Just a thought: has the idea of turning a section of Muni Lot into a transit hub ever been floated?

 

There is room, and it could be a filler for the WTF line, and trolleys.  There is probably a bunch of drawbacks I'm not thinking of, just wondering if it was ever considered

Just a thought: has the idea of turning a section of Muni Lot into a transit hub ever been floated?

 

There is room, and it could be a filler for the WTF line, and trolleys.  There is probably a bunch of drawbacks I'm not thinking of, just wondering if it was ever considered

 

Yes prior to the WFL being extended.  There was also discussion of covering the tracks and clearing everything from the highway to davenport, for development.

Just a thought: has the idea of turning a section of Muni Lot into a transit hub ever been floated?

 

There is room, and it could be a filler for the WTF line, and trolleys.  There is probably a bunch of drawbacks I'm not thinking of, just wondering if it was ever considered

 

Yes. The problem is the layout and changing elevation of tracks make the site more difficult. Plus, the most successful transportation centers are a comfortable, attractive 5-minute walk to numerous destinations.

^No question; the location of the current Amtrak station is exactly where the NCTC needs to be: downtown, right at the crossroads of the new hotel/convention center complex and the expanding lakefront... right where the planned pedestrian bridge should connect to it... It's a shame local officials couldn't their heads out of their arses and submitted a viable proposal that could have secured TIGER funding.

Just when I was getting all bummed out that nothing was going on with this project, something happened. GCRTA GM Joe Calabrese reached out to Amtrak to discuss developing a transportation center in the area of their lakefront station. I thanked Joe and told him that if all regional and intercity transportation modes that serve Cleveland (including the Waterfront Line) made stops at this transportation center, it would bring 1 million annual boardings to one site -- that's more than the Akron-Canton Regional Airport. Joe mentioned to me that when a similar multimodal transportation center was developed on his watch at Syracuse, it raised ridership on all modes an average of about 20 percent.

 

But there's a confluence of other things going on. First, DCA folks tell me there is increasing pressure to develop the area around the Greyhound station. The city's recent RFP for the property just west of the station is only the first salvo. More is coming. Greyhound will have to get out of the way.

 

At the same time, Amtrak is attempting to reach out to the city to prompty improve the site to comply with ADA requirements. The poor condition of the station parking lot and the narrow trackside platform doesn't make it easy for an able-bodies person to use them. So Amtrak is eager to invest in the site.

 

And of course we at All Aboard Ohio are eager to see something happen to provide improved connectivity between transportation modes and offer a truly big-city rail/bus transportation center with supportive retail services, restaurants, newstand, 24-hour coffee shop, etc. for Amtrak, Greyhound, Megabus, GCRTA, Laketran, Akron Metro RTA, Stark Area RTA, Portage Area RTA plus cars, taxis, rental cars, car share, bike share and pedestrians.

 

And best of all, lease revenues from those users and development opportunities on city-owned land to the east along East 9th and to the west where the current Amtrak station now sets will allow the transportation to more than support its own operating and maintenance costs, and even provide the local share to leverage a federal construction grant. If some of the county bed tax were used for this project, its possible that no federal funds would have to be used at all, thereby greatly speeding up the project timeline.

Very encouraging KJP. Sounds like a lot is going on behind the scenes regarding many aspects of this. Hope it all works out for the best.

Not to take away anything from what you posted Ken but I believe Akron-Canton is averaging just under 2 million passengers served annually.

Not to take away anything from what you posted Ken but I believe Akron-Canton is averaging just under 2 million passengers served annually.

 

CAK 2013: 864,927 enplanements or 1.7 million total passengers. http://www.akroncantonairport.com/newsroom/passenger-stats#stats

 

The usage for the rail and bus (regional and intercity) services that could be united at a Cleveland transportation center is 1 million boardings, or 2 million total passengers.

 

EDIT: BTW, the rail/bus data doesn't include the 20% ridership bump Calabrese expects from uniting the modes under the same roof.

KJP[/member] thanks for keeping the pressure/focus on this, dude.

