Just not with the city of Cleveland, right? 

You're not getting anything more out of me.

Just not with the city of Cleveland, right? 

 

Why would you say that?  :?

I am guessing that the conversation is still alive because (...cough, cough...) certain 'rail advocates' are exploring locations for the 3-C Corridor stop in Cleveland?  Especially since it can't run through TT, right?

 

EDIT:  found my answer - http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18328.1020.html

I am guessing that the conversation is still alive because (...cough, cough...) certain 'rail advocates' are exploring locations for the 3-C Corridor stop in Cleveland?  Especially since it can't run through TT, right?

 

Even if it couldn't stop at NCH, I do not believe that the line would be built without a terminus in downtown Cleveland.

I hope those that are envisioning this North Coast Transit Center are not thinking about this with limited vision.  When one lays out an aerial of this area north of Mall C you immediately realize that whatever is constructed here could be a catalyst to completely bridge the gap between north coast harbor and the city grid to the south.

I may one day get a diagram I put together for this area onto UO, but until then, simply visualizing the grid of the city expanding down to Browns Stadium could add several blocks of developable land to the city core.  Selling off this land for future development could offset the costs the city would initially ensue for preparing this area for development.  Add in having the railroad buried underground (but multimodal station clearly visible and bustling at street level), and this could be the beginning of changing the mindset of our city towards density based on transit connections.

I see anything short of burying the railroad tracks between W3rd, E9th, Alfred Lerner Way (for starters at least) and creating a new street grid spilling northward, as a big disappointment.

To completely build over the tracks so that there's no openings, you'd have to detour all hazardous materials shipments (ie: most freight trains) off the lakefront which would require an additional expenditure of $175 million to open up the lakefront bypass. Federal laws prevent covering over existing rail lines that host hazardous materials shipments. As a side note, even if all hazardous shipments could be moved, there would need to be some sort of method of ventillating diesel exhaust from the track level below this new "roof" especially if a passenger rail station will be under this larger roof. There would also need to be someone to pay for installing it and operating the ventilation system.

To completely build over the tracks so that there's no openings, you'd have to detour all hazardous materials shipments (ie: most freight trains) off the lakefront which would require an additional expenditure of $175 million to open up the lakefront bypass. Federal laws prevent covering over existing rail lines that host hazardous materials shipments. As a side note, even if all hazardous shipments could be moved, there would need to be some sort of method of ventillating diesel exhaust from the track level below this new "roof" especially if a passenger rail station will be under this larger roof. There would also need to be someone to pay for installing it and operating the ventilation system.

 

Why cant it be ventilated like the metro north trains under Park Avenue, the 1 train under broadway and Lenox Ave's or the metra line trains?

It can. Who pays?

It can. Who pays?

 

No Dear, what I mean is, if the bypass is built, can we build the station like the MN or Metra urban underground stations with access?  Is that allowable under the Fed. laws?

 

You response above leads me to believe that can be done.  :)

Both of those stations you mentioned operate with electrically powered trains. So the short answer is that anything is possible if enough money is spent to electrify rail lines, or ventilate tunnels/stations, reroute freight trains etc.

Both of those stations you mentioned operate with electrically powered trains. So the short answer is that anything is possible if enough money is spent to electrify rail lines, or ventilate tunnels/stations, reroute freight trains etc.

Actually park avenue from 96 street to 46 street, has vents in the median.  They are camouflaged by the planters.  You can look right down and see the trains.

 

Here are two photos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Park_Avenue_tunnel.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Park_Avenue_01.jpg

 

I'm wondering if the area above the track could be designed/built like that?

 

I believe those are to ventilate heat. They certainly aren't used to ventilate diesel fumes.

 

I've looked up through those from the train. It's a pretty cool view.

Question to the masses: should the two Waterfront Line stations (West 3rd and East 9th/North Coast) be eliminated and consolidated into a single station at the NCTC?

 

A big part of me says yes. Here's why:

 

+ It seems strange to me that Cleveland's main railroad station would not have a light-rail station immediately included inside of it. Instead, the 1998 plans assumed construction of a walkway over to the East 9th/North Coast RTA station.

 

+ I would think RTA could save on operating costs and get the scrap value for the materials salvaged from the two stations.

 

+ The two Waterfront Line stations will be at least 15 years old by the time the NCTC opens. While that's not terribly old for a station facility, that's about the time some major repairs will start to be needed on those facilities. And since no federal funding was used to build the Waterfront Line (I think that's true of the West 3rd Station), the feds won't need to be reimbursed if the stations are dismantled before they are 20 years old.

 

+ Having the consolidated light-rail station right at NCTC would also consolidate all ridership there, and might increase foot traffic past retail tenants at NCTC and therefore increase the sites marketability.

 

+ The NCTC/convention center would provide a climate protected pedestrian link from the light-rail line to City Hall, near to the federal building and other downtown locations.

 

+ Perhaps the existing North Coast Station walkway to East 9th could be kept and extended to the NCTC? But I question the long-term need of the walkway if the Waterfront Line stations are consolidated.

 

But I also wonder if the NCTC should be asked to handle the crush crowds of stadium/lakefront events? I suppose extra-long platforms could be built and a signal system added which allows Waterfront trains to be stacked at NCTC.

Never realized those were vents outside my office...

Never realized those were vents outside my office...

 

The power of UO.  You learn something new everyday!

