I wish I could pay a company 140 grand to tell me that if I spend a half a billion dollars, I can make a billion over twenty years.

^ lmao !!  :laugh:  you got a point serge!

Hunter Morrison, former director of Cleveland city planning, says the Cuyahoga Port Authority should be thinking regionally and move sooner rather than later.

 

While each of Northeast Ohio's ports has underutilized assets, Ashtabula's is the most promising. Its port is a deepwater facility already served by CSX and Norfolk Southern and well connected to the region's freeway network and the Ohio River port of East Liverpool. Abundant land for port expansion stands adjacent to the docks.

 

Opportunities for maritime development also exist in Grand River and Conneaut. Both have expressed interest in playing a larger role in the region's shipping industry.

 

To ignore these regional assets and to attempt to address the future of Cleveland's lakefront within the narrow confines of the city's boundaries is to condemn Northeast Ohio to another generation of frustration.

 

We should not -- and need not -- wait that long to realize Eckstut's promising plan.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/why_not_take_a_regional_approa.html

 

 

^Many valid points made by Morrison.  I think all of us here would like to see something done sooner rather than later regarding the port.  I know I would.  I personally HATE having to wait till 2035 for the whole plan to come to fruition- as much as I love this town, (and have been here my whole life), I don't know if I'll be living in Cleveland instead of another city that far in the future to actually appreciate it as a resident of the region. 

Why not build a breakwall east of the current breakwall and turn Dike 14 into the "new" Cleveland Port?  That could save a few decades of waiting for the E55th Street Marina to be filled in with river dredging sediment.

Why not build a breakwall east of the current breakwall and turn Dike 14 into the "new" Cleveland Port? That could save a few decades of waiting for the E55th Street Marina to be filled in with river dredging sediment.

 

I was actually wondering the same thing, and surprised I havent heard that proposed.  Although Im sure it will rile up more than a few people... 

You could designate the new dredging areas as a wildlife sancutary from the get go

The size issue might be why... isn't Dike 14 77 acres?  I think the port is looking for 200 acres to operate.

What about using the eastern half of Burke, it doen't look like it is doing anything now. 

Maybe Burke's capacity would have to be scaled down, but wouldn't a port that had water, rail, road and air in one facility be a good thing?

 

(I tried inserting a google map)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cleveland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.231745,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&ll=41.526668,-81.666183&spn=0.016739,0.038495&t=h&z=15

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cleveland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.231745,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cleveland, Cuyahoga, Ohio&ll=41.499495,-81.695409&spn=0.016739,0.038495&t=h&z=15&output=embed"></iframe>[br /]<small>View Larger Map</small>

[/br]

[br /]

 

WHAT is that??  :wtf:  :wtf:  [/br]

What about using the eastern half of Burke, it doen't look like it is doing anything now.

Maybe Burke's capacity would have to be scaled down, but wouldn't a port that had water, rail, road and air in one facility be a good thing?

I think that was a consideration when the lakefront plan was created a few years ago, but it was a problem because the cranes would be too tall for the height restrictions for the airport. (I'm totally going by memory here, so don't trust me.)

Burke is a no go.  Seriously... forget about it.  I don't think people have any idea how chemically polluted that place is.  People can't even do runway repair work there without having to wear a hazmat suit. It really is a toxic waste dump.

^WOW.  Well, that's more of a reason to keep it an airport, I guess.  Correction- probably THE reason.

The size issue might be why... isn't Dike 14 77 acres? I think the port is looking for 200 acres to operate.

 

In addition to the size issue I think I remember hearing something about the structural integrity of the "walls" of Dike 14 being another reason why it was a no go.  I don't think it was constructed under the assumption that large structures would be built on it in the future.  I believe special structural considerations will be made for the new port land to support the weight of the equipment and buildings.  Just from memory... don't quote me!

I thought it was interesting that Hunter suggested that Ashtabula was a better port for this anyway, that is a deeper port and already has road and rail connections.  I imagine that the Cuyahoga River channel would still have to be dredged for the ships/barges going upriver, but is the really a need for the port to remain in Cleveland?  And even if there is a need for a port in Cleveland, does it really make sense to expand it to include container-handling abilities if Ashtabula's port already has the better road and rail connections? 

