happened, obviously. Closer view with new RTA alignment highlighted. Odd that they never punched thru to the streetcar ramp to the Detroit-Superior bridge. L to R: Approach to Detroit-Superior bridge, never-used west approach (new RTA alignment) and Huron Rd overpass and steam road catenary supports Same, looking west Under Prospect, looking west with Huron Rd in the distance, showing supports and track alignments. The Frank J. Lausche state office building was built between these two streets and may present a problem, but Track 7 already passes thru here, leaving only Track 6 to be restored. Supports and roadbed for never built line to the west, now curving under Tower City. Note that to the right, the tracks would have fanned out. It's truly amazing what was planned. CUT was built with the intent of building an extension of interurban and streetcar service to the west, which did not happen until the Red Line was built. That line uses tracks to the left, however, leaving the pictured area vacant. The issue now is that a parking garage ramp and other obstacles have been built since 1929 and these will have to be addressed. Thanks to KJP for digging these up. Edited May 27, 20232 yr by neony
May 27, 20232 yr @KJP & @neony, if and/or when there is a need for broader-based community support please let us know. I'm sure there are more than a few of us who would try to rally support for this effort.
May 29, 20232 yr Getting Tower City on track By Ken Prendergast / May 29, 2023 When you have an opportunity to expend the same or similar effort and money that would achieve the better of two outcomes, why not pursue the better outcome? That’s the decision Greater Cleveland has yet to make when looking at a transportation ingredient to two major waterfront development masterplans. One is the downtown lakefront development led by the Haslam Sports Group. The other is the Tower City Riverfront development led by Bedrock Real Estate. Both are supported by civic organizations and all levels of government. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2023/05/29/getting-tower-city-on-track/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 30, 20232 yr In a perfect world Tower City would be the rail hub for an expanded RTA, an expanded Amtrac and a terminus for CVSR. Not only would that be great for train lovers it would be great for Tower City and the rest of downtown too. The only question is how to pull that off? Can we secure the funding? Do we have enough political will to do this? Even if the answer to those questions is "Yes" it will still be difficult to untie a Gourdian knot that doesn't exist. Securing the funds to piece together the necessary rights of way for all those trains will be difficult but certainly not impossible. I'm sure l won't see it in my lifetime but man, if we can pull it off it will be like going back to the future. Back to a time when trains were an important part of not just getting around but actually enjoying getting around. What a concept.
May 30, 20232 yr The High Speed Rail Alliance published @kjp 's NEOtrans blog on moving trains back into Tower City: https://www.hsrail.org/blog/its-time-to-move-amtrak-to-clevelands-tower-city/ Edited May 30, 20232 yr by gildone
May 30, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, cadmen said: In a perfect world Tower City would be the rail hub for an expanded RTA, an expanded Amtrac and a terminus for CVSR. Not only would that be great for train lovers it would be great for Tower City and the rest of downtown too. The only question is how to pull that off? Can we secure the funding? Do we have enough political will to do this? Even if the answer to those questions is "Yes" it will still be difficult to untie a Gourdian knot that doesn't exist. Securing the funds to piece together the necessary rights of way for all those trains will be difficult but certainly not impossible. I'm sure l won't see it in my lifetime but man, if we can pull it off it will be like going back to the future. Back to a time when trains were an important part of not just getting around but actually enjoying getting around. What a concept. It IS a great concept and this is the time for it, before development renders the idea impossible. Bringing all the modes together in one place will be an idea the Feds would love. I'd think any applications for Tower City would be well received by them. We aim to coalesce the will to make this happen. Preliminary discussions have been positive, but there is a long way to go. Stay tuned!
May 30, 20232 yr 20 hours ago, KJP said: Getting Tower City on track By Ken Prendergast / May 29, 2023 When you have an opportunity to expend the same or similar effort and money that would achieve the better of two outcomes, why not pursue the better outcome? That’s the decision Greater Cleveland has yet to make when looking at a transportation ingredient to two major waterfront development masterplans. One is the downtown lakefront development led by the Haslam Sports Group. The other is the Tower City Riverfront development led by Bedrock Real Estate. Both are supported by civic organizations and all levels of government. MORE: https://neo-trans.blog/2023/05/29/getting-tower-city-on-track/ Ken, you mentioned the RTA and inter-county bus services currently at Tower City; would these plans also be able to accommodate an intercity bus station--is that what the proposed bus facility off of Ontario would be? I could be misremembering, but I thought Amtrak wanted additional intercity connections at their stations.
