In Phase 2, will Amtrak's stations maintain the 1 track/1 platform arrangement, or will there be 2 tracks, either from a center island platform or 2 side platforms?  Obviously the latter would be more desireable.

Probably for a phase 3. There was hope of going after a TIGER grant but those will be done away with in the new multiyear surface transportation law. They were too desirable (applications exceeded program amounts 18-fold) so Congress got rid of them. So we'll have to figure out a new source of funding.

One more top city official has to sign off on the plans, then they can be released publicly. Should only be a week or less...

 

Any updates on this?

Any updates on this?

 

I keep bugging the consultants to release a few graphics but they're not ready to yet. Not sure what the hold up is, since the top city official I spoke of earlier liked the plans. I suspect it has to do with the estimated cost which came in much higher than what they had anticipated. They're probably going to be doing some value engineering....

Probably for a phase 3. There was hope of going after a TIGER grant but those will be done away with in the new multiyear surface transportation law. They were too desirable (applications exceeded program amounts 18-fold) so Congress got rid of them. So we'll have to figure out a new source of funding.

 

Would a P3 be a possibility?

^ agreed. That's an option that should be pursued more often when applicable, with this being a perfect opportunity.

I keep bugging the consultants to release a few graphics but they're not ready to yet. Not sure what the hold up is, since the top city official I spoke of earlier liked the plans. I suspect it has to do with the estimated cost which came in much higher than what they had anticipated. They're probably going to be doing some value engineering....

 

That's too bad. They should release the plans as-is to get public reaction. Either the reaction is positive and they can try to fund the better plan or they look fiscally responsible when the value engineered plans come out.

There may be a developer interested in this site who suggested building atop part of the transportation center, next to the new pedestrian bridge. But it was only a suggestion made at one of the meetings I attended and I don't know if anything more has happened since.

I am posting this at the risk of some backlash because I want the community to want this -- now. The city, while liking this costly station project, may not be willing to postpone a major development by Geis at the Greyhound station site so they can build the multi-modal hub first and get Greyhound out of the way of the Playhouse Square-north development. The city's RFP for the parking lot at Chester/East 13th was put on ice and will probably be withdrawn or repackaged to include the Greyhound site. But that won't happen until city acquires the property through a trade as part of relocating Greyhound to a lakefront mulit-modal transportation center. However, Geis was so eager to move forward ASAP on the Greyhound site that the city may be pressured to build a pre-fab station on the muny parking lot to get Greyhound out of the way now. That could indefinitely delay the full intermodal hub, which is likely a $75 million to $100 million project when all three phases are counted (#1 Greyhound station, #2 new Amtrak station added, #3 more Amtrak station tracks/platforms) plus a mixed-use mid-rise building could be built above the old/new Amtrak station. The city loves the intermodal hub concept (and keep in mind it is only a concept at this point), but it also loves Geis' Greyhound station site plan too. And it probably values the Geis development more.

 

I share these because I want you to be excited for this concept and to urge the mayor's office to embrace it rather than shuffle the Greyhound station off into a windswept, isolated corner of the muny parking lot where Amtrak or the Waterfront Line or pedestrian access to/from downtown can't be a part of it...

 

Here's an orientation graphic to show how the uses would be placed. Disregard the new elevated roadway over the tracks. That's no longer part of the conceptual plan....

 

All three phases shown. More detailed track-level/South Marginal Roadway-level layout including redesigning the existing South Marginal traffic circle into a taxi stand/kiss-and-ride below the multi-modal center. Sorry for the poor image but these photos were apparently taken of a presentation from the other side of a meeting room....

Cleveland multimodal station site concept02 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

Looking down from space at the proposed multi-modal transportation center....

 

Cross-section view, with the right side being the north side....

 

Phase 1 with the Greyhound station only and Amtrak temporarily remaining in its existing station building west of the new pedestrian bridge, but with improved walkways and station platforms. This will probably cost tens of millions, but could be funded by the city after selling the Greyhound site (after the property trade) to a developer and using those funds plus the nonfederal investment into the new pedestrian bridge to leverage a federal grant of similar size....

 

Phase 2 (Amtrak station) added with the old Amtrak station east of the walkway demolished for station/employee parking or future development. The Waterfront Line station's greenhouse-like accessway from East 9th and headhouse is demolished, with access from the north through the multi-modal hub. The new Mall C-harbor walkway would be better connected to the transportation center with this phase and which would permit its linkage to future development at/next to this site....

