With the Waterfront Line stations approaching 20 years in age and the Amtrak station well past its prime (was there ever a prime for that place), is it really that unreasonable for these entities to come together to support a multi-modal facility?  I imagine both will be making facility improvements into their lakefront assets anyway, how about directing those efforts towards the multi-modal transit center.  Seems to me the cost savings and gained efficiency alone would make a great TIGER grant, not to mention the improved pedestrian and bike connections to the lakefront.  Seems like there was energy in 2009 for this with the design competition someone referenced above, then silence ever since.  Why is this not at least a conversation?  Heck pull in the tram people to if necessary.

Yeah, because the distance from the mall to the science center is so long, the bridge needs to have some sort of stops along the way: lookout points, kiosks, something. 

 

Restrooms, aid stations, hostels.....

Yeah, because the distance from the mall to the science center is so long, the bridge needs to have some sort of stops along the way: lookout points, kiosks, something. 

 

The current walk isn't that far, and honestly, the mall is not a major starting point for most people. Why build an extremely expensive bridge, especially with that terrible design. We should either improve current connections, East 3rd/9th, or build a bridge actually worth building.

 

Or better yet, demolish the shoreway bridge, which would allow the highway to be flattened/turned into blvd allowing for an even better connection to occur.

Did something happen to the existing pedestrian bridge from the Mall over the RR tracks?  Honest question- it was closed last time I was home because of the CC construction, but I assumed it had reopened. 

Did something happen to the existing pedestrian bridge from the Mall over the RR tracks?  Honest question- it was closed last time I was home because of the CC construction, but I assumed it had reopened.

 

It's still there

Isn't that bridge only open during browns games and events at the stadium(ok so only browns games! :P)? 

 

 

 

 

Isn't that bridge only open during browns games and events at the stadium(ok so only browns games! :P)?

 

I've heard that too.  I don't understand why it isn't always open.  We technically already have a bridge from the mall to the other side of the highway.

Im guessing it is not always open because it forces you to cross a highway on-ramp and off-ramp. They close those down during the game I believe and have cops there as well. It would be extremely dangerous to have people crossing these types of roads.

Prior to the mall shutting down for CC construction it was always open.

.

^that sure is gorgeous

Im guessing it is not always open because it forces you to cross a highway on-ramp and off-ramp. They close those down during the game I believe and have cops there as well. It would be extremely dangerous to have people crossing these types of roads.

 

That off-ramp had a traffic light pedestrian crossing so it wasn't dangerous at all for pedestrians. You press the button, the light turns red for motorists, and you cross the road like you would any other intersection in a city.

 

I tried to use that bridge multiple times this summer once the Malls and Convention Centers were completed but the bridge was always barricaded and padlocked. I tested it out again for one of the Brown's Thursday games back in August. It was closed on Wednesday, opened briefly for the Thursday game, and then padlocked tight at lunch on Friday after the game.

 

So it appears, unless things have changed very recently, that our Lakefront access bridge is only available a couple days a year. Before the CC was under construction you could use this bridge everyday. Anyone know what prompted this to bridge to be essentially "permanently closed" year round?

 

You'd think with the new hotel going up across the street that you'd want to have permanent pedestrian access to the Rock Hall and Science Center from this location, and considering that access already exists, there's no reason to purposefully block that access like is being done now.

.

 

Absolutely. This should be the long term plan.

State funds sought for pedestrian bridge.

 

Greater Cleveland Partnership seeks $20.3 million in state money for capital projects

By JAY MILLER

 

The Greater Cleveland Partnership will ask the Kasich administration and the General Assembly to come up with $20.3 million to help finance $210 million in regional development.

Several of the projects GCP hopes will be included in the state's biennial capital spending budget are designed to enhance public use of the Lake Erie and Cuyahoga River waterfronts in Cleveland and its suburbs.

At the top of the regional chamber of commerce's list for inclusion in the capital budget is $7 million for the long-sought pedestrian bridge to connect the area of the new Cleveland Convention Center to the lakefront.