 

KJP, or any other more knowledgeable folks, do you agree with Hunter -- does Ashtabula's port make more sense for containers?

I thought it was interesting that Hunter suggested that Ashtabula was a better port for this anyway, that is a deeper port and already has road and rail connections.  I imagine that the Cuyahoga River channel would still have to be dredged for the ships/barges going upriver, but is the really a need for the port to remain in Cleveland?  And even if there is a need for a port in Cleveland, does it really make sense to expand it to include container-handling abilities if Ashtabula's port already has the better road and rail connections? 

 

KJP, or any other more knowledgeable folks, do you agree with Hunter -- does Ashtabula's port make more sense for containers?

 

It should be in Cleveland, the heart of the region.

 

Also, important to ask, just because it's there, is in tip top operation?  Does it have a better infrastructure than what is currently planned for the new port?  Will it's infrastructure have the connectivity and related spin off?  and does the ashtabula port have the manpower and clout to bring all that is planned for Cleveland there.

 

Ask those questions.  My guess, if they did, they would already be doing so there for making a port - on any scale - in Cleveland/cuyahoga county obsolete.

I thought it was interesting that Hunter suggested that Ashtabula was a better port for this anyway, that is a deeper port and already has road and rail connections.  I imagine that the Cuyahoga River channel would still have to be dredged for the ships/barges going upriver, but is the really a need for the port to remain in Cleveland?  And even if there is a need for a port in Cleveland, does it really make sense to expand it to include container-handling abilities if Ashtabula's port already has the better road and rail connections? 

 

KJP, or any other more knowledgeable folks, do you agree with Hunter -- does Ashtabula's port make more sense for containers?

 

This is just the opinion of a Cleveland resident, but I think there's more to it than whether or not Ashtabula's port "makes more sense".  The port is important to all of Northeast Ohio and especially to the city of Cleveland for a number of reasons... jobs, tax revenue, marketability, and pride.  Moving the port out of the city of Cleveland would hurt.

 

Maybe Ashtabula's port is currently better equipped and would be a fast move, but it's an hour east of Cleveland.  And who's to say Ashtabula has better road and rail connections?  Isn't Cleveland at the crux of 4 major interstate highways (71, 77, 80, 90)?  Cleveland's Port also has quick and easy access to two airports, a major steel mill, and countless manufacturing facilities.  In addition to that, the Army Corps of Engineers is still going to need a place to dump dredging material whether or not the Port moves to that land.  The current plan gives them a place to dump while also building what will be valuable land to the City of Cleveland and the Port Authority.

Burke is a no go.  Seriously... forget about it.  I don't think people have any idea how chemically polluted that place is.  People can't even do runway repair work there without having to wear a hazmat suit. It really is a toxic waste dump.

Burke is all landfill.  It was built with the same dredgings they are planning on using for the new facility, and the ones on Dike 14.  Why would it be any different? 

 

KJP, or any other more knowledgeable folks, do you agree with Hunter -- does Ashtabula's port make more sense for containers?

 

I don't know enough about Ashtabula's water port to say if that's what makes it a better location for small container ships. No full-size ocean container ships can fit through the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Welland Canal.

 

But on the rail side, Cleveland is the better location. All of its major rail lines have the necessary height clearances for double-stack container trains. And while both CSX and Norfolk Southern serve Ashtabula and Cleveland, only Cleveland has the main east-west lines of CSX and NS, plus more and better rail routes to the south.

 

The only thing the port of Cleveland lacks rail-wise these days is direct rail access to Youngstown, where Hunter works (as YSU's director of community partnerships) whereas Ashtabula does have a direct rail line to Youngstown. It's possible Hunter is addressing the issue from that perspective (I doubt it though, as Hunter's perspective is broader than that). But if Cleveland does want a direct rail link to Youngstown, then it needs to work with Youngstown folks on restoring an abandoned 1-mile connection between two major rail lines at Ravenna. It will also produce benefits on the passenger rail side, as well, especially since Youngstown officials are seeking a federal high-speed designation for this corridor which will make it eligible for federal funds. Get $10 million and you'll get the struggling industries of the Youngstown/Warren area connected by rail to Cleveland and its port again.