 

Hope you like the concept enough to urge the city to build it now rather than merely shove Greyhound off into the Muny Parking Lot where it can be forgotten. Then there will be little or no motivation to build this multi-modal transportation center that would see more daily passengers than the Akron-Canton Regional Airport and be an asset for downtown Cleveland.

I think people love the intermodal idea.  But, I've heard that there are 2 BIG problems. 

1.  Moving Amtrak is crazy expensive.

2.  Even without the cost of moving Amtrak, the project is still very expensive.  Who pays for this?  The City doesn't have the money.  The potential proceeds for selling current Greyhound site would not be much more that $1 million due to the condition and various environmental problems.  The County will resist paying for a new intermodal project.  Raising sales taxes will be resisted by voters.  A Tiger Grant will be a challenge to obtain and still won't cover all the costs.  I have no idea if the state would fund this.

  I have no idea if the state would fund this.

 

This administration?  Not a chance.

I think people love the intermodal idea.  But, I've heard that there are 2 BIG problems. 

1.  Moving Amtrak is crazy expensive.

2.  Even without the cost of moving Amtrak, the project is still very expensive.  Who pays for this?  The City doesn't have the money.  The potential proceeds for selling current Greyhound site would not be much more that $1 million due to the condition and various environmental problems.  The County will resist paying for a new intermodal project.  Raising sales taxes will be resisted by voters.  A Tiger Grant will be a challenge to obtain and still won't cover all the costs.  I have no idea if the state would fund this.

 

Whoa whoa whoa!!  :)

 

1. Moving the Amtrak station is a future phase, but neither the tracks nor the trackside passenger platform will be moved. They stay put. Amtrak has offered to resurface and expand the platform with its own money as well as make other site improvements to comply with ADA.

2. City has offered to pay to relocate the Greyhound station using property sale revenues from the Greyhound and neighboring site, as well as future tax revenues from that site. Those can be bonded and used to leverage federal grants.

3. No new taxes are needed. This project isn't that expensive! Where did that notion even come from?

4. This project has a great shot at getting a TIGER grant of about $15 million to $25 million, leveraged by the nonfederal investment in the pedestrian bridge that will access this site as well as by whatever the city puts into this. No, of course it's not guaranteed. Nothing ever is.

5. If a TIGER grant isn't possible, then a CMAQ grant is. Or STP funds. Or a TIFIA loan. Or an FRA Sec. 11102 grant.

6. A developer could construct a mid-rise building next to the pedestrian bridge and incorporate an Amtrak station in its ground floor. Such a project (including the overhead building) is eligible for new Subtitle F funding under the federal Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Fund, which has a $35 billion in lending authority available at treasury rates for railroad projects and station-area developments. These loans can fund up to 80 percent of a project's cost.

 

There are many ways to fund this, limited only by our will and imagination.

 

  I have no idea if the state would fund this.

 

This administration?  Not a chance.

 

This administration provided $540,000 in turnpike toll credits to the new $10 million Amtrak station in Elyria (Lorain County asked for $1 million from ODOT). On that scale, Cleveland should be asking for at least $5 million to $10 million from ODOT Transit. Nothing is impossible except when we don't try.

Welp, KJP, you succeeded. I really want that now.

Welp, KJP, you succeeded. I really want that now.

 

Write/call/email/personally speak with the mayor, cabinet members (Silliman, McCall, Rybka, McGowan), and city council members...

 

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/MayorsOffice/MayorsOffice

http://www.clevelandcitycouncil.org/council-members/

Is there any reason that the Greyhound station couldn't also be part of a midrise mixed-use building, like the Amtrack station potentially will be?  It may help get a developer on board with this project's timetable.

^^Good stuff, KJP.  It seems like you're the only true rail passenger/transit advocate in NEO (perhaps in all of Ohio).  And while you're good, that is sad... I'm heeding your call and will be busy on the phone (and the Net).

Is there any reason that the Greyhound station couldn't also be part of a midrise mixed-use building, like the Amtrack station potentially will be?  It may help get a developer on board with this project's timetable.

 

Has more to do with the evolution of thinking about this project. It was first and foremost a way of getting Greyhound out of the way of a development project. All other considerations were secondary.