All the recommended projects will require more public money and, in some cases, private or foundation dollars. In the case of the lakefront bridge, the city of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County each have pledged $10 million to the project.

 

More at:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140115/FREE/140119866?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

does this mean the pedustiran bridge is finally going to happen?

does this mean the pedustiran bridge is finally going to happen?

 

They've requested the funds. The state capital budget negotiations must wrap up by the end of June, but the legislature usually pushes this bill out much earlier than that. It's usually a quick process -- as in weeks vs the months-long legislative process of the two-year operating budget. We should hear something by mid- to late-February. But there may be some add-ons to the "Lakefront Multi-modal Transportation Center" if funding can be found for them. The city is very interested in making this happen.

KJP - So is the request for funds just for the pedestrian bridge and a parking garage or is there actually going to be a transit aspect (Amtrak, RTA, Greyhound) to it? From the article it seems its the former.

KJP - So is the request for funds just for the pedestrian bridge and a parking garage or is there actually going to be a transit aspect (Amtrak, RTA, Greyhound) to it? From the article it seems its the former.

 

Yes, the former. We're trying to find funding to get the transit add-ons included. If you put all the intercity transportation modes as well as the collar-county transit services routed into or at least through this building (Amtrak, Greyhound, Megabus, Laketran, Akron Metro RTA, SARTA, PARTA etc), the number of annual boardings would equal the number of annual enplanements at Akron-Canton Airport (about 800,000) -- not including the Waterfront Line and/or a Downtown Trolley feeding it.

 

So think of this center as putting the passengers-equivalent of an Akron-Canton Regional Airport right into downtown Cleveland. Separately, these rail/bus services are relatively insignificant. But, collectively, you've got a powerful economic engine.

Idk, Im having trouble getting on board with this project. I really do not like that pedestrian bridge. I think the money would be better spent on improving current connections. I also would like them to look at the possibility of removing/converting the shoreway to a boulevard, completely removing any need for the weird pedestrian bridge.

Would there be any progress in re-routing freight traffic to go along with this?    Getting rid of the trains through there would certainly help the pedestrian activity, as well as the Flats and other neighborhoods on the approaches.

Idk, Im having trouble getting on board with this project. I really do not like that pedestrian bridge. I think the money would be better spent on improving current connections. I also would like them to look at the possibility of removing/converting the shoreway to a boulevard, completely removing any need for the weird pedestrian bridge.

 

From the perspective of a traveler getting off an Amtrak train (or any other future mode in that general location), that wall south of and along the tracks may as well be Hadrian's Wall, The Great Wall of China or the Maginot Line. Last month, a friend of mine from Chicago arrived in Cleveland on Amtrak during a lake effect squall. We were meeting at Addy's on St. Clair, between West 3rd and Ontario. The "best" way for him to get there is to walk to the west end of the Amtrak platform, carry his suitcase over several sets of tracks, and then get on the elevator at the West 3rd Waterfront Line station (which hopefully is open). Then he can walk south into the city.

 

But he missed my text message with those directions. Instead, he walked up the Shoreway ramp to East 9th Street dragging his suitcase through the several inches of snow, then turned south along East 9th to Lakeside where the winds off the lake were slamming him moreso than they do in Chicago. He said he had to stop a few times in RTA bus shelters just to recuperate. He made his way across the Malls and to Addy's on St. Clair. When he walked into the building, he was coated in snow, his face was red and wet. The kicker was that Addy's was closed for the holidays, so we had more walking to do!

 

The point of all this is -- the walkways are needed. No civilized city or mode of transportation should put its visitors let alone its residents through that. I'm not a fan of the parking deck, but the parking revenue gets me a structure to add things to it that I do want. If you expect to get only the things you want from a project, then you usually end up getting nothing. It's a big sandbox we're playing in, with lots of different interests and values.

 

Would there be any progress in re-routing freight traffic to go along with this?    Getting rid of the trains through there would certainly help the pedestrian activity, as well as the Flats and other neighborhoods on the approaches.