June 1, 20232 yr On 5/25/2023 at 11:10 AM, Ethan said: Hi @KJPtwo clarifying questions. One, Does this mean removing the parking entirely, or just reconfiguring/re-engineering the support structure? Two, is the freight rail bypass (your turquoise line) something that is currently being proposed, or is this just something you think is necessary to properly deliver passenger rail service? On 5/25/2023 at 12:00 PM, KJP said: One, I'm not sure. I hope to find out soon. Two, the Lakefront Bypass is something I developed 20 years at the request of Green City Blue Lake and the Cleveland Waterfront Coalition, with extensive engineering input, to determine what it would cost to reroute two different rail freight traffic patterns off the lakefront. One was to reroute only the non-intermodal through freight traffic which is slower and carries potentially hazardous materials. That was about 30-40 trains per day. The other was to detour all through freight traffic away from the lakefront, or about 70 trains per day, leaving only local freight access to the port and online shippers, plus Amtrak. However it is not something that is being currently proposed. To accommodate 24 daily passenger trains in/out of a lakefront station will require significant additional capacity enhancements to the Norfolk Southern mainline. Of that, 12 additional daily Amtrak trains (on top of the four currently operating each day, er night) are proposed. Could more. Could be less. But adding 12 daily passenger trains to the already congested NS mainline between downtown Cleveland and Berea would likely require an additional mainline track here -- a section where there is no room to construct additional tracks. Although the existing West Park Secondary track alongside the mainline could be upgraded to mainline standards with some additional parallel sidings in sections where there are more shippers. That could help alleviate existing congestion. But adding a dozen Amtrak trains will be more problematic. I did some digging and found @KJP's original detailed write up on the NS Lakefront Bypass - it even has its own thread! Keep in mind that the main point is that this is all the work that would need to be done in order to free up capacity for proper passenger rail operations on the Lakefront line. So using Tower City means we DON'T have to do all this work, thus putting the work to upgrade Tower City into proper context. On 10/20/2013 at 8:24 PM, KJP said: Here's a map of the potential routing (all of it NS-owned property)..... http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5486/10392659035_20f68bbe57_b.jpg And these are diagrams following the Lakefront Bypass route from west to east, showing the proposed improvements (including some options).... http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3670/10392920693_973ec07dd0_b.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3743/10392771606_2d35a3ce27_b.jpg http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5504/10392920503_cd19bea4ff_b.jpg http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/10392738075_2f25bb038c_b.jpg http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5506/10392771556_0238f5a54b_b.jpg http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7321/10392771456_6f6abb1b60_b.jpg http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5546/10392701545_41e4b02283_b.jpg 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... http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7400/10392739894_db021ed852_b.jpg Looking west toward the prior location... http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2892/10392737985_a1cfd57f13_b.jpg When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 1, 20232 yr 12 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said: I did some digging and found @KJP's original detailed write up on the NS Lakefront Bypass - it even has its own thread! Keep in mind that the main point is that this is all the work that would need to be done in order to free up capacity for proper passenger rail operations on the Lakefront line. So using Tower City means we DON'T have to do all this work, thus putting the work to upgrade Tower City into proper context. I uploaded the Lakefront Bypass report to the blog website and hot-linked it into the commentary I wrote about Tower City. I've learned more stuff about CUT/Tower City and what plans different orgs have about the area. GCRTA for example wants to invest in some redundancy at Tower City, including having three tracks through their station. Guess what -- the old Shaker Rapid Transit used to have three tracks through it. That can be restored (using Federal Railroad Administration funds, BTW, not FTA Formula Funds that GCRTA rightfully covets for its state-of-good-repair needs) if some of the North Parking Garage was returned to its original purpose. Not all of it needs to. K&D can retain perhaps half of that 350-space parking directly below the tower for some of its higher-rent tenants. But perhaps half of the parking from the north garage would be relocated into the proposed garage at the corner of Superior and Prospect. Previously, I suggested this new structure should be a 400-space garage and designed so it can support an air-rights development. Now I'm thinking this should be an 800-space garage. A planner suggested to me a way to improve the chances that this wins federal funds is to put an intercity bus station on the ground floor of this garage and possibly by reworking/redeveloping the parking garage below the Renaissance Cleveland Hotel ballroom. The model may well be Pittsburgh's Grant Street