Burke is all landfill. It was built with the same dredgings they are planning on using for the new facility, and the ones on Dike 14. Why would it be any different?

 

I thought it was built on a combination of dredgings and burned garbage?

Burke is a no go.  Seriously... forget about it.  I don't think people have any idea how chemically polluted that place is.  People can't even do runway repair work there without having to wear a hazmat suit. It really is a toxic waste dump.

Burke is all landfill.  It was built with the same dredgings they are planning on using for the new facility, and the ones on Dike 14.  Why would it be any different? 

 

Burke was not just river dredgings like Dike 14.  Burke was also a landfill.  People don't even know what was put in there or where, this area was created pre EPA.  It is on the list of most contaminated Cuyahoga County properties by state and federal agencies.  There was a lot of tests done in the early to mid 90's and parts of the area were found to be "toxic".  Thus why people have to legitimately wear hazmat suits to do just about any type of work on that land.

 

Reasons pursuing Burke at the present time is "dumb":

 

1.  Due to the contaminated nature of the grounds, I have heard costs to clean the contaminated soil are astronomical.  As in truly, truly astronomical.

 

2.  Unlike Meigs Field in Chicago, Burke was built almost entirely with FAA funds in the early 60's.  Meigs was built in the 40's by the city of chicago.  So when Daley bulldozed x's in some runways, the FAA didn't have much of a say.  Granted they were pissed, Chicago should have given 30 days notice to closing their airport, but it was their choice.  Hence they had to pay a $33,000 fine.  Closing Burke is not just Cleveland's call, it's also the FAA who built it.  And we need the FAA money that flows into Hopkins a lot more than a city like Chicago does.  If we "pull a daley" and bulldoze the runway it could have serious implications in regards to the funding Cleveland recieves from the FAA.  We'd also have to repay all the money the FAA used to build it, which I'm pretty sure we don't have lying around.

 

3. Massive connectivity issues.  I think sometimes people around here tend to overlook just how disconnected we are from our "lakefront".  Well, there is a reason the city was founded on the banks of the Cuyahoga and not on the "shores" of lake erie... We don't have a natural lakefront.  Our lakefront was a 50 foot cliff that started right behind city hall.  Most of the land comprised of what is now known as our lakefront was dirt brought in by rail cars from excavating land in the downtown area.  The terminal tower provided over 1,000 rail cars full of dirt alone.  And that rail line as we all know is still there and is still very active.... at the bottom of the 50 foot drop.  Then there is that little thing known as the shoreway that gets in the way.  And about midway through the Burke land is the shoreway / 90 interchange that takes up quite a bit of land.  And on the Burke side, there isn't a single connection from that land to the city save East 9th street.  And even if there were once you get past east 18th street, you'd be connecting that land to light industrial land, not exactly the most beautiful or populated areas of the city.

 

The problems and challenges with Burke are enormous.  I don't know why AT THIS POINT, we are even wasting our time.  It can be a great asset as an airport... and in the meantime we've got ONE HUNDRED AND TEN ACRES of lakefront land at the port.  Land that is already connected to the Warehouse District (the most populated neighborhood of downtown), the river, the central business district.  110 acres.  That's practically a third of the size of downtown proper.  It's going to keep us busy for quite some time.  And contrary to what Mr. Morrison has to say (whom definitely does not get along with the administration), disolving your port and giving it away to far away places isn't regionalism.  That's just giving your port (and most of it's economic benefits) away.  I'm guessing Chris Warren and Chris Ronayne, the two biggest proponents of Regionalism you will find, also don't see this as such.  And as for just absolving the port and just "developing" the whole thing all at once rather than phasing it in over 25-30 years, well I'm sorry but that is just assinine.  I mean really.  We're talking about an area roughly a third of the size of downtown.  Who pays for that?  And what happens when you build tens of thousands of residences all at once?  How long do those places sit empty, what does that oversaturation do to the rest of the downtown?  How many millions of square feet of office space do you think downtown can absorb right now?  And saying things like "not doing anything until 2035" is patently false.  Plans call for the first phase to be worked in over the next five years.  The bottom line is that like it or not and as frustrating as it may be.  Phasing this development in over the next 20-30 years IS the best way to go about developing a parcel this large.  It will keep demand and interest up.