Just when I was getting all bummed out that nothing was going on with this project, something happened. GCRTA GM Joe Calabrese reached out to Amtrak to discuss developing a transportation center in the area of their lakefront station. I thanked Joe and told him that if all regional and intercity transportation modes that serve Cleveland (including the Waterfront Line) made stops at this transportation center, it would bring 1 million annual boardings to one site -- that's more than the Akron-Canton Regional Airport. Joe mentioned to me that when a similar multimodal transportation center was developed on his watch at Syracuse, it raised ridership on all modes an average of about 20 percent.

 

But there's a confluence of other things going on. First, DCA folks tell me there is increasing pressure to develop the area around the Greyhound station. The city's recent RFP for the property just west of the station is only the first salvo. More is coming. Greyhound will have to get out of the way.

 

At the same time, Amtrak is attempting to reach out to the city to prompty improve the site to comply with ADA requirements. The poor condition of the station parking lot and the narrow trackside platform doesn't make it easy for an able-bodies person to use them. So Amtrak is eager to invest in the site.

 

And of course we at All Aboard Ohio are eager to see something happen to provide improved connectivity between transportation modes and offer a truly big-city rail/bus transportation center with supportive retail services, restaurants, newstand, 24-hour coffee shop, etc. for Amtrak, Greyhound, Megabus, GCRTA, Akron Metro RTA, Stark Area RTA, Portage Area RTA plus cars, taxis, rental cars, car share, bike share and pedestrians.

 

And best of all, lease revenues from those users and development opportunities on city-owned land to the east along East 9th and to the west where the current Amtrak station now sets will allow the transportation to more than support its own operating and maintenance costs, and even provide the local share to leverage a federal construction grant. If some of the county bed tax were used for this project, its possible that no federal funds would have to be used at all, thereby greatly speeding up the project timeline.

 

Wow... 1 point awarded to Mr. Calabrese. 

If there is serious talk about a new transportation center I think Cleveland needs to "go big, or go home". If the lakefront is being developed and there is going to be a pedestrian bridge, why not incorporate it all.  I have posted a picture of this before, but here is the link for the design competition for a lakefront station http://clevelandcompetition.com/past-competitions/2009-lakefront-station/.  The link only shows the winner and runners up, but there are quite a few designs.  Some are quite different and not feasible, but some have some great elements that are worth looking into.  What jumps out to me the most is the way the station not only functions as a station, but how it bridges the "gap" and height difference from the mall to the lakefront.  There is all this talk of a pedestrian bridge and the design challenges to avoid a hamster tube and make it aesthetically pleasing, thats why my suggestion is to think of a building, perhaps a transportation center, to bridge the gap instead of a classic bridge. 

 

The cost of constructing a building over the tracks would be cost-prohibitive.

Awesome news. Let's hope they look even more into things and All Aboard can help them see the light!

The cost of constructing a building over the tracks would be cost-prohibitive.

 

KJP- if not built over the tracks where do you envision the multimodal transit center being built?  Is there enough land where the current amtrak station/surface lot is for a new train station as well as bus bays for Greyhound to be built, or do you envision this somewhere else?  I've always pictured the transit center over the tracks, but you're right the cost is most likely to high to realistically get that done, and that sliver of land seems like the only other place to go, but that seems like a squeeze to me.  There's tons of land at the Muni lot, but to me that's just too far from the core for something like this.

 

I apologize if all this was discussed uptread, just let me know.  But I thought all discussion was on something being built over the tracks and creating a "Mall D" on top.  I'm curious about other ideas to get this done more quickly.

KJP- if not built over the tracks where do you envision the multimodal transit center being built?  Is there enough land where the current amtrak station/surface lot is for a new train station as well as bus bays for Greyhound to be built, or do you envision this somewhere else?  I've always pictured the transit center over the tracks, but you're right the cost is most likely to high to realistically get that done, and that sliver of land seems like the only other place to go, but that seems like a squeeze to me.  There's tons of land at the Muni lot, but to me that's just too far from the core for something like this.

 

I apologize if all this was discussed uptread, just let me know.  But I thought all discussion was on something being built over the tracks and creating a "Mall D" on top.  I'm curious about other ideas to get this done more quickly.

