The intermodal hub could be for Amtrak, Greyhound and GCRTA. But it may not be as elaborate or in the proper location as we might want. And I'm not even talking Cleveland Union Terminal -- an option that has been considered is to relocate Greyhound and possible Amtrak to the far east end of the Municipal Parking Lot which may as well as be in Siberia. The approximate location is here: http://tinyurl.com/qc67ynb But that may have changed, so I am eager to learn if this is still the location or not.

 

There are also several other important items on GCRTA's board agenda, including station reconstructions at East 34th and East 79th. The agenda appears below......

 

http://www.riderta.com/news/feb-3-committee-meeting-agenda-set

 

Feb. 3, 2015: Agenda sent for RTA Board Committee Meeting

 

CLEVELAND -- The Board of Trustees of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) meet at 9 a.m., Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2015, in the George F. Dixon III Board Room, 1240 W. Sixth St. The agenda items are:

 

Planning and Development Committee

 

Update on Public Square re-design

Discuss East 34th / East 79th Street Rapid Transit Alternatives Study

Discuss interagency agreement with CIty of Cleveland for a feasibility study for an Intermodal Facility

Quarterly update on the Environmental Sustainability Management System

Operations Committee

 

Discuss March 1 service change

Finance Committee

 

Discuss debt issuance for capital program

Discuss five-year extension of agreement and assessment with Downtown Cleveland Improvement District

 

Progress! Let's make it happen, Cleveland!

 

Intermodal transit hub in Cleveland on radar of GCRTA, city, Amtrak, Greyhound

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on February 02, 2015 at 10:00 AM, updated February 02, 2015 at 11:22 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A long-held dream to build an intermodal transportation center that would be a hub for local buses and rapid transit, Amtrak trains and Greyhound service is inching closer to reality.

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority and the city of Cleveland are preparing to strike an agreement for a joint study of whether rail and bus operations could be united under one roof in a transit center near Lake Erie.

 

RTA's Planning and Development Committee will take up the issue at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the agency's headquarters at 1240 West Sixth Street in Cleveland.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/intermodal_transit_hub_in_clev.html

an option that has been considered is to relocate Greyhound and possible Amtrak to the far east end of the Municipal Parking Lot which may as well as be in Siberia

 

That is very similar to what was said in the cleveland.com article.  He must be a lurker on here.... :wink:

an option that has been considered is to relocate Greyhound and possible Amtrak to the far east end of the Municipal Parking Lot which may as well as be in Siberia

 

That is very similar to what was said in the cleveland.com article.  He must be a lurker on here.... :wink:

 

Nah, just a broken record.

Cleveland @GCRTA to OK interagency deal w/ city Feb. 17, seek @NOACA_MPO $$ for intermodal station feasibility study.

 

EDIT: more info.... GCRTA to submit to NOACA by Feb. 6 a grant request for $120,000 in planning funds, requires a 20% local match ($30,000). GCRTA and City of Cleveland to each contribute $15,000.

 

EDIT2: here's a better image:

 

Followup article.....

 

Intermodal transportation hub site at west end of Muni Lot to be studied

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/intermodal_transportation_hub.html#incart_river

*cough*

 

:)

 

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

This is my own concept of what an intermodal hub at the west end of the Muny Parking lot could look like. It needs some tweaking as I wasn't happy how some features fell into place. One that I don't like is having a combined taxi/transit bus stand which could get very crowded during rush hours. Perhaps the taxi stand could be at the South Marginal side of the free, 30-minute parking spaces. And I'm also concerned about having Amtrak baggage trailers pulled across South Marginal Road from the station to the trackside platform....

 

Will Amtrak be providing better service in and out of Cleveland in the near future that does not consist of trains coming in and out soley in the middle of the night?  The way it stands now, RTA and cabs would have to service this station throughout the overnight hours to really make this intermodal.  If they do not plan on providing better service at dayime hours with increased trains, then I don't see them as a variable in the equation.  Hence, other sites such as Tower City's parking lot could be considered.  I think this concept of joining bus service from other parts of the metro with Cleveland's Rail, bus and taxi service is great, but if Amtrak isn't going to step it up, then lets not push this on the extremities of downtown to appease them.  Their station as it stands right now is driving the planning, and they probably have the elast amount of daily riders out of all parties that would be leasing the facility. 