 

The Amtrak/overhead development concept was mentioned by a developer in a meeting I was in. But I don't know how serious it is or if discussions along those lines have continued. Such a joint development might take longer to arrange the financing, planning and construction. But if it's OK for the timeline to be longer, then sure. Do it!

 

^^Good stuff, KJP.  It seems like you're the only true rail passenger/transit advocate in NEO (perhaps in all of Ohio).  And while you're good, that is sad... I'm heeding your call and will be busy on the phone (and the Net).

 

Thanks, but if I was the only one, then All Aboard Ohio wouldn't exist and I couldn't afford to do this full-time. There's thousands of Facebook and Twitter followers of All Aboard Ohio. Tens of thousands of dollars in donations from great donors, including from Northeast Ohio. 500 dues-paying members in AAO, more than one-fourth of whom are in NE Ohio. There's 15 board members who oversee AAO (including some great ones here in NE Ohio who work in various transportation fields), plus many volunteers in AAO (again plenty of great ones in NEO, including some who post here at UrbanOhio!).

 

I appreciate your efforts to share your views on this important project. Public officials can't read minds. Use the old "praise and push" method -- thank them for their support of public transportation (most do support it, even if it's not in ways that you may want) and urge them to support cost-effective enhancements.

 

 

SUGGESTED MESSAGE:

 

This project will offer a safe, comfortable, convenient, attractive 24-hour facility with food services and retail where people can transfer between the region's local, regional and intercity modes of transportation. In addition to intercity modes like Amtrak and Greyhound, local and regional transportation services already in downtown Cleveland (ie: Greater Cleveland RTA bus and rail, Akron Metro RTA, Laketran, Portage Area RTA, Stark Area RTA, etc.) have no common point of transfer for passengers, let alone in a well-marked, well-lit and weather-protected facility. Such intermodal transportation centers elsewhere have produced ridership increases of 20 percent on all participating modes of transport thanks to their enhanced connectivity and ease of use. Improved linkages make it easier for more people to reach jobs, health care, education, visit family, or otherwise visit Northeast Ohio as a tourist and spend money in our local economy. Lastly, this project is a public-private partnership to not only improve transportation but to better connect downtown with the lakefront and produce spin-off real estate investment benefits.

 

How's that? Feel free to steal the wording, although I encourage to use your own words or a personalized story if you have the time.

All Aboard Ohio ‏@AllAboardOhio  1m1 minute ago

Cleveland Planning Comm won't consider Transit Oriented Dvlpmnt in multi-modal transportation ctr plan. Why? No room for parking. Seriously.

Omfg

All Aboard Ohio ‏@AllAboardOhio  1m1 minute ago

Cleveland Planning Comm won't consider Transit Oriented Dvlpmnt in multi-modal transportation ctr plan. Why? No room for parking. Seriously.

 

Was that the only reason, or one of the reasons?

Does anyone else feel like we were on a high for a few months with a slew of great development news and progress... And then the last week or two seem to be disappointing and depressing. This is one of those moments. We can't seem to get ahead here.

All Aboard Ohio ‏@AllAboardOhio  1m1 minute ago

Cleveland Planning Comm won't consider Transit Oriented Dvlpmnt in multi-modal transportation ctr plan. Why? No room for parking. Seriously.

 

Things that make you go hmmm  :wtf:

Does anyone else feel like we were on a high for a few months with a slew of great development news and progress... And then the last week or two seem to be disappointing and depressing. This is one of those moments. We can't seem to get ahead here.

 

Kind of, but February is a slow month for most everything. I'm figuring we're in a holding pattern as firm confirmations and announcements will be timed to come around the RNC and some shovels will get in the ground straight afterwards... I hope...b

Does anyone else feel like we were on a high for a few months with a slew of great development news and progress... And then the last week or two seem to be disappointing and depressing. This is one of those moments. We can't seem to get ahead here.

 

such is life in the CLE. But we keep Rollin on

Was that the only reason, or one of the reasons?

 

It was the principal reason, combined with ignorance. CPC members said they were unaware of other multi-modal intercity passenger terminals, except for the $4 billion Transbay Terminal in San Francisco, where a station-area development is part of such a station. I'm aware of many developments, and more are planned now that TOD is an eligible use for the $35 billion federal Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) which can pay for 75% of a station-area development. The CPC wasn't aware of this and assumed that the usual excessive amount of parking would be required for a station-area development to win private financing. But when I told CPC members about the RRIF program eligibility, they took no notes. They didn't seem very interested.