 

Maybe it will look something like this.....

 

The cost of constructing a building over the tracks would be cost-prohibitive.

 

KJP- if not built over the tracks where do you envision the multimodal transit center being built?  Is there enough land where the current amtrak station/surface lot is for a new train station as well as bus bays for Greyhound to be built, or do you envision this somewhere else?  I've always pictured the transit center over the tracks, but you're right the cost is most likely to high to realistically get that done, and that sliver of land seems like the only other place to go, but that seems like a squeeze to me.  There's tons of land at the Muni lot, but to me that's just too far from the core for something like this.

 

I apologize if all this was discussed uptread, just let me know.  But I thought all discussion was on something being built over the tracks and creating a "Mall D" on top.  I'm curious about other ideas to get this done more quickly.

 

Is it possible that the Center could be done in conjunction with a High St. Columbus style cap for E. 9th Street?

Is it possible that the Center could be done in conjunction with a High St. Columbus style cap for E. 9th Street?

 

Some recent city plans have the land between the City Hall parking garage and East 9th Street as a future development site, with concept plans showing air rights above the tracks and next to East 9th as being developed with a hotel. The viability of that concept was delayed by the convention hotel being built elsewhere.

KJP- if not built over the tracks where do you envision the multimodal transit center being built?  Is there enough land where the current amtrak station/surface lot is for a new train station as well as bus bays for Greyhound to be built, or do you envision this somewhere else?  I've always pictured the transit center over the tracks, but you're right the cost is most likely to high to realistically get that done, and that sliver of land seems like the only other place to go, but that seems like a squeeze to me.  There's tons of land at the Muni lot, but to me that's just too far from the core for something like this.

 

I apologize if all this was discussed uptread, just let me know.  But I thought all discussion was on something being built over the tracks and creating a "Mall D" on top.  I'm curious about other ideas to get this done more quickly.

 

Maybe it will look something like this.....

 

 

Ok.  That takes care of that.  Thanks!

Here's a quick little two-pager briefing document I threw together.....

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/f5a701a7f8.pdf

^Nice concise breifing KJP!  Thanks for sharing.  Out of curiosity, and you may know, do the other transit authorities mentioned in the briefing want to be located in a facility as described? Are they lobying for this, or has the concept been pitched to them?  I think geting them excited, and being "cheerleaders" for this concept would be huge.  I love the dea.  It's very big city, and something I think would work here.

^Nice concise breifing KJP!  Thanks for sharing.  Out of curiosity, and you may know, do the other transit authorities mentioned in the briefing want to be located in a facility as described? Are they lobying for this, or has the concept been pitched to them?  I think geting them excited, and being "cheerleaders" for this concept would be huge.  I love the dea.  It's very big city, and something I think would work here.

 

Several players are interested: GCRTA, Amtrak and possibly Greyhound. I think Megabus can be convinced. Once you get those players, the others will come along even though they probably won't pay any rent. They would only make stops at NCTC as part of the rest of their existing routings through downtown.

Greyhound says it may vacate historic terminal for another Cleveland location (gallery)

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on November 20, 2014 at 2:01 PM, updated November 20, 2014 at 2:33 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Greyhound says it is working with the city of Cleveland to move its downtown operations, which would leave the bus company's historic Art Deco terminal in the bustling neighborhood of Playhouse Square open for a new use.

 

"Developers are working with the city and, in turn, we are working with the city to find another location," Greyhound spokeswoman Lanesha Gipson said Wednesday.

 

"We are in the preliminary stages of the process so we don't have a specific date or relocation site selected as yet."

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/greyhound_says_it_may_vacate_h.html#incart_river

Keep chiseling away!!

KJP, can you imagine a scenario in which a new transit center is built in the Muni Lot?  Or do you think building new Amtrak platform and siding would be prohibitively expensive?

BTW, GCRTA doesn't need to be the sponsor of this project. The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority could do it.

 

And I would think this project could finance itself. Consider this....