^Very nice analysis and I agree with you 100% about phasing in the port development and leaving Burke as it is.

I've never been more in love with The Mayor than right now!

 

If I was a woman and you a rock star, I'd throw my La Perla panties at you!

I agree.  Using the Burke land doesn't make too much sense.

[

 

2.  Unlike Meigs Field in Chicago, Burke was built almost entirely with FAA funds in the early 60's.  Meigs was built in the 40's by the city of chicago.  So when Daley bulldozed x's in some runways, the FAA didn't have much of a say.  Granted they were pissed, Chicago should have given 30 days notice to closing their airport, but it was their choice.  Hence they had to pay a $33,000 fine.  Closing Burke is not just Cleveland's call, it's also the FAA who built it.  And we need the FAA money that flows into Hopkins a lot more than a city like Chicago does.  If we "pull a daley" and bulldoze the runway it could have serious implications in regards to the funding Cleveland recieves from the FAA.  We'd also have to repay all the money the FAA used to build it, which I'm pretty sure we don't have lying around.

 

 

Oh the FAA has THE say irrespective of who built the airport.  Airport construction is a difficult and time consuming process.  Because of this the FAA is very hesitant to close and aiport.  Meigs closure was a fait a acomplis.  The City of Chicago tore up the 3,500 foot runway one night effectively decomisioning the airport.  The FAA was not notified and nor were the owners of the aircraft based there.  The City paid the above fine PLUS a reimbursement of federal grant money to the FAA for this action.

 

One big difference between Meigs and Burke is that Burke is actually a fully functional commercial airport whereas Meigs never was (even tho there was some on a limited basis).  The FAA would never consider the closure of Burke with a tit for tat replacement.

 

[

 

2.  Unlike Meigs Field in Chicago, Burke was built almost entirely with FAA funds in the early 60's.  Meigs was built in the 40's by the city of chicago.  So when Daley bulldozed x's in some runways, the FAA didn't have much of a say.  Granted they were pissed, Chicago should have given 30 days notice to closing their airport, but it was their choice.  Hence they had to pay a $33,000 fine.  Closing Burke is not just Cleveland's call, it's also the FAA who built it.  And we need the FAA money that flows into Hopkins a lot more than a city like Chicago does.  If we "pull a daley" and bulldoze the runway it could have serious implications in regards to the funding Cleveland recieves from the FAA.  We'd also have to repay all the money the FAA used to build it, which I'm pretty sure we don't have lying around.

 

 

Oh the FAA has THE say irrespective of who built the airport.  Airport construction is a difficult and time consuming process.  Because of this the FAA is very hesitant to close and aiport.  Meigs closure was a fait a acomplis.  The City of Chicago tore up the 3,500 foot runway one night effectively decomisioning the airport.  The FAA was not notified and nor were the owners of the aircraft based there.  The City paid the above fine PLUS a reimbursement of federal grant money to the FAA for this action.

 

One big difference between Meigs and Burke is that Burke is actually a fully functional commercial airport whereas Meigs never was (even tho there was some on a limited basis).  The FAA would never consider the closure of Burke with a tit for tat replacement.

 

 

Also people fail to realize if Burke Closed all the airports traffic would need to move to Hopkins. 

 

We would then be a clogged airport, causing major delays and that means lost $$$.  As a super frequent flyer, I don't want that to happen.

What about using the eastern half of Burke, it doen't look like it is doing anything now. 