 

So the cheaper and likely plan is to build a $10 million Greyhound station with a food counter (no other retailers or other tenants to help sustain the facility) next to the Waterfront Line station on South Marginal Road with an entrance on East 9th and "promenade" (aka covered but not climate-protected sidewalk) to the Amtrak station which would see a few million dollars worth of site and structural improvements. Its only spinoff "retail" would be vending machines. Total investment for this 24/7 facility serving about 500,000 passengers per year in this wind-whipped setting would be $28 million, including planning costs.

 

CPC Director Freddie Collier said with a straight face that this cheaper facility would represent an opportunity to do something "uniquely Cleveland." I presume he means that we would blow an opportunity and underachieve.

 

For comparison, the big-city terminal shown previously on these pages is estimated to cost $66 million.

 

For comparison, $400 million (much of it from tax dollars) was invested in the neighboring football stadium for the Cleveland Browns which sees a dozen events per year totaling some 800,000 visitors. The Browns, despite their losing ways, are a cash printing press for its billionaire owner. Sometimes I wonder where this city's priorities lie.

 

Tell city officials where you think their priorities should be.

KJP, Whom exactly would be best to contact in regards to this?  I think everyone here feels pretty strongly about this.

Contact:

 

CPC Director Freddie Collier -- [email protected]

 

Mayor's Executive Assistant Valarie McCall -- [email protected]

 

Anthony Coyne, chair of the Group Plan Commission and of the Cleveland Planning Commission -- [email protected]

Contact:

 

CPC Director Freddie Collier -- [email protected]

 

Mayor's Executive Assistant Valarie McCall -- [email protected]

 

Anthony Coyne, chair of the Group Plan Commission and of the Cleveland Planning Commission -- [email protected]

 

And throw in Freddie Collier's boss for good measure: Ed Rybka, Chief of Regional Development, [email protected]

 

CPC Director Freddie Collier said with a straight face that this cheaper facility would represent an opportunity to do something "uniquely Cleveland." I presume he means that we would blow an opportunity and underachieve.

 

 

This!

The CPC's decision is just plain stupid.  It's damning to both passenger rail and RTA...

 

I really just don't get this town's total indifference, even disdain, toward mass transit -- and please, don't give me the tired old: Norm Krumholz created this problem with some social service agency mentality. ... Cleveland obviously has made great comeback strides in the last decade, but why can't folks see that killing mass transit threatens to undermine much of it?

 

Cleveland Rapid rail system is dying a slow death, esp the LRT, but nobody seems to care: KJP's exposure of the dire situation of the deteriorating rail fleet, with no funds to replace it (along with Joe Calabrese's testy/tepid and unsatisfying response) and scant planning for the future, got scant media coverage and now seems all but forgotten.  The powers that be here obviously believe mass transit is trivial and Cleveland can get along, and thrive, without it... Obviously they don't study history -- Albert Porter's killing of the subway and forcing a freeway/car-first approach to nearly everything urban nearly killed downtown, especially PHS, for which we are STILL picking up the pieces despite all the progress downtown.  Porterism also damaged many in-city neighborhoods as well... A properly done NCTC certainly won't solve all RTA's (and local Amtrak's) ills, but it should be a serious shot in the arm.

 

I've already emailed Freddie Collier and plan to shoot one to Valerie McCall.  I hope AAO is on this, too.  Maybe this stupid idea can be reversed.

I emailed Anthony Coyne about this issue and received a two word email reply:  "Good point." 

Not sure if he actually thinks it's a good point or if he was being dismissive.

The CPC's decision is just plain stupid.  It's damning to both passenger rail and RTA...

 

I really just don't get this town's total indifference, even disdain, toward mass transit -- and please, don't give me the tired old: Norm Krumholz created this problem with some social service agency mentality. ... Cleveland obviously has made great comeback strides in the last decade, but why can't folks see that killing mass transit threatens to undermine much of it?