 

Amtrak just reached a 20-year lease for space at St. Paul Union Depot:

 

The lease agreement covers 3,800 square feet of space for passenger ticketing, baggage handling, VIP lounge, office and staff areas. Amtrak will pay up to $144,586 for the first year as a share of operating costs. That cost will increase at 3 percent annually for the 20-year term. Amtrak has the option to extend the lease for one additional 20-year term. SOURCE http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_24507239/union-depot-amtrak-deal-set-trains-arrive-early

 

Amtrak has about half as much ridership at Cleveland than they do at their current Twin Cities station. Perhaps that means 2,000 square feet? If so, on a $40/sf level that's about $80,000 in annual lease payments for Cleveland.

 

Greyhound has five times as much ridership at Cleveland than Amtrak does. If that use translates into five times the square footage needs, that's about 10,000 square feet. At $40/sf, that's about $400,000.

 

Megabus has about half as much ridership at Cleveland as Greyhound. That could equate to about $200,000 per year in lease payments.

 

If there's 5,000 square feet of retail and restaurants at the station, including rental cars, car sharing, bike sharing, etc. we're looking at about $200,000 in rental income.

 

All told, that could be nearly $700,000 per year in lease/rent revenue. How big of a 20-year bond issue could that support? At current treasury rates of 2.8%, it could retire a $12.5 million bond issue.

 

And you need revenue to pay utility bills, provide for maintenance and keep a reserve. So let's consider the bond issue is $10 million.

 

Obviously that's not enough to build an intermodal transportation center linking multiple modes. An intermodal transportation center is going to cost $50 million or so.

 

There are three pieces that haven't been considered here yet:

 

1. Amtrak has pledged funds to station transportation projects. In Elyria, it pledged $2.9 million. I think an ADA-compliant Cleveland station is worth at least $5 million to them.

2. the parking deck (probably $20 million cost) which can be funded by debt financed by parking revenues.

3. the city-owned land at a lakefront site that could be part of a value-capture funding mechanism. The Amtrak station area could be up to 2 acres (especially if you build above the Waterfront Line tracks and Shoreway ramp). Then you have the intermodal hub. East of that, the property fronting East 9th could be up to 1.5 acres (again if you raze the Waterfront Line station headhouse and walkway and build above it, as the WFL pedestrian access from East 9 and/or from the intermodal hub could be in the ground floor of this development.

 

Point is, these could contribute many millions to the project, be it right off the bat or for future expansion. But I think the port authority should lead to capture all of the value capture financial resources, not GCRTA.

KJP, can you imagine a scenario in which a new transit center is built in the Muni Lot? 

 

Yep, already have. But it can't be too far east because the two rail lines that Amtrak uses separate next to the WLF's South Harbor/Muny Lot station. Something like these options (these are my concepts, no one else's) should only be a stopgap, however...

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Or do you think building new Amtrak platform and siding would be prohibitively expensive?

 

Amtrak has to provide an ADA-compliant facility SOON -- including a wider platform for turning wheelchair and the platform must be lined with tactile edges. I don't think they would need to provide a siding, at least not for the time being. But being able to process passengers from two trains at the same time would reduce rail traffic congestion. The harried nature of all these transportation asks (Amtrak needing to comply with ADA, Greyhound needing to move, the city moving forward with the lakefront walkway by 2016, etc. etc.) proceeding simultaneously and without recognition that a combined intermodal facility could cure everyone's ill's is what is so frustrating. I fear that if we don't provide some sort of combined facility to address these immediate needs, the separate-silo-solution that is occurring will satisfy the big-wigs for the foreseeable future. And it will be decades before we encounter this opportunity again.

Greyhound says it may vacate historic terminal for another Cleveland location (gallery)

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on November 20, 2014 at 2:01 PM, updated November 20, 2014 at 2:33 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Greyhound says it is working with the city of Cleveland to move its downtown operations, which would leave the bus company's historic Art Deco terminal in the bustling neighborhood of Playhouse Square open for a new use.

 

"Developers are working with the city and, in turn, we are working with the city to find another location," Greyhound spokeswoman Lanesha Gipson said Wednesday.