Maybe Burke's capacity would have to be scaled down, but wouldn't a port that had water, rail, road and air in one facility be a good thing?

 

(I tried inserting a google map)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cleveland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.231745,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&ll=41.526668,-81.666183&spn=0.016739,0.038495&t=h&z=15

 

I am trying to figure out when I said we should close Burke, is you see it please tell me.

 

What I did say, and I will try to go into more detail, is that the current dredgeing storage facility, the one that is about to fill up, is at Burke, north and East of the runways, should be looked at.  The current plan is to turn this land into an office park.  If its good enough for an office park, it should be good enough for a port facility.

 

(please click the link because I don't know how to post a google map)

 

The facility the port wants to build would be just west of E. 55th and take 20 years before facilities can be moved there.  The land at Burke (north and east of the runways) just west of E. 55th would be ready much, much sooner.  If Muni Light can be relocated, even less time.

 

Burke might be impacted, and its capacity reduced, but it would not have to close.  If you can build an office park there, you should be able to build port facilites.  Now you have air, rail, water and road together in one large functional port.

What about using the eastern half of Burke, it doen't look like it is doing anything now. 

Maybe Burke's capacity would have to be scaled down, but wouldn't a port that had water, rail, road and air in one facility be a good thing?

 

(I tried inserting a google map)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cleveland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.231745,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cleveland, Cuyahoga, Ohio&ll=41.526668,-81.666183&spn=0.016739,0.038495&t=h&z=15

 

I am trying to figure out when I said we should close Burke, is you see it please tell me.

 

What I did say, and I will try to go into more detail, is that the current dredgeing storage facility, the one that is about to fill up, is at Burke, north and East of the runways, should be looked at.  The current plan is to turn this land into an office park.  If its good enough for an office park, it should be good enough for a port facility.

 

(please click the link because I don't know how to post a google map)

 

The facility the port wants to build would be just west of E. 55th and take 20 years before facilities can be moved there.  The land at Burke (north and east of the runways) would be ready much, much sooner.  If Muni Light can be relocated, even less time.

 

Burke might be impacted, and its capacity reduced, but it would not have to close.  If you can build an office park there, you should be able to build port facilites.  Now you have air, rail, water and road together in one large functional port.

 

 

Burke will not be a plaza, the admin building and parking area to the WEST of the hangar/runways is not as bad condition (toxicity) as the runway and the extentsion. IIRC, that is where the office park would expand.

I knew I read something about this, but couldn't remember where. If you'd like the port's official report summary on why they went with E 55th click here, otherwise I tried to summarize. The report summary has lots of maps and diagrams and isn't a terribly boring read if you're curious.

 

Dike 14

This site was not selected for further consideration due to its current status as a nature preserve, and its incompatibility with the adjacent low density residential land use in Bratenahl.

Also

Transportation connections (road and rail) are possible but with differing degrees of difficulty.

 

Inside East Breakwall

This site was eliminated from further consideration mainly due to the high cost of infrastructure to access the site. To provide both rail and highway access, the construction improvements of a linking open water causeway with an integral bridge and lift bridge section would be required.

 

Existing Port

This site was eliminated from further consideration mainly due to its lack of consistency with the purpose of the relocation study and the Lakefront Plan. In addition, waves from Lake Erie moving through the channel entrance would require additional in-harbor breakwall protection, which in turn would potentially restrict ship maneuverability.

 

Upriver Location

This site was eliminated from further considerations due to land acquisition requirements, cost, environmental impacts, and land use conflicts with future development plans. Major cost issues include a new Norfolk Southern mainline lift bridge at the river entrance, environmental remediation, and bulkhead replacement/improvement. Due to the current state of disrepair, many, if not all of the adjacent bulkheads along the river would need to be replaced. Disturbance of the river channel to accommodate the new bulkheads could trigger a significant environmental degradation of the river. Most significantly, this site is inconsistent with current and planned land use in the West Bank Flats area.

 

Burke Airport Site

In January 2008, the Burke Airport Master Plan was completed, and an outboard runway, located on CDF fill north of the existing main runway, was included in the Plan’s recommendations. As a result of the new runway’s inclusion in the Plan, Burke Airport was eliminated from further consideration as a future Port site.