Will Amtrak be providing better service in and out of Cleveland in the near future that does not consist of trains coming in and out soley in the middle of the night?  The way it stands now, RTA and cabs would have to service this station throughout the overnight hours to really make this intermodal.  If they do not plan on providing better service at dayime hours with increased trains, then I don't see them as a variable in the equation.  Hence, other sites such as Tower City's parking lot could be considered.  I think this concept of joining bus service from other parts of the metro with Cleveland's Rail, bus and taxi service is great, but if Amtrak isn't going to step it up, then lets not push this on the extremities of downtown to appease them.  Their station as it stands right now is driving the planning, and they probably have the elast amount of daily riders out of all parties that would be leasing the facility. 

 

Perhaps someone else might have concrete information, but my thought on the subject is that if we are going to be investing millions in such a project, we might as well locate it where all forms of transportation can access it. Amtrak's ridership has been on a steady increase, and I'd say that it's likely that some time in the future we will see increased intercity train travel in Cleveland. I think it'd be a little short sighted to cut Amtrak out of it because of their current service levels.

In most instances, and because Amtrak doesn't use publicly owned/open-access tracks, Amtrak doesn't add train service except when others (regions, states, compacts of states, etc) purchase it to offset the higher costs of using private rights of way. We have created a Northern Ohio Rail Alliance to hopefully undertake this purchase of service.

 

Amtrak is very interested in providing more service here. Amtrak has been willing to make the largest financial contribution to build an intermodal station than any of the other transportation services (GCRTA, Greyhound, Megabus, etc).

 

However, even with the middle of the night service, Amtrak sees a decent amount of boardings in Cleveland -- enough that a half-dozen or so taxis wait at the Amtrak station at train times. An average of about 40 people get on and 40 people get off each of the four nightly trains at Cleveland. Those four trains carry the equivalent of 20 sold-out double-deck buses each day, although most riders are passing through Cleveland. The station is a din of activity between 1 a.m. - 6 a.m.

 

No property at or near Tower City Center is city-owned, and thus the city's property swap with Greyhound is not possible.

I'm new to this site and so apologize if this has been addressed. But can someone briefly explain why the existing rail infrastructure at Tower City is not part of the discussion for future Amtrak use, and as part of an intermodal development? As a prior post mentions, there is also the huge parking area behind Tower City that is on the same level as the tracks, which could be used for either trains (that would then not need to be inside) or buses. I assume there is a reason not to do this, but it seems an incredible shame that Cleveland has a wonderful, historic, significant downtown train station that we are about to abandon in favor of something far less grand, not connected to the walkable downtown and does not take advantage of existing hotels, retail, etc. Again, I know there must be an answer, and I'd appreciate a quick tutorial. Thanks

My question was posting just as the preceding answer was positing. That seems to be a partial answer to me. I get the property swap point, but swaps can be 3-way, not just one for one. Again, thanks for the insight.

I'm new to this site and so apologize if this has been addressed. But can someone briefly explain why the existing rail infrastructure at Tower City is not part of the discussion for future Amtrak use, and as part of an intermodal development? As a prior post mentions, there is also the huge parking area behind Tower City that is on the same level as the tracks, which could be used for either trains (that would then not need to be inside) or buses. I assume there is a reason not to do this, but it seems an incredible shame that Cleveland has a wonderful, historic, significant downtown train station that we are about to abandon in favor of something far less grand, not connected to the walkable downtown and does not take advantage of existing hotels, retail, etc. Again, I know there must be an answer, and I'd appreciate a quick tutorial. Thanks

 

Welcome cambsprings! Te cost of restoring Amtrak service to Tower City Center is prohibitive. The last study of this was done in 1996 and it estimated a capital construction cost for tracks, station facilities, and support facilities at $125 million.

 

That cost will be higher today because a track bridge has to be built above Canal Road around the Stokes federal courthouse tower west of the station, and a GCRTA electrical substation on the east side of the station has to be moved.