 

"We are in the preliminary stages of the process so we don't have a specific date or relocation site selected as yet."

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/greyhound_says_it_may_vacate_h.html#incart_river

 

Probably the funnest .com comment section ever!!!

See pages 16-26. The boardings data for Cleveland doesn't include GCRTA boardings in the vicinity, including the Waterfront Line, the #39 Collinwood/Euclid bus or the 9/12 Trolley. If you add those in, the annual boarding data reaches to about 1 million (more than Akron-Canton Regional Airport):

 

PRESENTATION

http://freepdfhosting.com/2fa233f74a.pdf

^Nice presentation. But why not add that data into the presentation if it makes the numbers better?

 

Also--p. 8---a 'regional jet' is like CRJ or an embraer with 50 or so seats. A 140-seat 73G is not a 'regional jet'--saying so makes it sound smaller (even though you say the number of seats and equipment type.). 

^Nice presentation. But why not add that data into the presentation if it makes the numbers better?

 

Also--p. 8---a 'regional jet' is like CRJ or an embraer with 50 or so seats. A 140-seat 73G is not a 'regional jet'--saying so makes it sound smaller (even though you say the number of seats and equipment type.). 

 

Because the presentation is from last January and I didn't think to include the GCRTA data to the intercounty regional and intercity data until much later.

Here's an idea for an intermodal transportation center....

 

 

 

In order for Amtrak trains to access this site, this would require rebuilding the "Erie Connection" via the old Erie RR which NS owns, including regrading dumped fill dirt (possibly illegally dumped) next to the Farasey property on East 34th, realigning existing track and constructing new tracks roughly in the northeast quadrant of the I-77 and I-490 interchange. The rest of the 2.3-mile Erie Connection would have to be rebuilt to mainline standards with a possible passing siding built along it. The Erie Connection would rejoin the NS mainline (Cleveland Line) below Union Avenue. However this would also provide NS with a "lakefront bypass" route to ease traffic congestion on its lakefront tracks.

 

 

 

One more. This is a zoom of the above map show potential tracks necessary to link the Erie Connection to NS's former NKP mainline at East 34th....

 

Word is that the city and Greyhound have been negotiating on-and-off for several years on trading land. Greyhound would give the city its Chester Avenue terminal in exchange for a city-owned property which, until recently, was assumed to be at the east end of the Municipal Parking Lot. However at least some key city officials were not aware that, if Amtrak were to be part of this station, then the station could not be at the east end of muny parking. The reason is the placement of lakefront tracks used by various types of rail traffic which requires the Amtrak station to be somewhere between West 3rd and East 9th streets. It also should be along the north side of the tracks as an at-grade pedestrian crossing of tracks would keep costs, and it's safer for passengers to cross the two-tracked Waterfront Line on the north side vs the two-tracked Norfolk Southern mainline on the south side. Thankfully, however, the land trade works between West 3rd and East 9th, between the tracks and the Shoreway as ALL of that land is owned by the city.

 

Greyhound does not want to be in the current Amtrak station as it is too small and too hard to find or reach by car or bus. Besides, the Amtrak station is a dump. It needs to be razed. In fact, the entire area from the Amtrak station east to East 9th should be treated as a blank slate and start over. The site will also be more accessible via the new lakefront walkway, including from the City Hall parking deck. But I think a small parking lot on the sloped land should be considered (and can be made less sloping with some fill dirt) west of East 9th.

 

So this is my own concept for that area.....

 

^Always interested to see what your ideas are when thinking about the NCTC. But here are my concerns when anything is proposed for the area that Amtrak now occupies. I believe that one of the best views we have of NCH is looking down from the mall. It's bad enough that we have to look past RR tracks/highways, but by adding Greyhound we would now be looking at the tops of rows and rows of parked buses and cars. Since you have something of a 'voice' in these discussion please try and avoid adding more 'visable' vehicles to that area. Without adding a parking garage with a green roof I don't see how Greyhound would work there.  I am OK with keeping Greyhound separate from Amtrak and the land east of E9th would be my choice for them. And although I don't like it I can live with Amtrak where they are if a new contemporary station can be built closer to E9th with the small parking area that they need.