 

No, that adds a great deal more cost and complexity. And we have some short-term funding options to grab on to. I'd like the added modes of transportation to be part of the project before construction begins. The freight trains can be rerouted later and not affect this project.

Steve Litt had an article today about the marina under construction in North Coast Harbor.  I wasn't aware it was so far along!

 

Will the new North Coast Harbor marina be safe for boaters?

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

January 24, 2014 at 7:00 AM, updated January 24, 2014 at 7:02 AM

 

It should be cause for rejoicing that come summer, Cleveland boaters will have access to a brand new marina at North Coast Harbor for the first time since the seven-acre basin was created in 1989.

 

Instead, the first big move to create serious amenities at the harbor, and to deliver on proposals first advanced in the city’s sweeping, 2004 lakefront plan and refined in a 2011 revision, may be compromised in terms of design.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2014/01/will_the_new_north_coast_harbo.html#incart_river_default

I saw paddle boat rental mentioned in the article.  That would be awesome!  While it's something really small, it is a great family activity, especially for parents with little ones, and a great "first date" daytime activity.  These are the really small things that the City has been missing for years!  There's very little that's cheap and fun to do for families, and might I say not educational!  Not to mention, a bathroom right by it to.  I really love this plan, and kudo's to the administration for implementing it.  It really takes Voinovich Park to the next level. 

I saw paddle boat rental mentioned in the article.  That would be awesome!  While it's something really small, it is a great family activity, especially for parents with little ones, and a great "first date" daytime activity.  These are the really small things that the City has been missing for years!  There's very little that's cheap and fun to do for families, and might I say not educational!  Not to mention, a bathroom right by it to.  I really love this plan, and kudo's to the administration for implementing it.  It really takes Voinovich Park to the next level. 

I love paddle boats  This totally is a family oriented entertainment.

Council prods mayor on possible closure, redevelopment of Burke Lakefront Airport

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2014/02/cleveland_city_council_prods_m.html

Key parts

 

"Jackson went on to say that the city would continue to use Burke “in the near future, because alternative use for redevelopment at this time is not realistic.”

 

He said that the cost of dealing with the environmental hazards of the site, a former landfill, wouldn’t make sense financially for most developers"

It doesn't seem realistic at all. Burke is HUGE. Don't we have enough empty lots to build on in downtown alone?

It doesn't seem realistic at all. Burke is HUGE. Don't we have enough empty lots to build on in downtown alone?

 

Unless we want to gradually move and expand the port facilities to Burke.

^ Okay, you got me there. I definitely wouldn't be opposed to that. The port location is much better for waterfront development than Burke.

^That's what ive been saying! I think it might even possible to consolidate both operations to Burke. The land on the northern tip would be perfect for the port.

KJP - That is a great idea, has it ever been publicly discussed?

^That's what ive been saying! I think it might even possible to consolidate both operations to Burke. The land on the northern tip would be perfect for the port.

The biggest issue with that is that you need to have rail & freeway access. Both could be added there, but that adds a lot to the cost of moving the port.

 

Additionally, there might be height restrictions from the FAA working so close to the airport. Ports tend to have a lot of cranes.

 

I do agree that the port land could be used better for other purposes than a port.

Since we are 'thinking big' here... the one thing that would be sure to elevate the interest in re-developing Burke (and the lakefront in general) would be to implement that plan which was floated to move the shoreway more inland from CPP to downtown, eliminating dead man's curve.

Building off of KJP and other's idea of moving the port, here's my dream plan for the lakefront:

 

1. Move GA flights to other area airports (county, lorain, hopkins as last resort)

2. Expand Burke to handle cargo planes...move UPS, FedEx, etc to Burke

3. Move port from current location to unused land on eastern edge of airport (somewhat reviving the East 55th idea, but using Burke instead)

 

This would happen over time but would give Cleveland a shipping logistics advantage over most cities in that all cargo (plane, train, boat, truck) could be handled at one facility.  We could become a logistics powerhouse creating jobs.  I cannot think of another city that would have both an airport and rail depot connected to its sea port, as well as great highway access.  All of the industrial land on the bluff off the freeway would be revived for warehousing and logistics purposes.