 

West Side on the Breakwall

Essentially there were concerns about traffic and the ease of getting trucks in and out of the port.

The West Side Site is now under consideration only as a backup site, should insurmountable issues arise during the further development of the East 55th Street Site.

Plans call for the first phase to be worked in over the next five years.  The bottom line is that like it or not and as frustrating as it may be.  Phasing this development in over the next 20-30 years IS the best way to go about developing a parcel this large.  It will keep demand and interest up.

 

Well said.  Thanks!

I just read that the BKL master plan was complete in Jan 2008---do you know where I can find a copy? I checked on the Port Control's website, but didn't see it. (For the record, I favor the 55th Street location--and runway expansion at Burke.)

I just read that the BKL master plan was complete in Jan 2008---do you know where I can find a copy? I checked on the Port Control's website, but didn't see it. (For the record, I favor the 55th Street location--and runway expansion at Burke.)

 

This is Burke's website:  http://www.clevelandairport.com/site/470/default.aspx

 

There is a link to a website and master plan at the top.

 

edit:  but after exploring the site, it doesn't appear the actual final report is posted.  it does provide a contact though.

I just read that the BKL master plan was complete in Jan 2008---do you know where I can find a copy? I checked on the Port Control's website, but didn't see it. (For the record, I favor the 55th Street location--and runway expansion at Burke.)

 

This is Burke's website: http://www.clevelandairport.com/site/470/default.aspx

 

There is a link to a website and master plan at the top.

 

edit: but after exploring the site, it doesn't appear the actual final report is posted. it does provide a contact though.

It also has the times for the "upcoming" public meetings on the master plan that will happen in 2007. I love it when people keep the latest info on the website.

More discussion about regionalizing the Port.  Seeing that this is the second story on this, I wonder if its the larger businesses left in the region who are trying to speed things up.  I don't have faith in this newspaper anymore to believe that the PD is trying to start a true dialogue about the port move...

 

 

 

Cleveland's port plan requires greater urgency and a lot better leadership -- Brent Larkin

By Brent Larkin

October 25, 2009, 5:00AM

 

In 2036, Mayor Frank Jackson will be 90, Sen. George Voinovich will turn 100 and dozens of children born today will have already graduated from medical school.

 

And if all goes flawlessly for the next 27 years -- which hasn't happened here once -- in 2036, the port of Cleveland will have moved from downtown to a 200-acre man-made site north of East 55th Street.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/clevelands_port_plan_requires.html

I don't even click on the cleveland.com links anymore. They have forever lost me.

Why is everyone on Cleveland.com so darn negative?

is the land that phase one of the Lakefront Development Plan is on owned and used by the Port?  would a three year timetable be realistic? 

^Yes, it is owned by the Port. 

 

I think that the idea of "regionalizing" the Port actually merits discussion.  Hopefully, this idea doesn't just get thrown to the wayside.  The 27 year timeline is troubling- though the Corps will be dredging the river, and the sediment NEEDS to be put somewhere... the reason why the river needs to be dredged is because of the Mittal Steel plant located on the river. This is according to Eric Johnson, Real Estate Director at the Port who recenlty did a presentation at the Levin College of Urban Affairs on what the Port is planning for the lakefront.

 

The plans for the lakefront include things that we all want to see, including housing, retail, office uses, a boardwalk, and even things which we don't normmally discuss such as riparian vegetation.  The size of the plan was emphasized, in that our lakefront has the potential to be world class- one that would draw residents into the city from throughout the region and outside of the region as well.

 

However, one point was made which hasn't been discussed much (if at all) before by Dr. Johnson:  that the Corps continual dredging of the river depends entirely on the Mittal Steel plant located upstream.  If the plant closes for good within the next 27 years, and the Corps finds that the river dredging is no longer needed- guess what?  Game Over.  No dredgings, an incomplete Port located at E. 55th, and an incomplete downtown lakefront is what Cleveland could be potentially stuck with. 