 

Also below is a photo of the preferred site for a parking garage that the city has identified through a study by Desmond Associates. How about that site as a possibility for either both Greyhound/Amtrak or just Greyhound alone. Spaces in the garage could be reserved for Greyhound/Amtrak cars and buses. If Amtrak was a part of it an enclosed walkway would bring passengers to the boarding area. This would clear up the area now occupied by Amtrak and provide a much better view from the mall and the banquet hall at the CC.

How about we just build this?

 

Edit: Has there ever been a discussion in a thread on this forum about what may have happened had the Burnham train station been built instead of the Union Terminal?

 

 

Freethink: love that idea. And am wondering if that parking garage site may ultimately come into play in the transportation center conversation.

 

TPH2: with an unlimited budget, that would be great! But right now we're just trying to get Amtrak, Greyhound, GCRTA and city officials into the same room together. That finally happened this week, but we haven't yet identified a political leader who's willing find a mere $15 million to $25 million for a facility that actually includes Amtrak. Until this week, the discussions were to do the absolute minimum -- spend a couple million dollars for a modular (ie: pre-fab) station at the east of the municipal parking lot. And Amtrak would do the absolute minimum to bring its station up to compliance with ADA.

 

So considering the various parties are only two days removed from their first joint discussions in the same room, we're a long way from achieving an intermodal station where all modes are under one roof.

Cleveland can learn from Anaheim, California which is opening on Dec. 6 the $185 million Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) seen under construction in September 2014.

 

Cleveland intermodal hub: “like an airport downtown”

December 4, 2014

 

A $185 million intermodal transportation center with the acronym ARTIC will unite bus and rail passengers for the first time Dec. 6 in this city of 341,000. No, it’s not Cleveland. It’s Anaheim, California. But it shows the excellence that can be achieved when multiple stakeholders with competing needs are brought together under the leadership of local and regional officials.

 

The similarities between Anaheim and Cleveland aren’t exact, but they aren’t as far apart as their 2,500-mile distance would first seem to indicate. Consider:

 

                                  ANAHEIM      CLEVELAND

City population:        341,0000            390,000

County population:  3.1 million        1.3 million

Visitors per year:      20 million          14 million

 

If the investment in the new Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center is scaled, a reasonable investment in a North Coast Transportation Center for Cleveland would be about $77 million based each county’s population, or $64 million based on each city’s annual visitors. Orange County is accessed by other significant transportation centers, the largest of which is the classically designed Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center. Cuyahoga County, which is seated in Cleveland, has other transportation centers too.

 

For now, no facility in Cleveland unites under one roof these services that operate into downtown: Akron Metro RTA, Amtrak, Greater Cleveland RTA, Greyhound, Laketran, Megabus, Portage Area RTA (Kent), and Stark Area RTA (Canton). Many Clevelanders do not know all of these services exists, which have multiple arrival and departures per day at different, uncoordinated locations downtown — let alone where all of those boarding locations are.

 

“All of these services stop at different sites downtown without a common point of transfer, let alone in a well-marked, climate-protected setting,” said Ken Prendergast, executive director of All Aboard Ohio. “If they were all routed via a downtown Cleveland intermodal hub, up to 1 million boardings per year would occur at that location based on their existing Cleveland boardings. That’s more than what occurs at the Akron-Canton Regional Airport. That’s enough to support spin-off retail, restaurants, rental car counters, car sharing and bike sharing services at the center. This would be like having an airport in downtown Cleveland.”

 

The existing downtown transit routes for Akron Metro, GCRTA, Laketran, PARTA, and SARTA would remain largely unchanged. Their downtown routes could add an identifiable curbside stop at an intermodal station.

 

Citing his experience from developing the Walsh Regional Transportation Center in Syracuse, NY, GCRTA CEO Joe Calabrese noted that boardings on all transportation modes grew 20 percent after the center opened in 1999. Cleveland’s 1 million boardings figure is based on the existing usage of transportation modes into downtown Cleveland and doesn’t reflect the likely increase in usage that would come from having a more convenient, attractive, simplified and identifiable place to connect between multiple modes of transportation.