 

Cleveland Rapid rail system is dying a slow death, esp the LRT, but nobody seems to care: KJP's exposure of the dire situation of the deteriorating rail fleet, with no funds to replace it (along with Joe Calabrese's testy/tepid and unsatisfying response) and scant planning for the future, got scant media coverage and now seems all but forgotten.  The powers that be here obviously believe mass transit is trivial and Cleveland can get along, and thrive, without it... Obviously they don't study history -- Albert Porter's killing of the subway and forcing a freeway/car-first approach to nearly everything urban nearly killed downtown, especially PHS, for which we are STILL picking up the pieces despite all the progress downtown.  Porterism also damaged many in-city neighborhoods as well... A properly done NCTC certainly won't solve all RTA's (and local Amtrak's) ills, but it should be a serious shot in the arm.

 

I've already emailed Freddie Collier and plan to shoot one to Valerie McCall.  I hope AAO is on this, too.  Maybe this stupid idea can be reversed.

 

Porter's not, as I'm sure you know, the only one at fault with Cleveland's transit woes.

I emailed Anthony Coyne about this issue and received a two word email reply:  "Good point." 

Not sure if he actually thinks it's a good point or if he was being dismissive.

 

Yikes, I can't imagine replying to a member of the public like that. It's more like a text message than an email.

 

I've never understood the leadership in this town. Nearly all of Cleveland's issues can be rooted back to population loss. Not only is mass transit an asset unlike any in Ohio...it can be a massive recruiting tool (i.e. Millenials)! It boggles my mind why they don't leverage it.

 

Edit: grammar

I attribute a lot of the population loss to back to leadership.  Not just the loss but the failure to mitigate it.  Transit support and TOD are among the obvious policy choices our region has avoided for way too long.  We reap what we sow.

 

Porter's not, as I'm sure you know, the only one at fault with Cleveland's transit woes.

 

No, he was not. But he was the major figure who reversed the strong momentum and fortunes of rail transit in this town.  He stated that downtown was "dying" and that rail transit was old fashion.  He felt that cars, freeways, suburbs and malls/shopping centers were the way to go for cities.  His hero was New York's infamous Robert Moses.  Porter's influence and impact were extremely wide ranging, stretching to today, with the CPC's foolish NCTC recommendation  being the latest in a long string of anti-transit moves.  Local leaders have since generally considered the Rapid as a negative with the only perceived positive being the building of the airport Rapid -- 48 years ago. 

I was talking to a top official from city hall recently who said regarding the multi-modal transit center: if we do it, we need to do it right. Take that for what you will

Just got back from a quick trip to Chicago. We took Megabus there (catch at Stephanie Tubbs Jones in CSU), then the return this morning was via Amtrak. Having multiple disjoint intercity transportation links is a pain in the butt for figuring out logistics. We drove to CSU and parked to catch Megabus, and Amtrak is at Lakefront, so a half hour walk back this morning. Having all services under one roof would be best (Amtrak, Greyhound, Megabus). As in, having all of those options at one place increases your connectivity/options, without necessarily increasing your burden.

 

A question that should be asked is how far do we want our intercity passenger links be from Public Square (heart of the city), in order to maximize connectivity, and to continue to fuel downtown growth. Airport + RTA is a half hour (sans temporary bus bridge), Airport + taxi is 15-20 minutes. Amtrak walking is 20 minutes, Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center is 25 minute walk. But, if you link lakefront pedestrian bridge to North Coast Transit Center, that is maybe a 10 minute walk. You don't NEED to run some express RTA service to the North Coast Transit Center, keep Public Square the RTA hub, but allow for an easy path for people to get to and fro.

 

I don't think a North Coast Transport Center needs to be anything close to fancy or extravagant. Keep it Simple, but clean, timeless, useful. I would suggest to have a glass roof providing shelter from the elements for the train platform, and the bus bays. Also, the experience of someone waiting, arriving, departing should consider that you would need waiting area and have food service and a toiletries shop. Also, lockers for people to store their luggage, if they have to wait a few hours, can just walk to the city, walk along the lakefront, then back to the station come departure time. You don't need too much long/short term parking near the transportation center, if it has a good link to the city, RTA, and the parking of downtown. So, either build a "does it all" transportation center, or come up with a masterplan for Cleveland's lakefront, that makes it a place worth visiting. Here's some refactoring you could do. Rip out N/S marginal road, rip out the shoreway, erieside ave, Al Lerner way, and make that a single, smaller road / boulevard that allows for new urban development alongside it. Hotels, retail, high rise apartments and offices, transport center. Then cool public parks along the lake itself. Also, if Burke Lakefront airport is limiting the development of the lakefront, due to building height restrictions, then a study needs to be done that considers how much economic benefit Burke provides to the city's downtown, vs allowing taller buildings to be built along the lakefront. If it turns out that Burke is limiting the growth of Cleveland, as opposed to accelerating, than reconsider the utility of a niche airport along the lake. (You could tear out Burke, and then invest into the Red Line, to have higher speeds, and limited stop Tower City <--> Hopkins Airport express runs.)