 

The $125 million estimate also did not include any intercity bus facilities.

Thanks. It does always come down to the cost.

BTW, I really do understand gotribe's comment about nighttime trains. A lot of people won't get on/off trains in the middle of the night. But you'd be surprised at how many people do. Those who aren't night people will probably never see the Cleveland Amtrak station at night. So allow me to show you....

 

 

 

This is the Chicago to New York/Boston train which departs Cleveland shortly before dawn. Thanks to Photoshop, looks brighter than it really was (even in July!)...

The biggest drawback to this site in my mind is the horrible pedestrian access.  I guess RTA access would be OK with both the WFL and (hopefully) free trolly service.  Always seems like such a bummer that an inter-city bus/rail station has to be tucked away, but I understand the limitations.

The West side of E9th would be a much better location for the transit center, in my opinion, and I'm not sure why they aren't looking more seriously at that location.  You would have an opportunity to build a sizable parking garage with a ground floor transit center with connections to downtown via E9th or the new pedestrian bridge (if they could find a way to build an access ramp to it. 

Greyhound has an unfortunate tendency of providing stations that are more accessible to its buses than by its passengers. It was Greyhound that suggested a station at the east end of the Muny parking lot -- which prompted my "Siberia" comment. Amtrak forced consideration of the west end of the Muny lot because its two lines through Cleveland split to Buffalo and Pittsburgh immediately east of the site.

 

I have not heard any recent discussion from the city about building a parking garage to the west of East 9th Street -- which is a far superior station location for passenger access. GCRTA and the city said that site is too expensive, unfortunately. Building a station there will be much more expensive -- easily a $50 million project which is far more than anyone wants to spend.

 

The expanded overhead walkway I have in my conceptual graphic I posted earlier, as well as completing the North Coast Station walkway under East 9th would help address the pedestrian-access shortcomings of the consensus site. But those are expensive items and I'm not convinced they will appear in what will likely be a modular, pre-fab, bargain-basement intermodal station bolted to a slab plopped next to the North Point Parking Garage.

 

EDIT: here's 10 streetviews of the proposed site from east to west along South Marginal Road...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The walkway under East 9th from the North Coast Waterfront Line station to a sidewalk access point on the east side of East 9th was to be on the "shelf" above the abutment next to South Marginal Road...

 

The unfinished walkway under East 9th is very apparent here...

Thanks for the information and photo's KJP!  That is great to hear that Amtrak is willing to make the largest contribution toward intermodal.  Shows they really do see potential ROI. 

 

I must say in my travels, regions/cities that do have intermodal service are so much easier to navigate, and so much less intimidating then ones that don't.  The facility for me tends to become "home base", for lack of a better word, during my trip.  I start an end all of my tasks and meetings at the facility jsut becasuse it's so easy to move about town from there whether it be cab, car, train or bus.  I would really like to see a car rental terminal take over a portion of the muni lot also if this were to come to fruition. 

I'm really glad that the NCTC is still alive and gaining momentum.  I am not, however, wild about the proposed location -- it's away from downtown; at its far-most edge.  I know it was $50M, but building at the current Amtrak station site is the most ideal (aside, of course, from Tower City ... but we know that ain't happenin').  The current Amtrak site is right btw North Course Harbor and the Convention Center - ideal to the downtown/lakefront growth area  ... but I guess the overriding priority was building a pretty foot bridge and not transit... I'm just frustrated that, once again, a major game-changing rail transit facility is negatively impacted because of money concerns.  No, this is not as damaging as the scuttling of the Dual-Hub subway/rail line, but once again in this town, transit is the stepchild of projects constantly downgraded by financial concerns... There never seems to be an issue when it comes to roads... Nobody batted an eye with the Opportunity Corridor's $350M ... the current gov said: we'll even raise turnpike tolls to pay for it, and not an eyelash was batted... But transit continues to scrimp. 

^ To sum up your sentiment: $25 million for a pedestrian bridge, but only $10 million for a transportation center for a million+ people annually.

Probably why they are studying the site on East side of 9th St, so nobody would do that math.