 

Do we want to take this chance?  The one chance we have for our city and region to have a lakefront which is world class?  If there are alternatives to this plan, I'm all for having a discussion about them.  However, if politics will keep a true discussion about the Port's relocation from occuring- we could be gambling on the future of the lakefront, and potentially, the future of the city.  Not that the lakefront's development would be a silver bullet, but we know how important having a great lakefront is to the future of the city.

^Is it really that big of a deal if the river no longer needs to be dredged?  They will still dredge the shipping channel inside the breakwall and the short portion of the river to the ports operations.  So you'll have a little bit of fill material from that.  Couldn't you open it up as a "dumping" ground for the disposal of excavation material from construction sites?  To me, it doesn't seem like the E 55th st site is dead if the steel plant closes.

Very true. And Mittal is not the only user of a navigable Cuyahoga. There are numerous aggregate shippers along the river channel, including the old channel south of Whiskey Island.

^This is true, and it would make sense that the river mouth would need to continue to be dredged.  However, he stressed that the Corps dredging is based on the need of the steel plant.  If the steel plant closes, the river no longer needs to be dredged to the depth which is currently needed.  This (if it doesn't stop dredging altogether), in the very least pushes back the timeline for the port's relocation by God knows how long.  I would be guessing since he didn't mention any details about a contract, if one exists, which is set up between the City and the Corps regarding dredging; if it does exist, it might hinge on Mittal being open.

 

I have a real problem basing the future development of our lakefront on one business, which just so happens to be in the steel industry, whose owner is overseas.  It's just not strong enough of a guarantee for me personally.

River dredgings are just one material that can be used. They could also use non-toxic materials from demolitions, road scrapings and even recycled tires from throughout the U.S. and Canada...

 

http://www.hkpc.org/hkiemat/previous/2008/mastec03_notes/KMLEE.PDF

http://www.ipress.com.hk/companyview.asp?id=10596

 

There are a million ways to fill the land for the new port!!

We can just use all the demolitions on Euclid Avenue to fill it up!

^KJP- you wrote about using recycled tires in one of your articles regarding the Stark WHD plan.  This could definitely be a way to fill the port...  I would hope that the Port considers it if needed.  It would also be a much faster way to fill the needed space, but it has been mentioned before that the the Port will be unable to mix anything with the dredgings as long as the Corps is involved. 

 

I don't want to be posting what could end up as false information, so anyone in the know (McCleveland!!!!) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the Mittal Steel situation.

 

If it costs $500 million to move the Port, I wonder how much of that cost is associated with the dredgings, if any.  If recycled tires could cost less and get done faster... recycled tires should be considered.

^You need to remember that the dredge dumping location (new port) is a two way venture.  The port wants the land to relocate to and the Corps of Engineers wants/needs the area for their dredge material.  Of course the Corps wouldn't want you to dump anything else in their hole because that decreases the number of years they can use the site.  It is expensive to build those dikes, so they want to make their dumping sites last.

There's plenty of other places that the Corps can use as dumping sites after this one is filled.

Yes, but that's not the point Hootenany is making.  Go to the nearest landfill and see if they let you just throw your garbage in.

There's plenty of other places that the Corps can use as dumping sites after this one is filled.

 

There are plenty of sites, but it does take a substantial sum of money to create the dike that the dredgings are dumped into.  I'm sure there are also a ton of other hurdles they need to go through to get a site approved.  Between environmental impact studies, community meetings, future development studies, cost analysis, etc... I'm sure it's a headache.

 

The point is that when they do get a site approved and ready to go they want to use the entire volume of that area for dredge material.  Every load of junk dumped into their dike literally costs them money.  With that said, I would imagine that the city or the port to expedite the process if they wanted to... it would just cost a bit of money.

^KJP- you wrote about using recycled tires in one of your articles regarding the Stark WHD plan.  This could definitely be a way to fill the port...  I would hope that the Port considers it if needed.  It would also be a much faster way to fill the needed space, but it has been mentioned before that the the Port will be unable to mix anything with the dredgings as long as the Corps is involved. 