 

“We are thankful that officials from the City of Cleveland, Amtrak, GCRTA, Greyhound and others have started joint discussions about an intermodal station,” Prendergast added. “It’s the only way an intermodal station can be achieved — by having all stakeholders work together. But funding remains a key unanswered question and that requires political leadership.”

 

Several transportation services have their own needs. Greyhound and the City of Cleveland are discussing a land swap to get Greyhound out of its Chester Avenue location to enable future real estate development near Playhouse Square and Cleveland State University. Amtrak is discussing with Cleveland the need to make improvements to its lakefront station to comply with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements.

 

However, Amtrak cannot relocate its station away from the lakefront tracks between West 3rd and East 9th streets because of the layout of specific tracks used by Amtrak and freight trains. Fortunately, all of the land between the tracks and the Shoreway highway is owned by the city, making a land swap with Greyhound possible here too — if there was the political will to find the money for an intermodal station befitting a city the size of Greater Cleveland.

 

END

 

I would suggest that you include Burke.

 

Having a general aviation airport terminal a couple hundred yards away??

 

I am sure somebody could give me a good reason, but why couldn't one of the LC carriers, Southwest, jetblue run a flight(s) out of burke?

 

or one of the legacies load up and connect to their hubs?

 

 

I would suggest that you include Burke.

 

Great idea! Find the political leader who will find the money.

Well, maybe it could be shuttle busses to Burke? Of course the whole thing depends on if any airline would want to do the flights.

St. Louis already built their intermodal center about 5-7 years ago (it's butt-ugly BTW). And it has a new tenant....

 

megabus.com @megabus  ·  25m 25 minutes ago

(1 of 2): Attention St. Louis customers! As of Dec. 3 all services take place from the Gateway Multimodal Transportation Center

(2 of 3) located at 430 South 15th Street. This means a temperate-controlled waiting room, restrooms, paid parking options,

(3 of 3) additional local transit connections and light food/snack options. We hope you enjoy the new digs!

I would suggest that you include Burke.

 

Great idea! Find the political leader who will find the money.

 

you misunderstand.

 

I am suggesting that you include in your pictures/diagrams/massings/plans the fact that there is a fully functional airport in walking distance of this intermodal center you envision.  It is capable of handling most if not all of the aircraft types that flow through hopkins.

 

Even without any additional money or political buy in...it is 1 more chance for an aha moment when you are making your points.

 

I am not going to find anything for anybody...but the people who see it might SEE IT if it is there.

 

From the terminal building to the existing amtrack station is .593 miles using Google pedometer maps it is closer in most of the plans I have seen .  The airport is just off the page/frame/map of almost every image I have ever seen regarding this NC Harbor IM center proposal.  Bring the airport into the picture.

 

I had a second idea/suggestion/question as to why none of the commercial airlines use Burke currently. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Has there ever been a discussion in a thread on this forum about what may have happened had the Burnham train station been built instead of the Union Terminal?

I think we discussed it in the CUT history thread a few years ago till we all got yelled at for going off topic but my memory isn't great so it may have had its own thread.

I am suggesting that you include in your pictures/diagrams/massings/plans the fact that there is a fully functional airport in walking distance of this intermodal center you envision.

 

The main reason why I don't show it is because showing a larger map area means reducing the size of the station as presented on the diagram and thus the amount of detail I can show for the station itself. An inset or a second diagram showing the approximate location of the station development area with regards to other traffic generators nearby would be worth doing. Thanks.

 

However.... Let's not kid ourselves. The airlines aren't coming back to Burke. If there was a capacity issue at Hopkins, maybe it would be a future option of consideration in an alternatives analysis on how best to expand's Hopkins' capacity. But that study won't happen in decades, if ever.