Not to get too cynical about the bridge and nctc being separated, who would end up being the primary users of the bridge if they were combined?  It would certainly get a lot of use 24hrs a day.

 

I also don't think the bridge would cost as much if it is using the nctc as the main point of support. I think that probably is where things got messy with mixing two pots of funds. Plus the need to send out a new ped bridge specification including an undesigned hub.

Probably why they are studying the site on East side of 9th St, so nobody would do that math.

Not to get too cynical about the bridge and nctc being separated, who would end up being the primary users of the bridge if they were combined?  It would certainly get a lot of use 24hrs a day.

 

I also don't think the bridge would cost as much if it is using the nctc as the main point of support. I think that probably is where things got messy with mixing two pots of funds. Plus the need to send out a new ped bridge specification including an undesigned hub.

 

Imagine that. Local leadership pursuing a project without considering bigger picture implications and possibilities.

^ To sum up your sentiment: $25 million for a pedestrian bridge, but only $10 million for a transportation center for a million+ people annually.

 

A transportation center will cost more than $10 million. My estimate was low.

 

And I think the project stakeholders can be convinced to support an inexpensive station site on the west side of East 9th. Maybe something like this.....

 

And I think the project stakeholders can be convinced to support an inexpensive station site on the west side of East 9th. Maybe something like this.....

 

What would it take? From an outsiders view, it looks like the city/county is determined to get their pedestrian bridge without the view being sullied by this station (or it's visitors).

I'm new to this site and so apologize if this has been addressed. But can someone briefly explain why the existing rail infrastructure at Tower City is not part of the discussion for future Amtrak use, and as part of an intermodal development? As a prior post mentions, there is also the huge parking area behind Tower City that is on the same level as the tracks, which could be used for either trains (that would then not need to be inside) or buses. I assume there is a reason not to do this, but it seems an incredible shame that Cleveland has a wonderful, historic, significant downtown train station that we are about to abandon in favor of something far less grand, not connected to the walkable downtown and does not take advantage of existing hotels, retail, etc. Again, I know there must be an answer, and I'd appreciate a quick tutorial. Thanks

 

Welcome cambsprings! Te cost of restoring Amtrak service to Tower City Center is prohibitive. The last study of this was done in 1996 and it estimated a capital construction cost for tracks, station facilities, and support facilities at $125 million.

 

That cost will be higher today because a track bridge has to be built above Canal Road around the Stokes federal courthouse tower west of the station, and a GCRTA electrical substation on the east side of the station has to be moved.

 

The $125 million estimate also did not include any intercity bus facilities.

 

It's a shame that access connections for Amtrak were not maintained over the course of the various renovations of the Tower City complex over the past 20-30 years.  The Tower City connection clearly has the most transformational potential.  Did the previous studies include any of the following alternatives:

 

Amtrak renovating or retrofitting  the excess track space on the Red line bridge that they are currently considering for a walking-bike trail?

Amtrak taking over the Red line bridge and re-routing The Red line down West 25th and into Tower City via the old streetcar right-of-way access on the lower level of the Detroit Superior bridge? 

 

Could either of these options trigger more funding if they were tied into redevelopment of the north end of Ohio City (west 25th, Detroit road, and a restored Franklin Circle) which has seen a lot of interest over the past couple of years?

 

Thanks in advance for your input!

 

I'd be more enthused about this site if it offered a clear cut advantage over the current site of the Amtrak station. It doesn't seem to.

 

It's a shame that access connections for Amtrak were not maintained over the course of the various renovations of the Tower City complex over the past 20-30 years.  The Tower City connection clearly has the most transformational potential.  Did the previous studies include any of the following alternatives:

 

Amtrak renovating or retrofitting  the excess track space on the Red line bridge that they are currently considering for a walking-bike trail?

Amtrak taking over the Red line bridge and re-routing The Red line down West 25th and into Tower City via the old streetcar right-of-way access on the lower level of the Detroit Superior bridge? 

 

Could either of these options trigger more funding if they were tied into redevelopment of the north end of Ohio City (west 25th, Detroit road, and a restored Franklin Circle) which has seen a lot of interest over the past couple of years?

 

Thanks in advance for your input!