 

 

Off Topic / Insight gained from trip to Chicago.

Chicago is a very cool city. Very very walkable, everybody walks. All the places I wanted to go were useful / pleasant walks too.  Everybody uses transit. Tons of transit lines (L's, subway's, Metra's), they are all running 8 cars, and the metra is double decker commuter train. CTA allows tap&pay, I didn't see one person fiddle with how to swipe their ticket, very people had to go to a fare machine, and every station requires you to pay to enter. Trains and busses all appeared to be mostly full most of the time. (Sometimes crammed). Its crazy to see a full Metra go past and think, that just moved a thousand plus people. (Manufacturer states 239 max passengers per coach, and Metra looked to have about 10 coaches, so potentially 2400 people per train...). Chicago had tall buildings everywhere, very few surface parking lots, very expensive parking, many very tall buildings, but yet tons of green space. They've reserved huge amounts (almost all?) of the lakefront to be public park land, as opposed to be private access. And that park land is worth visiting. Maggie Daly Park/Playground, Millennium Park. Places for young professionals to meet friends for a picnic, places for parents to bring their kids, places for people to jog/bike, beach, tourist attractions. Having the population, and the density definitely helps support all of this. But, I think Cleveland could put in place the zoning, the planning, the masterplan that encourages smart growth would be a great direction.

 

Also, being at Chicago's Union Station, where there are several large Amtrak diesel trains idling, waiting to depart, is a pretty loud scene. I don't blame Cleveland for having intercity diesel trains get an electric tug-train pull them the last mile into and out of CUT. I suppose, history could have been different, and you would have electrified the long distance rail tracks. Lots of well-traveled rail corridors, that would have paid-off the investment. (But, I think shared passenger/freight track with double-stacked freight might be tricky to reach/avoid overhead wires.). None-the-less, it would be great to have faster, more frequent options for getting to a city that having a car seems practically useless (more of a liability due to super-pricey overnight parking). Think 110mph CHI <--> TOL <--> DET/CLE  (3.5 hours?)

Just got back from a quick trip to Chicago. We took Megabus there (catch at Stephanie Tubbs Jones in CSU), then the return this morning was via Amtrak. Having multiple disjoint intercity transportation links is a pain in the butt for figuring out logistics. We drove to CSU and parked to catch Megabus, and Amtrak is at Lakefront, so a half hour walk back this morning. Having all services under one roof would be best (Amtrak, Greyhound, Megabus). As in, having all of those options at one place increases your connectivity/options, without necessarily increasing your burden.

 

A question that should be asked is how far do we want our intercity passenger links be from Public Square (heart of the city), in order to maximize connectivity, and to continue to fuel downtown growth. Airport + RTA is a half hour (sans temporary bus bridge), Airport + taxi is 15-20 minutes. Amtrak walking is 20 minutes, Stephanie Tubbs Jones Transit Center is 25 minute walk. But, if you link lakefront pedestrian bridge to North Coast Transit Center, that is maybe a 10 minute walk. You don't NEED to run some express RTA service to the North Coast Transit Center, keep Public Square the RTA hub, but allow for an easy path for people to get to and fro.