 

I don't want to be posting what could end up as false information, so anyone in the know (McCleveland!!!!) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the Mittal Steel situation.

 

If it costs $500 million to move the Port, I wonder how much of that cost is associated with the dredgings, if any.  If recycled tires could cost less and get done faster... recycled tires should be considered.

 

As Hootenany noted, the cost is only part of the issue. The bigger issue is who pays? If dredgings are used, most of the money comes from the feds. If other types of fill are used, more of the burden will fall on local governments. Here is the relevant portion of part 3 from my Stark articles from January 2006 (screw the copyright crap, it's my article and it's not on Sun's site anymore)....

__________

 

Each year, tons of sand and other sediment are dredged from the bottom of the navigable portion of the Cuyahoga River to maintain a minimum 24-foot depth for large ships. Every few decades or so, a new dump site, called a confined disposal facility, along the lakefront is selected by the Army Corps of Engineers to deposit the dredgings. Most recently, it has been the northeast corner of Burke Lakefront Airport.

 

The Burke site has seven years of capacity remaining. Once it is full, the Corps of Engineers will seek a new disposal location, said Matt Snyder, chief project officer for the Corps’ Ohio Area Office.

 

Under the city’s lakefront plan, river dredgings were to be used to build the island [EDIT: at the time a new port island north of Whiskey Island was proposed as a result of the city's lakefront planning process]. Officials assumed it would take up to 50 years for enough dredgings to fill the proposed 125-acre site. But, Gary Failor, who will retire at year’s end as port authority executive director, said a new technology could significantly speed up that timetable, and do so at a lower cost.

 

Hong Kong-based Earth-Link Technology Enterprises Ltd. takes discarded tires, removes their steel belts, shreds the rubber into chips and heats them in a mixture with concrete or cement recycled from highway projects and building demolitions. Created are solid blocks of porous material called Rubber Soil, which Earth-Link has sold to stabilize slopes, build port sub-surfaces, and apply to other civil engineering projects worldwide. The firm has a U.S. trademark for the manufacturing process.

 

“Our goal is to expedite the island CDF (confined disposal facility), which would be bigger than a CDF normally would be,” said John Carney, the port authority’s incoming board chairman. “The 125 acres we would need for the port could be filled more quickly with that (Rubber Soil) technology.” 

 

Failor noted that dredged river sediment is polluted and must remain in a confined disposal facility until it is cleaned naturally through evaporation and decay over a period of years. It will likely be used in combination with the Rubber Soil or similar material to build the port island, he said.

 

There’s a hitch to building the entire port island out of Rubber Soil, however. Up to 65 percent of the costs of constructing the port island can be funded through the Army Corps of Engineers, but only if the island has at least a 20-year capacity of accepting dredged material. The Corps prefers a 30-year capacity. Less capacity means a reduced federal funding share.

 

Snyder said that timeline could be shortened without reducing the federal share by combining disposal at the island with a practice called beach nourishment. Once the river dredgings are cleaned, they are taken to a Lake Erie beach to restore its eroded sand.

 

“Both can be a function of our dredge material management plan,” Snyder said.

 

When it comes time to seek building the island, Carney said it would be up to the city to make the application to the Army Corps of Engineers for the confined disposal facility and to work with area members of congress on securing federal funds.

 

Failor said the timeline can also be accelerated by relocating the port’s facilities in stages. For example, the facilities north of Cleveland Browns Stadium, set on land which the port leases from the city, could be moved temporarily farther west toward the Cuyahoga River while the island is being built. And, as sections of the port island are completed, port facilities can be relocated to them.

 

END SNIP

Failor said the timeline can also be accelerated by relocating the port’s facilities in stages. For example, the facilities north of Cleveland Browns Stadium, set on land which the port leases from the city, could be moved temporarily farther west toward the Cuyahoga River while the island is being built. And, as sections of the port island are completed, port facilities can be relocated to them.

 

I like this idea. We need to start doing this ASAP!