 

 

Responded to your question here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,11674.msg743425.html#msg743425

I know most here believe the preferred site for the NCTC is the current Amtrak location.  I would agree if this were a 100 million dollar project. A state of the art facility. One with a huge glass canopy that covered the whole site that trains would enter and allow passengers to board in a climate controlled envirement. A large concourse with retail and traveler services. A concealed parking garage with easy access from E 9th. But what we will get is a Stephanie Tubbs Jones Trans. Ctr. duplicate. So I am OK with the site at the Muni parking lot. The STJT ctr. cost 9.6 million, so add another 3 to 4 mil to accomadate for rail and it being 5 yrs later and we are probably looking at a 12 mil dollar project, just my guess.  As I have pointed out before the last thing I want as I look out from the mall is to see a large surface parking lot, with buses idleing at all times and a small mediocre building.  I think that site deserves better. The location I wish would be considered is the location next to Willard Park garage as I illustrated back on page 11.

So I was thinking if it is built at the Muni lot what a great opportunity to clear out the old Amtrak station and all of that concrete and create a city park/event space until something more worthy of that site can be built. It has direct access from E9th and Browns stadium. It certainly looks better than what is there now. Something like what I have done below.

 

Nice graphic! Very attractive looking park.

 

But I think the city wants to develop that strip of property with something be it a transportation center or perhaps something more vertical and mixed use. Don't forget that there's a high-capacity sewage lifting station between the current Amtrak station and the tracks. It was put there to lift sanitary sewer flow up into downtown pipes from the sanitary lines that came out of the old Municipal Stadium and continue to do so with First Energy Stadium. It is very high-capacity considering it must have the capacity of handling flow from up to 80,000 municipal stadium fans. But 355 days out of the year, and then usually only on Sundays, it is vastly under-utilized. I believe Progressive Insurance's 60-story office tower it proposed circa 1990 would have used this lifting station. So could a future development. In fact, a major expense of the Flats East Bank development was the construction of a similar lifting station.

 

So between the potentially cheap city-owned land, the proximity of pedestrian and transit access, the proximity of the lakefront and the availability of a lifting station, this property probably won't stay undeveloped for a long time.

 

BTW, the cost of an intermodal station will probably be closer to $25 million. So take your $12 million figure and double it.

^I don't see anything with height going there. Litt always talks about 'the integrity of the view' to the lakefront. So anything more than 2/3 stories I don't think will work. It's a very odd site. Too noisy for residential, too isolated for retail. Office maybe. A state of the art transportation center would be great, a crappy one...let's hope not. My biggest concern is when Amtrak vacates it would remain empty and not maintained for ten years until something comes along. It's such a visible site that a city park/garden could be considered in the meantime. Maybe something like the gardens that used to be behind the old stadium. Donald Gray gardens I think it was called.

That overhead view reminds me of the time KJP and I visited the then-new E 9th St RTA station. We parked at the Amtrak station and logically tried to walk down the platform and then into the RTA station but were stopped by a policeman, who told us to backtrack to the Amtrak parking lot, go up the ramp to 9th St and then back thru the RTA station and back to the platform.

 

That overhead view reminds me of the time KJP and I visited the then-new E 9th St RTA station. We parked at the Amtrak station and logically tried to walk down the platform and then into the RTA station but were stopped by a policeman, who told us to backtrack to the Amtrak parking lot, go up the ramp to 9th St and then back thru the RTA station and back to the platform.

 

 

Yep, talk about being anti-intermodal! I gave a media member a tour of the area yesterday. We rode the Waterfront Line to the Amtrak station walkway (you have to tell the train operator in advance that you're getting off there), inspected the luxurious Amtrak station (OK, major overstatement there!) and we went out to catch a Waterfront Line train heading back. John, the Amtrak ticket agent said Waterfront Line trains heading to Tower City don't always stop for passengers waiting at the Amtrak walkway. So we walked through the Amtrak station parking lot and out onto South Marginal Road where I expected we would have to climb over piles of snow and possibly a fence to get to the North Coast (East 9th) station.

 

To my pleasant surprise there is a walkway there, and it was cleared of snow and salted! And since you can pay (or show them your day pass) when you get on the train, no turnstile jumping/bypassing was needed!