 

This would also free up the current port for residential and recreational redevelopment, a MUCH better location for this activity since the port essentially connects the Flats East Bank and North Coast Harbor.  Development here would be the missing link and FINALLY connect the lakefront and riverfront in a dramatic fashion.  Can you imagine living or jogging or dining where the slag piles are now at the mouth of the Cuyahoga?? Would be breathtaking!

 

This is ambitious, expensive and would take a decade or more to complete, but if planning began now it would work.  Dehubbing could offer a great opportunity to remake the lakefront and re-position our logistics assets to be better coordinated. 

I think I've heard somewhere that the northeastern tip of Burke is very unstable. That might make it difficult to build a port there.

I think I've heard somewhere that the northeastern tip of Burke is very unstable. That might make it difficult to build a port there.

And make it pretty difficult for heavy, large planes to land/taxi/etc.

 

Its a great idea though! Maybe theres some way to make it all work

Isn't the northeastern corner the newest Confined Disposal Facility for the Army Corps of Engineers' dumping of river and lake dredgings? I would think that would eventually settle. Even if doesn't, there is a new material made from mixing recycled shredded tires (with their steel belts removed) and concrete to create large blocks of sturdy material that can support port facilities.

 

EDIT: rail access to port facilities relocated to the NE end of Burke which can be accessed from three sides by ships....

 

Building off of KJP and other's idea of moving the port, here's my dream plan for the lakefront:

 

1. Move GA flights to other area airports (county, lorain, hopkins as last resort)

2. Expand Burke to handle cargo planes...move UPS, FedEx, etc to Burke

3. Move port from current location to unused land on eastern edge of airport (somewhat reviving the East 55th idea, but using Burke instead)

 

This would happen over time but would give Cleveland a shipping logistics advantage over most cities in that all cargo (plane, train, boat, truck) could be handled at one facility.  We could become a logistics powerhouse creating jobs.  I cannot think of another city that would have both an airport and rail depot connected to its sea port, as well as great highway access.  All of the industrial land on the bluff off the freeway would be revived for warehousing and logistics purposes.

 

This would also free up the current port for residential and recreational redevelopment, a MUCH better location for this activity since the port essentially connects the Flats East Bank and North Coast Harbor.  Development here would be the missing link and FINALLY connect the lakefront and riverfront in a dramatic fashion.  Can you imagine living or jogging or dining where the slag piles are now at the mouth of the Cuyahoga?? Would be breathtaking!

 

This is ambitious, expensive and would take a decade or more to complete, but if planning began now it would work.  Dehubbing could offer a great opportunity to remake the lakefront and re-position our logistics assets to be better coordinated. 

 

I see this differently--for a number of reasons:

 

1.  To begin with, the economy of scale is all wrong. There is nothing that Fedex ships that would make any sense putting on a boat, or vice versa.  In addition, I don't think the runways at BKL are long/strong enough to support the occasional Fedex or UPS Heavy that lands at Hopkins. 

 

2.  The current goods coming in on boats is not warehousing material.  It is steel coils and bulk goods--so logistics chain businesses have no interest in boats, unless you can convince an operator to send small container ships through the St Lawrence?  So far this hasn't happened on the Great Lakes in any large quantities--so my guess is this would take a more coordinated effort than just Cleveland alone deciding to become a container port.

 

3.  The area at the mouth of the river you speak of (between the mouth and W9th)  could still be developed with minimal effect on the port operations, other than the bulk silo on the east side of the river.  That has to be another 30-40 acres alone?

 

4.  The city shut down the flats and gave it to Wolstein 10+ years ago, and we're just now seeing signs of development beyond the E&Y tower.  How many years and global financial maladies would we have to endure to fill up 400+ acres of lakefront property?  At its best I think Cleveland would end up putting something that looks like I271 and Harvard on the Burke property.  And who here really wants that?