Transportation Center which opened in 2008 with two garages and costing $50 million. The westernmost garage is atop an intercity bus station with 14 bus bays, and some ground-floor retail. It is triangular in shape and has a footprint of 24,647 square feet. K&D's triangular lot at the corner of Superior and Prospect measures 30,000 SF (Google) or 40,000 SF (MyPlaceCuyahoga). Practically, a parking garage can't easily go into the point of the intersection so a functional garage would have floor plates of about 28,000 SF, still larger than the Grant Street Transportation Center which is across the street from Pittsburgh's Amtrak station. In addition to serving Greyhound, Pittsburgh's bus station is also served by Amtrak Thruway, Fullington Trailways, Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority and the Mountain Line Transit Authority. Cleveland's could be served by Laketrans, Akron Metro RTA, Stark Area RTA and Portage Area RTA and serve as a common point of transfer among all regional and intercity bus services, connected under one roof to GCRTA's rail hub, Amtrak and CVSR. Call our bus station The Superior Transportation Center! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 2, 20232 yr 14 hours ago, KJP said: I uploaded the Lakefront Bypass report to the blog website and hot-linked it into the commentary I wrote about Tower City. I've learned more stuff about CUT/Tower City and what plans different orgs have about the area. GCRTA for example wants to invest in some redundancy at Tower City, including having three tracks through their station. Guess what -- the old Shaker Rapid Transit used to have three tracks through it. That can be restored (using Federal Railroad Administration funds, BTW, not FTA Formula Funds that GCRTA rightfully covets for its state-of-good-repair needs) if some of the North Parking Garage was returned to its original purpose. Not all of it needs to. K&D can retain perhaps half of that 350-space parking directly below the tower for some of its higher-rent tenants. But perhaps half of the parking from the north garage would be relocated into the proposed garage at the corner of Superior and Prospect. Previously, I suggested this new structure should be a 400-space garage and designed so it can support an air-rights development. Now I'm thinking this should be an 800-space garage. A planner suggested to me a way to improve the chances that this wins federal funds is to put an intercity bus station on the ground floor of this garage and possibly by reworking/redeveloping the parking garage below the Renaissance Cleveland Hotel ballroom. The model may well be Pittsburgh's Grant Street Transportation Center which opened in 2008 with two garages and costing $50 million. The westernmost garage is atop an intercity bus station with 14 bus bays, and some ground-floor retail. It is triangular in shape and has a footprint of 24,647 square feet. K&D's triangular lot at the corner of Superior and Prospect measures 30,000 SF (Google) or 40,000 SF (MyPlaceCuyahoga). Practically, a parking garage can't easily go into the point of the intersection so a functional garage would have floor plates of about 28,000 SF, still larger than the Grant Street Transportation Center which is across the street from Pittsburgh's Amtrak station. In addition to serving Greyhound, Pittsburgh's bus station is also served by Amtrak Thruway, Fullington Trailways, Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority and the Mountain Line Transit Authority. Cleveland's could be served by Laketrans, Akron Metro RTA, Stark Area RTA and Portage Area RTA and serve as a common point of transfer among all regional and intercity bus services, connected under one roof to GCRTA's rail hub, Amtrak and CVSR. Call our bus station The Superior Transportation Center! Brilliant! And who is to say CVSR couldn't run baseball or basketball specials? Or become a link to GCRTA and Amtrak? Or be extended to Canton? The possibilities are endless. Edited June 2, 20232 yr by neony
June 11, 20232 yr In today's AAO meeting, Ken Sislak talked quite a bit about extending CVSR to Tower City / Bedrock development. His proposal is different and less expensive than Ken P's recent proposal. I'll summarize in this post. At some point in the past, a demonstration CVSR run was done to downtown on the old B&O / river level tracks. Check out these great pix! Here's the existing rail spur and what would be the easiest way to do the extension IF there was no massive Bedrock project lurking: Here's the view from roughly the old B&O terminal, showing how the Sherwin Williams Breen Center and parking lot cover the old B&O / river level rail right of way. The Bedrock renderings we're familiar with: This is Bedrock's proposal: vacate the existing Canal Rd and then relocate a new Canal Rd to where the existing rail spur is (removing the rail). BOOOOO!!!!!!!! Bedrock's proposal for the new Canal Rd: Ken S then talked a bit about how the B&O rail accessed Cleveland Union Terminal using the rail ramp that Ken P would like to start using again. Apparently the ramp goes up to the east, meaning B&O trains would go west to where the NS lines curves towards its viaduct, then use the rail ramp to back up the hill going east, then go west and cross the NS mainline to join the RoW going into CUT. The top right picture below shows a train going up the ramp, and the bottom right picture clearly shows the ramp and where it ties into the NS line. I'm pretty sure both of those pictures are looking east. Ken S's opinion is that restoring the track would be very expensive and crossing the NS line would be