 

Second, airport stations with infrequent rail service are little more than sexy things for a convention & visitors bureau to brag about. Only airports linked to high-frequency rail corridors like Newark (served by 200 trains per day), BWI (100 trains per day), Burbank (40 trains per day) generate a few hundred connecting riders each. Even most urban rail services to airports, including Hopkins, produce very small ridership and most of those are airport workers. Airport rail stations are sexy but they often aren't worth their value as airport connections. Instead, most get the bulk of their their ridership as suburban collector station like the Amtrak stations at Mitchell Airport in south-suburban Milwaukee or BWI in south-suburban Baltimore.

 

 

^ There it is. That's much much more along the lines of what should be connecting downtown to the lakefront.

Second, airport stations with infrequent rail service are little more than sexy things for a convention & visitors bureau to brag about. Only airports linked to high-frequency rail corridors like Newark (served by 200 trains per day), BWI (100 trains per day), Burbank (40 trains per day) generate a few hundred connecting riders each. Even most urban rail services to airports, including Hopkins, produce ver small ridership and most of those are airport workers. Airport rail stations are sexy but they often aren't worth their value as airport connections. Instead, most get the bulk of their their ridership as suburban collector station like the Amtrak stations at Mitchell Airport in south-suburban Milwaukee or BWI in south-suburban Baltimore.

 

That may be true right now, but I'm not convinced that that will be true in the long run.  I think we will eventually find that flying between close city pairs will be unprofitable for the airlines (prohibitively expensive).  As a result, having the Midwest Hub rail plan in place with connections to the airports might be more necessary and profitable.  What if Cincinnati's middle-of-nowhere airport were connected by rail to Cincinnati (and Dayton), Lexington and Louisville?  High speed rail from Cleveland to Akron, Youngstown, maybe even Pitt -- expands transit options and increases potential airport customers within an hour's travel.

 

There's no money for any of that to happen any time soon, but I'm optimistic that we should be planning for that future.

Second, airport stations with infrequent rail service are little more than sexy things for a convention & visitors bureau to brag about. Only airports linked to high-frequency rail corridors like Newark (served by 200 trains per day), BWI (100 trains per day), Burbank (40 trains per day) generate a few hundred connecting riders each. Even most urban rail services to airports, including Hopkins, produce ver small ridership and most of those are airport workers. Airport rail stations are sexy but they often aren't worth their value as airport connections. Instead, most get the bulk of their their ridership as suburban collector station like the Amtrak stations at Mitchell Airport in south-suburban Milwaukee or BWI in south-suburban Baltimore.

 

That may be true right now, but I'm not convinced that that will be true in the long run.  I think we will eventually find that flying between close city pairs will be unprofitable for the airlines (prohibitively expensive).  As a result, having the Midwest Hub rail plan in place with connections to the airports might be more necessary and profitable.  What if Cincinnati's middle-of-nowhere airport were connected by rail to Cincinnati (and Dayton), Lexington and Louisville?  High speed rail from Cleveland to Akron, Youngstown, maybe even Pitt -- expands transit options and increases potential airport customers within an hour's travel.

 

There's no money for any of that to happen any time soon, but I'm optimistic that we should be planning for that future.

 

Perhaps, but what does that have to do with Burke?

The tracks used by Amtrak are across SR237 from Hopkins International Airport's former long-term parking deck. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any international airports in North America that have their main passenger terminal that's close to tracks used by existing intercity passenger rail services. And all future services to Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, etc. were proposed to have a station there.

KJP, given the extreme freight bottleneck and choke point at that lakefront rail junction a few miles east of North Coast Harbor, that has caused routinely horrifically late Amtrak service (including 2 early morning westbound Capitol Limiteds into Cleveland), is there any serious discussion of rerouting east-west freight runs to the Belt Line to the south along Brookpark Road?  I would hope there would be given the recent complaints about these routinely late Amtrak runs that, IIRC, has been highlighted at the Federal level.  Getting these noisy, rumbling freights off the lakefront, of course, would have a positive impact on Downtown and the Lakeshore development-wise, while also making the NCTC more viable I would think. 

 

Cleveland's "hub" status for Amtrak doesn't seem feasible with current freight congestion through the North Coast Harbor which, in turn, would not bode well for NCTC's prospects, no? 

I removed some off topic posts. 

 

Carry on.