 

5.  Burke can be a development tool.  Why not offer free landing fees, office rent and other tax incentives to aviation-based companies, or corporations with private jets, to put their headquarters in downtown Cleveland?  Cleveland is a 2 hour flight from 2/3 of the population of North America.  There has to be a selling point in there somewhere?  The airport in Addison TX comes to mind, if anyone has spent time in the North-Dallas suburbs. 

 

6.  If we were really thinking big, I'd rather see the port land around the mouth and west developed first (which would require something to happen with the bulk docks at Whisky island.    Keep Burke as an economic generator, and cover the shoreway with mid-rise office complexes, apartments and retail to service all the new jobs created.  This Shoreway-topper could easily become a TOD development with the extension of the Waterfront line, as well as an inter-city passenger service terminal located at E9th.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^You definitely make some valid points to consider, especially relating to

Building off of KJP and other's idea of moving the port, here's my dream plan for the lakefront:

 

1. Move GA flights to other area airports (county, lorain, hopkins as last resort)

2. Expand Burke to handle cargo planes...move UPS, FedEx, etc to Burke

3. Move port from current location to unused land on eastern edge of airport (somewhat reviving the East 55th idea, but using Burke instead)

 

This would happen over time but would give Cleveland a shipping logistics advantage over most cities in that all cargo (plane, train, boat, truck) could be handled at one facility.  We could become a logistics powerhouse creating jobs.  I cannot think of another city that would have both an airport and rail depot connected to its sea port, as well as great highway access.  All of the industrial land on the bluff off the freeway would be revived for warehousing and logistics purposes.

 

This would also free up the current port for residential and recreational redevelopment, a MUCH better location for this activity since the port essentially connects the Flats East Bank and North Coast Harbor.  Development here would be the missing link and FINALLY connect the lakefront and riverfront in a dramatic fashion.  Can you imagine living or jogging or dining where the slag piles are now at the mouth of the Cuyahoga?? Would be breathtaking!

 

This is ambitious, expensive and would take a decade or more to complete, but if planning began now it would work.  Dehubbing could offer a great opportunity to remake the lakefront and re-position our logistics assets to be better coordinated. 

 

I see this differently--for a number of reasons:

 

1.  To begin with, the economy of scale is all wrong. There is nothing that Fedex ships that would make any sense putting on a boat, or vice versa.  In addition, I don't think the runways at BKL are long/strong enough to support the occasional Fedex or UPS Heavy that lands at Hopkins. 

 

2.  The current goods coming in on boats is not warehousing material.  It is steel coils and bulk goods--so logistics chain businesses have no interest in boats, unless you can convince an operator to send small container ships through the St Lawrence?  So far this hasn't happened on the Great Lakes in any large quantities--so my guess is this would take a more coordinated effort than just Cleveland alone deciding to become a container port.

 

3.  The area at the mouth of the river you speak of (between the mouth and W9th)  could still be developed with minimal effect on the port operations, other than the bulk silo on the east side of the river.  That has to be another 30-40 acres alone?

 

4.  The city shut down the flats and gave it to Wolstein 10+ years ago, and we're just now seeing signs of development beyond the E&Y tower.  How many years and global financial maladies would we have to endure to fill up 400+ acres of lakefront property?  At its best I think Cleveland would end up putting something that looks like I271 and Harvard on the Burke property.  And who here really wants that?

 

5.  Burke can be a development tool.  Why not offer free landing fees, office rent and other tax incentives to aviation-based companies, or corporations with private jets, to put their headquarters in downtown Cleveland?  Cleveland is a 2 hour flight from 2/3 of the population of North America.  There has to be a selling point in there somewhere?  The airport in Addison TX comes to mind, if anyone has spent time in the North-Dallas suburbs. 

 

6.  If we were really thinking big, I'd rather see the port land around the mouth and west developed first (which would require something to happen with the bulk docks at Whisky island.    Keep Burke as an economic generator, and cover the shoreway with mid-rise office complexes, apartments and retail to service all the new jobs created.  This Shoreway-topper could easily become a TOD development with the extension of the Waterfront line, as well as an inter-city passenger service terminal located at E9th.