operationally difficult; his opinion is restoring CVSR all the way into CUT is not practical. (I also asked him about moving Amtrak to CUT. He mostly focused on the high cost and also shared some concerns about the Amtrak Superliners fighting into CUT. He clearly feels that Amtrak staying on the lakefront is acceptable.) Ken S is trying to convince Bedrock that simply street running the CVSR in the new Canal Rd is the best option to get CVSR closer to Tower City. Canal would only need to be a little wider than Bedrock's current proposal. He's actually recommending two separate platforms / "stations". One at the end of the current rail spur, not too far from the Tower City food court. This would be a high level platform to simplify handicap access. He's recommending a second platform where the Eagle Ave Extension bridge crosses the B&O tracks, since this is where Bedrock is proposing Kayak drops into the river. Kayakers could use this area and easily connect to kayaking places in the national park using the train. Here are some street running examples Ken S has been using as he makes the case for this proposal: Here's the kayak launch from Bedrock's proposal. The second CVSR platforms in Ken S's proposal would be near here. Here's another view with the street-running CVSR superimposed: Ken S talked about some of the other challenges facing this project: Someone asked about a Steelyard station, and Ken S said the platforms are already there and were built as part of the Steelyard development. I don't think this is accurate - I don't remember seeing any platforms and I don't see any sign of platforms on Google Streetview (the track they would use is right next to the Tow Path Trail behind the Steelyard stores). That said, I'm pretty sure that the Steelyard owners would still be supportive of putting in a station if the CVSR extension comes together. I thought this was a really interesting alternative proposal that certainly would be less expensive and would likely have some operational benefits compared to going into the RTA station (not having to cross the NS lines; not having to do the zig-zag maneuver to get up the hill). I'm very curious in the opinions of @KJP @gildone and @neony on this street running concept. I think I'd like it better if the platform loading area had rail on its own Right of Way, even if it was street running to the east, just so there wouldn't be a bunch of cars backed up while loading and unloading CVSR trains. (Perhaps that's already the idea and I just missed it.) When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 11, 20232 yr 13 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: He's recommending a second platform where the Eagle Ave Extension bridge crosses the B&O tracks, since this is where Bedrock is proposing Kayak drops into the river. Kayakers could use this area and easily connect to kayaking places in the national park using the train. Thanks for the detailed write up, Brian. I don't have the expertise to comment on much of this here, but I do kayak the Cuyahoga a bit. A second station/stop nearer the kayak ramps seems very unnecessary. If the idea is kayakers can park up-river, put in, then kayak down to this location and take the train back, the nearest put-in/station is Lock 39 in Valley View. That's about 12 miles up-river from where the Bedrock site and the river is pretty slow, even before Valley View (ODNR Cuyahoga Water Trail PDF). This would be a long, and not super enjoyable trip (the main reason I haven't don't it myself yet). If it's just an alternative to driving downtown to kayak the urban section of the river that's fine, but again, not sure how much utility that provides for the additional incremental costs. https://gis.ohiodnr.gov/MapViewer/?config=Watercraft
June 11, 20232 yr So Ken S has not considered any alternatives other than the switcback route that B&O used to access CUT? This isn't 1964 anymore (the last time B&O ran passenger trains into Cleveland). We don't have to build around buildings and infrastructure in the Flats that aren't there anymore. It's time to start building for the Cleveland of the future, not the one of the distant past. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 11, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Mendo said: Sounds like this imposter Ken has no imagination. Come on, now. Ken S absolutely knows what he’s talking about and he’s entitled to his opinion. He does this stuff for a living. He works on rail projects all the time and is well aware of all the headwinds that are faced when trying to get projects done. Proposing the least expensive version that still gets trains near the heart of the redevelopment efforts is worth discussing. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 11, 20232 yr The Van Sweringen brothers had big ideas and gave Clevelend a GIFT of this skyscraper with a train terminal in the heart of Downtown. We need to honor that effort and bring it up to its full potential. I would love to see this happen, and Cleveland would get national attention if they could pull off a multimodel transit center like this....connected to a freakin airport no less
June 11, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, Mendo said: Sounds like this imposter Ken has no imagination. Ken S is no imposter. Far from it. He led the Healthline planning as well as the Red Line/Healthline extension study, among many others. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 11, 20232 yr It was made in jest, like there was somebody pretending to be KJP, not that he wasn't a legitimate or respected planner. Admittedly a bad joke.