 

I don't think a North Coast Transport Center needs to be anything close to fancy or extravagant. Keep it Simple, but clean, timeless, useful. I would suggest to have a glass roof providing shelter from the elements for the train platform, and the bus bays. Also, the experience of someone waiting, arriving, departing should consider that you would need waiting area and have food service and a toiletries shop. Also, lockers for people to store their luggage, if they have to wait a few hours, can just walk to the city, walk along the lakefront, then back to the station come departure time. You don't need too much long/short term parking near the transportation center, if it has a good link to the city, RTA, and the parking of downtown. So, either build a "does it all" transportation center, or come up with a masterplan for Cleveland's lakefront, that makes it a place worth visiting. Here's some refactoring you could do. Rip out N/S marginal road, rip out the shoreway, erieside ave, Al Lerner way, and make that a single, smaller road / boulevard that allows for new urban development alongside it. Hotels, retail, high rise apartments and offices, transport center. Then cool public parks along the lake itself. Also, if Burke Lakefront airport is limiting the development of the lakefront, due to building height restrictions, then a study needs to be done that considers how much economic benefit Burke provides to the city's downtown, vs allowing taller buildings to be built along the lakefront. If it turns out that Burke is limiting the growth of Cleveland, as opposed to accelerating, than reconsider the utility of a niche airport along the lake. (You could tear out Burke, and then invest into the Red Line, to have higher speeds, and limited stop Tower City <--> Hopkins Airport express runs.)

 

 

Off Topic / Insight gained from trip to Chicago.

Chicago is a very cool city. Very very walkable, everybody walks. All the places I wanted to go were useful / pleasant walks too.  Everybody uses transit. Tons of transit lines (L's, subway's, Metra's), they are all running 8 cars, and the metra is double decker commuter train. CTA allows tap&pay, I didn't see one person fiddle with how to swipe their ticket, very people had to go to a fare machine, and every station requires you to pay to enter. Trains and busses all appeared to be mostly full most of the time. (Sometimes crammed). Its crazy to see a full Metra go past and think, that just moved a thousand plus people. (Manufacturer states 239 max passengers per coach, and Metra looked to have about 10 coaches, so potentially 2400 people per train...). Chicago had tall buildings everywhere, very few surface parking lots, very expensive parking, many very tall buildings, but yet tons of green space. They've reserved huge amounts (almost all?) of the lakefront to be public park land, as opposed to be private access. And that park land is worth visiting. Maggie Daly Park/Playground, Millennium Park. Places for young professionals to meet friends for a picnic, places for parents to bring their kids, places for people to jog/bike, beach, tourist attractions. Having the population, and the density definitely helps support all of this. But, I think Cleveland could put in place the zoning, the planning, the masterplan that encourages smart growth would be a great direction.

 

Also, being at Chicago's Union Station, where there are several large Amtrak diesel trains idling, waiting to depart, is a pretty loud scene. I don't blame Cleveland for having intercity diesel trains get an electric tug-train pull them the last mile into and out of CUT. I suppose, history could have been different, and you would have electrified the long distance rail tracks. Lots of well-traveled rail corridors, that would have paid-off the investment. (But, I think shared passenger/freight track with double-stacked freight might be tricky to reach/avoid overhead wires.). None-the-less, it would be great to have faster, more frequent options for getting to a city that having a car seems practically useless (more of a liability due to super-pricey overnight parking). Think 110mph CHI <--> TOL <--> DET/CLE  (3.5 hours?)

 

Chicago also imposes a ''CTA Tax'' on the sale of property.  $3.00/$1,000 of sales price.  Designed to assist with the huge debt and deferred maintenance the CTA was looking at.

Having all services under one roof would be best (Amtrak, Greyhound, Megabus). As in, having all of those options at one place increases your connectivity/options, without necessarily increasing your burden.

 

 

Unfortunately, the plans do not involve Megabus moving in, due to Greyhound's involvement. They will stay at STJ Transit Center.

The Cleveland lakefront multimodal transportation center project, estimated at about $46 million, has gone live at:

 

http://www.clevelandmultimodal.com/

 

The City of Cleveland is requesting a TIGER grant in the amount of $37.4 million, representing 80% of the estimated $46.7 project cost. This funding will cover the remaining design and engineering work, as well as construction. The local match will include contribution of the city-owned land together with the financial commitment from other partners including Greyhound and Amtrak. If awarded in full, I'm pretty certain it would be the largest single TIGER grant in history.

 

Here are some concept-level graphics from the city (I added the blue-text labeling in the first two graphics for clarity):

 

 

 

 

 

Wow... there is a lot to take in there.  The renderings look quite nice but disappointing that the Amtrak station seems to remain "as-is" for this?

Wow... there is a lot to take in there.  The renderings look quite nice but disappointing that the Amtrak station seems to remain "as-is" for this?