 

I was definitely thinking more of warehouse goods than the bulk items currently stored at the port.  While container shipping is not as common on the lakes right now, efforts are underway to change that.  We cannot know were these efforts will go, but if the new vessels that can travel straight from the ocean into the Great Lawrence Seaway and into the lakes, then taking actions to better connect the port to other modes of transportation and warehousing may put us ahead of other great lakes ports.

 

But more importantly to me, I think this a great moment to drastically rethink the lakefront as well as all of our assets.  I agree with you we should cap the shoreway and build the multimodal transport center.  And to your point 400 acres is a lot to redevelop, and it may take 50 years to complete, but at what point do we move things now so that its easier to make changes in the future.  It's crazy we're a riverfront AND a lakefront city and there are so few places to enjoy the water, especially downtown.  In another thread theres a pic of Toronto's waterfront in the 1960's and then today.  The 1960's pic does not look all that different from Cleveland back then, but they made steps long ago to open up land for development.  It didn't happen over night there and certainly won't here, but we could use this moment to take steps that can set us up for the future.  Especially when people clamor for Burke to be redeveloped in that way, which I think makes no sense because it's so far from the downtown core.  However moving the port and developing that land instead of Burke, that makes more sense because it is at least connected to downtown.

 

Just saw in the PD, the city has selected a developer for the lakefront project. It's split into three phases starting in 2015. Includes 1,050-1,250 new apartments, a public school, an 80,000 sqft office building, and a marina.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/03/dick_pace_trammell_crow_tapped.html#incart_river_default

^Michelle really does a good job of reporting and laying out all the relevant information.

 

As far as this happening (and I think I am one of the more positive people on the board)...hopefully before I die.

^Michelle really does a good job of reporting and laying out all the relevant information.

 

As far as this happening (and I think I am one of the more positive people on the board)...hopefully before I die.

 

I totally get your "Hopefully before I die" mentality, but I don't know...Lately with seeing how things are getting done in Cleveland, I'm feeling pretty optimistic about this. It seems just a few years ago they were talking about how this wouldn't happen for another 10-15 years and to hear that they're hoping to break ground by 2015 is a huge improvement, and shows how much of a priority this is to get done. Fingers crossed!

I wonder how they're going to build that marina if it stays in that orientation?

Will it happen? If you're really that concerned about, get involved and help shape it. Start a blog like Musky did. Join the DCA or GCP. Get a job with the company or the city. If not, then just sit back and enjoy the ride no matter where it goes. Three choices: shape the future, watch and enjoy the future or fret about it.

I wonder how they're going to build that marina if it stays in that orientation?

 

The marina would be the first thing on the chopping block in my estimation.  Boating is a luxury item, and I am a boater so am well versed in it's luxury-ness (Break Out Another Thousand).  Also marinas tend to be dead spots, and especially here where we have 6-8 months where they are not usable.

 

I would expect this area to turn into some kind of park, maybe similar to what Lakewood is currently embarking on.

It sounds like the biggest hurdle to this project will be working out the land leases with the state and the city and then the city to the developer.  Financing will be the next challenge after that.

Honestly, of all the lakefront plans, this one is probably my least favorite. At least previous plans had something resembling a street grid north of the stadium.

When the developers circulate the drawings with people walking outside in shorts and sitting at outdoor cafes, it would be fair to also prepare some drawings with the same areas in the midst of a hard Cleveland winter.

 

(Nearly) everything looks good when it's nice and sunny and people are outdoor, but the developments should look good not only at their best, but also at their worst - which here in Cle means about a third of the year.  Showing only the nice summer drawings makes a good impression but it's also a little deceitful - especially when this lakefront spot will bear the brunt of the elements much more so than inland parts of Cleveland.

alanr, absolutely. If anything, whatever is designed there should be subjected to wind tunnel testing/simulations! That setting would have been uninhabitable in yesterday's blizzard.

Is the wind right on the shoreline really any worse than it is once it starts whipping through the downtown buildings?

 

I like you suggestion alanr.  It reminds me of the revised airplane emergency landing pamphlets from Fight Club.