June 13, 20232 yr On 6/11/2023 at 12:48 AM, Boomerang_Brian said: Come on, now. Ken S absolutely knows what he’s talking about and he’s entitled to his opinion. He does this stuff for a living. He works on rail projects all the time and is well aware of all the headwinds that are faced when trying to get projects done. Proposing the least expensive version that still gets trains near the heart of the redevelopment efforts is worth discussing. He does know what he's doing, but @KJPmakes a very sound argument for going all the way into Tower City. Yes, it would be more expensive, but the reward is unbeatable. KJP's alternative needs to be considered. Also, rail advocates need to get past the mindset of watering down proposals because a better alternative might be too expensive. We need to think big and have more vision. In the end we may have to settle for less, but you don't start the conversation by asking for less. Edited June 13, 20232 yr by gildone
June 13, 20232 yr I thought that's what "alternatives analysis" was all about. People studying this CVSR project need to ensure that all the alternatives are in the analysis and create evaluation criteria to grade them. They can evaluate the comparative expenses (including funding sources) and benefits involved and make a recommendation.
June 13, 20232 yr Am I reading this right? Sislak is proposing to run CVSR trains down Canal St? I can't imagine this will go anywhere, for safety reasons at least and I'm sure Bedrock won't be interested in trains running thru the middle of their venue. Also, a backup move would be a challenge and unworkable for all practical purposes. It also does nothing to get intercity passenger trains back to Tower City. In fairness to Ken S, I think he assumes Tower City is lost to this and is just thinking of trying to save CVSRR access to a point close to Tower City. I do not know whether Superliners would fit under TC. We'd have to see what diagrams might show. However, a better solution might be to convert the Capitol Limited to single level cars, which could be in the offing as Amtrak considers replacements for these cars. ADA access is an issue with Superliners.
June 13, 20232 yr 34 minutes ago, neony said: Am I reading this right? Sislak is proposing to run CVSR trains down Canal St? I can't imagine this will go anywhere, for safety reasons at least and I'm sure Bedrock won't be interested in trains running thru the middle of their venue. Also, a backup move would be a challenge and unworkable for all practical purposes. It also does nothing to get intercity passenger trains back to Tower City. In fairness to Ken S, I think he assumes Tower City is lost to this and is just thinking of trying to save CVSRR access to a point close to Tower City. I do not know whether Superliners would fit under TC. We'd have to see what diagrams might show. However, a better solution might be to convert the Capitol Limited to single level cars, which could be in the offing as Amtrak considers replacements for these cars. ADA access is an issue with Superliners. Yes, you are reading it right. Ken S characterized it as “we (CVSR) are requesting street running on the new Canal St”. I also do not think street running is a good idea. Also, yes, clearly Ken S does not think passenger rail into Tower City will happen, primarily for cost reasons. Someone asked if the Lakefront station was acceptable for expanded rail, and he said yes. (And for the initial expansion phase I would agree, but we should be planning this out assuming additional expansion phases later.) As @urb-a-saurus points out, the right way to address Canal Rd vs CUT is by completing a proper alternatives analysis. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
June 13, 20232 yr CVSR trains run pull-pull with locos at either end, so backing up isn't an issue. The Lakefront is great for scaling up. But at some point of that scaling up, the effort and resources you're going to put into accommodating a mini-hub on the lakefront will be similar to putting one at Tower City. And if Superliners prevent running Amtrak through Tower City, replace the Superliners on the only train (Capitol Limited) that uses them with single-level equipment. It's ridiculous to have one train block access for all others to a sound investment for our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 13, 20232 yr 39 minutes ago, KJP said: CVSR trains run pull-pull with locos at either end, so backing up isn't an issue. The Lakefront is great for scaling up. But at some point of that scaling up, the effort and resources you're going to put into accommodating a mini-hub on the lakefront will be similar to putting one at Tower City. And if Superliners prevent running Amtrak through Tower City, replace the Superliners on the only train (Capitol Limited) that uses them with single-level equipment. It's ridiculous to have one train block access for all others to a sound investment for our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren... I am all for Tower City being the passenger rail hub and hope that it happens, but why would Amtrak change equipment just to accommodate one station on its route?