By the way, I can see no real advantage for relocating to the W Muni lot. In fact, it looks a little constrained as far as the tracks are concerned. I'd rather have the station stay where it is and develop the air rights over it with an extension of the Medical Mart, retail and ticketing above and retail at the Mall C street level. Above that could be a mix of offices and residential space. That could be a very desirable address if there are ever any intercity day trains.

Even without the day trains, this is what we have fanning out from downtown Cleveland -- yet has no easily identifiable (let alone climate protected) single point of transfer between these modes (these are displayed an All Aboard Ohio info kiosk at the Amtrak station)....

 

 

 

 

By the way, I can see no real advantage for relocating to the W Muni lot. In fact, it looks a little constrained as far as the tracks are concerned. I'd rather have the station stay where it is and develop the air rights over it with an extension of the Medical Mart, retail and ticketing above and retail at the Mall C street level. Above that could be a mix of offices and residential space. That could be a very desirable address if there are ever any intercity day trains.

 

This is a great idea... Like I said earlier, it's such a no-brainer that with 2 rail transit/transportation stations literally adjacent to the expanded Convention Center and across the Shoreway from NC Harbor and he R&RHOF, there would have been an effort by planners to integrate these facilities.  It's frustrating that a $50M or so pricetag stopped further consideration of the Amtrak station site.  Such a wasted opportunity.

Thanks for sharing that KJP!  I was unaware that Laketran,Sarta and Parta all had termination points in the city. As a Medina County resident, I have always hoped our transit, or RTA, would provide service to Cleveland.  Only seems as though it would make sense.  What does make sense is a central station downtown.  Obviously Tower City makes a ton of sense, but we miss out on the Amtrak connection there.  I wonder, with the new pedestrian bridge, if it would be that big of a deal to walk from Amtrak to PS?

Thanks for sharing that KJP!  I was unaware that Laketran,Sarta and Parta all had termination points in the city. As a Medina County resident, I have always hoped our transit, or RTA, would provide service to Cleveland.  Only seems as though it would make sense.  What does make sense is a central station downtown.  Obviously Tower City makes a ton of sense, but we miss out on the Amtrak connection there.  I wonder, with the new pedestrian bridge, if it would be that big of a deal to walk from Amtrak to PS?

 

The pedestrian bridge will have provisions to add a mid-bridge stairwell/elevator to ground level, but no stairwell/elevator is funded at this time. Even if it was, a passageway through the convention center/medical mart would protect pedestrians from the weather. Even with that, the Waterfront Line is the best way to get to Public Square. If a multimodal station is built on the lakefront, I hope the Waterfront Line will run 24 hours (EDIT: with the loud crossing bells at Main Avenue and St. Clair in Flats silenced or at least replaced with quieter ones!).

^Glad at least someone touts the WFL as the BEST connection between the convention center and TC/Public Sq (even better with the interim coming FEB attractions along the way)...

 

Aloft guests frequently beeatch about the noise of those RTA grade protection bells (which sound recorded, actually) at W. 10-Main Ave.  The problem with quieting them is that they may not be audible amidst  so much area noise with the frequent NS trains, Cuyahoga ships, as well as that of the Shoreway traffic on the MAB viaduct above.

Elaborating a bit, if we stay at the present location:

 

Track level, south to north:

 

Retaining wall

NS track - freight

NS track - freight, overflow passenger

platform

Reinstall old Conrail/CSX track

Present CSX/Amtrak track

platform

Track 44

Platform

RTA track

RTA track

platform

 

Medical Mart level - stairs, escalators, elevators to tracks - Amtrak, RTA ticketing, intermodal terminal level, etc - connections to underground walkways throughout downtown. question: does this allow clearance? If not we go up one level.