 

Amtrak station will be modernized and with ADA compliance, including a wider, resurfaced platform that in the future could allow two trains to be served at the same time (EDIT: would also require some track improvements). The Greyhound portion of the station is designed so that it can be expanded to the west with an Amtrak facility when passenger rail service expands to include daylight service and more passengers.

Seems like a good plan, all things considered!  Pedestrian access to east 9th and ability to get up to pedestrian bridge/mall are great connections given the site.  Nice looking facility, practical enough to get built.  Hope it leaves the option open for future residential or mixed use development.  Now we just need to get rid of or bury the shoreway and we'll have a waterfront district unimaginable to Clevelanders just a few years ago!

Well very exciting. My concern is of course the Tiger grant as they seem to hate us. Many have been requested in the past but they never seem to take us seriously. So I hope whoever writes this one does a better job. Unfortunately I just don't see us getting 37mil for a bus station.

About the station. I am very happy there is a canopy for the busses. Although that could be the first thing to go with lesser money along with the all-weather walkway.  Also the terminal looks big enough to handle both Greyhound and Amtrak, why is there a need for two terminals? Couldn't the one terminal handle both?

I like the timeframe though with construction complete by 2020.

I'm liking this a lot more than I expected to. Fingers crossed.

This is a much better plan than the glorified parking garage for which the city tried to win TIGER funding before. With Mayor Frank Jackson's chief of government & international affairs Valarie McCall also being the current chair of the American Public Transportation Association -- and it being an election year in the State of Ohio -- there's a good chance Cleveland will win a TIGER grant of some size for this project. The biggest question in my mind is how big will the award be?

Looking great. Weird seeing the Amtrak train in the daylight though!

Wow, this is fantastic.  While it took a while, along with some crazy counter-proposals, it looks like officials finally got it right.  It'll take a bit of time for me to fully digest all the details, but my initial reaction is very positive -- all important transit elements are in place -- AMTRAK, the RTA WFL and Greyhound; and the NCTC is where it needs to be, West of E. 9th between the North Coast and the Convention Center... (sure, I would have preferred Tower City but it just seems there were too many obstacles -- like the Stokes Courthouse, and the expenses needed to rebuild track and reroute trains back into this station were probably prohibitive -- sadly, that train appears to have left the station). 

 

Also great to see All Aboard Ohio's Letter of Support and continued input on this important proposal -- good work, Ken... Let's cross our fingers that the Feds will accept this TIGER application as it could be a game-changer in Cleveland's public transportation infrastructure.

This is a much better plan than the glorified parking garage for which the city tried to win TIGER funding before. With Mayor Frank Jackson's chief of government & international affairs Valarie McCall also being the current chair of the American Public Transportation Association -- and it being an election year in the State of Ohio -- there's a good chance Cleveland will win a TIGER grant of some size for this project. The biggest question in my mind is how big will the award be?

Well I guess my biggest concern about the grant is that this project seems to serve just one component which is Greyhound. This might be the best bus station in America and it's not costing Greyhound anything. Wouldn't the bid be taken more seriously if it involved the consolidation of Greyhound/Amtrak/RTA in one terminal.  My hope was that the Amtrak station and the RTA station would be demolished and Incorporated into one project.  I just think the commission will look at this and say  'You want 37mil for a bus station?' go back to the drawing board.

This is a much better plan than the glorified parking garage for which the city tried to win TIGER funding before. With Mayor Frank Jackson's chief of government & international affairs Valarie McCall also being the current chair of the American Public Transportation Association -- and it being an election year in the State of Ohio -- there's a good chance Cleveland will win a TIGER grant of some size for this project. The biggest question in my mind is how big will the award be?

Well I guess my biggest concern about the grant is that this project seems to serve just one component which is Greyhound. This might be the best bus station in America and it's not costing Greyhound anything. Wouldn't the bid be taken more seriously if it involved the consolidation of Greyhound/Amtrak/RTA in one terminal.  My hope was that the Amtrak station and the RTA station would be demolished and Incorporated into one project.  I just think the commission will look at this and say  'You want 37mil for a bus station?' go back to the drawing board.

 

Hmmm....a Greyhound Station at the foot, and to the west of, E 9th Street.  If it had to be on the lakefront, it should be to the east of E 9th Street, out near Muni Lot.  The current Amtrak station is an eyesore, completely scars Cleveland's burgeoning lakefront area.