June 13, 20232 yr 55 minutes ago, TMart said: I am all for Tower City being the passenger rail hub and hope that it happens, but why would Amtrak change equipment just to accommodate one station on its route? Amtrak is ordering a lot of new single-level equipment for short- and long-distance trains. They aren't ordering anything for the western long-hauls which all operate with Superliners. So redirecting Superliners from the Capitol Limited to the western long-hauls will help boost those trains without having to order more equipment (although I wish they would) and I've often thought the Capitol Limited should be operated with tilt trains (ie single-level cars) to cut the travel time to DC. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 13, 20232 yr I just had an architect measure the clearance above the RTA tracks using a laser. Clearance from the top of the ties to the lowest visible structural overhang above the tracks was 17 feet. Amtrak uses double-deck Superliners through Cleveland on the Capitol Limited to Washington DC. Superliners are 16'2" tall. 100-pound / yard rail is 6 inches tall and can be used on all station tracks. That leaves about 4 inches of overhead clearance. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 13, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, KJP said: I just had an architect measure the clearance above the RTA tracks using a laser. Clearance from the top of the ties to the lowest visible structural overhang above the tracks was 17 feet. Amtrak uses double-deck Superliners through Cleveland on the Capitol Limited to Washington DC. Superliners are 16'2" tall. 100-pound / yard rail is 6 inches tall and can be used on all station tracks. That leaves about 4 inches of overhead clearance. And surely you could lower some of the tracks 6" or a foot to provide additional clearance if that was a concern -- but nice to see that there actually is sufficient clearance already!
June 13, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: And surely you could lower some of the tracks 6" or a foot to provide additional clearance if that was a concern -- but nice to see that there actually is sufficient clearance already! That's still a very tight clearance. The upside is that Superliners' roofs taper along the edges to increase clearances on the sides of the train so that any rocking through the station prevents impacts. I don't know how much you can lower the tracks. There is a drainage tunnel running from near Public Square to the river so you can't lower the tracks by very much if at all. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 13, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, KJP said: That's still a very tight clearance. The upside is that Superliners' roofs taper along the edges to increase clearances on the sides of the train so that any rocking through the station prevents impacts. I don't know how much you can lower the tracks. There is a drainage tunnel running from near Public Square to the river so you can't lower the tracks by very much if at all. I was trying to find what the actual requirements are for vertical clearances. I have seen anywhere from 17' inside a building to 23' feet to accommodate double-stack container freight. I couldn't find anything definitive regarding passenger-only service like this.
June 13, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, TMart said: I was trying to find what the actual requirements are for vertical clearances. I have seen anywhere from 17' inside a building to 23' feet to accommodate double-stack container freight. I couldn't find anything definitive regarding passenger-only service like this. I feel like all the times i've been in Penn and Grand Central it's not all that high. I suppose if someone wants to go down a rabbit hole on this subject, have at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge
June 13, 20232 yr 20 minutes ago, Cleburger said: I feel like all the times i've been in Penn and Grand Central it's not all that high. I suppose if someone wants to go down a rabbit hole on this subject, have at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge Penn and Grand Central may not be high enough based on what I read on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superliner_(railcar), "To this day, inadequate tunnel clearances in and around New York City prevent the use of Superliners on Amtrak's busiest line, the Northeast Corridor."
Create an account or sign in to comment