 

Mall C - street level - Mezzanine level - retail/restaurants/etc - open in middle to level below - walkways to stadium, etc - glass atrium above

 

Office and residential towers above

 

 

                                                                      Tower above

 

__________________________________ Mezzanine/Mall C street level________________________walkway to stadium___________

 

__________________________________ Medical Mart/Amtrak ticketing/intermodal terminal level      ________________ Shoreway

 

__________________________________ Track level

 

 

 

 

What's interesting is that if you put a platform between the northernmost NS mainline track and a restored second track south of the Amtrak track, that would be a low-level platform for the NS track and high-level platform for the Amtrak track, due to the elevation differences between the two sets of tracks at this location.

 

BTW, the current Amtrak track is actually owned and dispatched by NS -- CSX has no property ownership west of East 9th and its dispatching responsibilities from the east end at CP181 where the Amtrak connection from the NS Cleveland Line from Pittsburgh comes in. NS track charts show the Amtrak track as an NS siding from the drawbridge east to where it switches back on the NS main at roughly East 20th Street.

This would give us at least three thru station tracks and the northernmost NS track for overflow, if needed. I don't think that's possible at the W Muni lot location. What I'd like at the W Muni/E Muni lots would be an Urban Village, with buildings about 4-5 stories max, focused around the RTA stop there. The whole area could become very walkable.

 

Just wanted to share an idea for the intermodal station. Moreso what a site plan could look like if the current Amtrak location was used. Up thread I talked about a station with a large glass canopy that would protect passengers from the elements. A parking garage with a green roof that would keep cars and buses out of view. A large open concourse with room for various kiosks and ticketing stations. Below is what I came up with. I haven't worked out all the nuts and bolts but mostly it is a contemporary look with a lot of 'green' components. The garage at the east end of the site is a 3 story structure with the entrance on Marginal. The four large circles on the north side of the canopy represent the concourse floor and enclosed waiting area. This site plan leaves the area west of the pedestrian bridge open with respect of the view from the mall.

btw if anyone else is terrified of the fact that RTA is taking the lead on this project and you should be, just Google ' walsh transportation center syracuse ' and witness the last intermodal station that Joe C.  ok'd... not good...

just Google ' walsh transportation center syracuse ' and witness the last intermodal station that Joe C.  ok'd... not good...

 

Sh*t.

Hey KJP...have you ever done drawings of the area with vertical dimensions? Would like to know if the convention center level could be extended over the tracks. What are clearances like?

btw if anyone else is terrified of the fact that RTA is taking the lead on this project and you should be, just Google ' walsh transportation center syracuse ' and witness the last intermodal station that Joe C.  ok'd... not good...

 

I'm familiar with it and I doubt we'll get something that extravagant. I think Joe did a good job with that project and it shows in the increased passenger boardings which followed the opening of Walsh TC. The reason why Syracuse was able to do more than what we'll be able to do in Cleveland was because NYSDOT provided and still provides much more funding for public transportation than does Ohio, and federal money for projects of this scale are harder to come by since the 1990s. I'm not sure what you guys are expecting, but I doubt a lakefront multimodal hub will be even as architecturally substantial as the STJ transit center on Prospect.

 

 

Hey KJP...have you ever done drawings of the area with vertical dimensions? Would like to know if the convention center level could be extended over the tracks. What are clearances like?

 

The CC ballroom level could extend out over the tracks, but that's a budget buster. You're talking a $150 million project, easily. What may get built, assuming they can even find as much as $25 million for it, is going to be a bare-bones project.

 

This project would unite multiple modes in one location and give waiting people a warm climate-protected place to wait for their buses and trains. No architecture. No frills. Just a common point of transfer. That's all.

btw if anyone else is terrified of the fact that RTA is taking the lead on this project and you should be, just Google ' walsh transportation center syracuse ' and witness the last intermodal station that Joe C.  ok'd... not good...

 

Strange. You would think that he would model the station after a giant Bus.

This project would unite multiple modes in one location and give waiting people a warm climate-protected place to wait for their buses and trains. No architecture. No frills. Just a common point of transfer. That's all.

 

That's a sobering assessment KJP.  Given your thoughts on this will the multimodal transit hub at least be more interesting than the current Amtrak station?  I view that current station as just a climate controlled waiting room and nothing more...just as you described...and that seems to be your assessment of the multimodal center given the funding level proposed.  If so I think a real opportunity is missed to create a unique gateway to the city, even if that means finding more money for this project.