Question to the masses: should the two Waterfront Line stations (West 3rd and East 9th/North Coast) be eliminated and consolidated into a single station at the NCTC?

 

A big part of me says yes. Here's why:

 

+ It seems strange to me that Cleveland's main railroad station would not have a light-rail station immediately included inside of it. Instead, the 1998 plans assumed construction of a walkway over to the East 9th/North Coast RTA station.

 

+ I would think RTA could save on operating costs and get the scrap value for the materials salvaged from the two stations.

 

+ The two Waterfront Line stations will be at least 15 years old by the time the NCTC opens. While that's not terribly old for a station facility, that's about the time some major repairs will start to be needed on those facilities. And since no federal funding was used to build the Waterfront Line (I think that's true of the West 3rd Station), the feds won't need to be reimbursed if the stations are dismantled before they are 20 years old.

 

+ Having the consolidated light-rail station right at NCTC would also consolidate all ridership there, and might increase foot traffic past retail tenants at NCTC and therefore increase the sites marketability.

 

+ The NCTC/convention center would provide a climate protected pedestrian link from the light-rail line to City Hall, near to the federal building and other downtown locations.

 

+ Perhaps the existing North Coast Station walkway to East 9th could be kept and extended to the NCTC? But I question the long-term need of the walkway if the Waterfront Line stations are consolidated.

 

But I also wonder if the NCTC should be asked to handle the crush crowds of stadium/lakefront events? I suppose extra-long platforms could be built and a signal system added which allows Waterfront trains to be stacked at NCTC.

 

Not so sure closing  the W. 3rd station would be the best long term idea.  But, depending on how the NCTC is configured, closing the E. 9th station may work out ok.

 

Re: the W. 3rd stop, if all goes well and the Flats East Bank project continues to progress and the port relocates, demand for the waterfront line will increase in the area located between the East Bank and W. 3rd stops.  Essentially, I think that any modifications made to the waterfront line need to be done mindful of the fact that the waterfront may look quite different in 10-20 years, and its service/stops should reflect that.

I wonder if the planned station site on the elevated section of WFL track (near the river's mouth) would do the job? That's the station that was planned to serve an aquarium that was never built.

I wonder if the planned station site on the elevated section of WFL track (near the river's mouth) would do the job? That's the station that was planned to serve an aquarium that was never built.

 

I guess I have two questions (they may show my ignorance, but here they are): (1) why wouldn't the waterfront line be able to run through the NCTC if the W. 3rd station remained? (2) Why tear down a station only to build another such a short distance away?

 

Not to mention, the fact that the station is shaped like a football helmet is pretty neat.

1. the Waterfront Line would continue to travel through the NCTC.

2. a station was proposed on the elevation section of the WFL near the river mouth, in addition to the West 3rd station. Both were to be in use at the same time. If you mean why build the NCTC and demolish either/both West 3rd/East 9th, the location of the NCTC is the critical piece. It could be built closer to East 9th but wouldn't offer much track and platform space for the railroad station because the right of way is narrower there. However an earlier version of the NCTC was proposed next to East 9th and the existing North Coast WFL station. I have a site plan for it although I don't care much for the overall layout....

 

Here is the track level (580 feet above sea level):

 

And here is the concourse level (620 feet above sea level):

Question to the masses: should the two Waterfront Line stations (West 3rd and East 9th/North Coast) be eliminated and consolidated into a single station at the NCTC?

It seems to me that the vast majority of people that ride the line (other than on Browns' game days) are people headed to City Hall, the Federal Building, or the Northpoint building. For most of them, its shorter to get off at E 9th and walk up the hill, than it would be to get off at the NCTC. So theoretically, you're going to be encouraging more people to just get off at Tower City and walk over if you eliminate that station. Doing anything to the W 3rd station is only going to affect Browns fans, as for most people it's already faster to walk from TC to W 3rd, than wait on the WFL.

 

I do like the idea of saving on operating costs by demo'ing the stations, especially since capital funds seem easier to come by than operating funds, but it seems like by doing this, you'd be putting nails in the coffin of the WFL. Unless the line is extended, its ridership is going to be embarrassingly low for the foreseeable future. When the FEB happens, it'll help, but otherwise this line is basically doomed to lackluster perfomance. I'd hate to see it get worse with the removal of two of the busiest stations.

 

Perhaps I could get behind the idea if the NCTC is designed right so that it's easy for riders to get off, take an escalator up into the concourse and walk over to lakeside, but I'm not optomistic that we won't see a station cost engineered into mediocrity that makes this walk seem unclean, unsafe, or inconvenient.

Question to the masses: should the two Waterfront Line stations (West 3rd and East 9th/North Coast) be eliminated and consolidated into a single station at the NCTC?

It seems to me that the vast majority of people that ride the line (other than on Browns' game days) are people headed to City Hall, the Federal Building, or the Northpoint building. For most of them, its shorter to get off at E 9th and walk up the hill, than it would be to get off at the NCTC. So theoretically, you're going to be encouraging more people to just get off at Tower City and walk over if you eliminate that station. Doing anything to the W 3rd station is only going to affect Browns fans, as for most people it's already faster to walk from TC to W 3rd, than wait on the WFL.

 

I do like the idea of saving on operating costs by demo'ing the stations, especially since capital funds seem easier to come by than operating funds, but it seems like by doing this, you'd be putting nails in the coffin of the WFL. Unless the line is extended, its ridership is going to be embarrassingly low for the foreseeable future. When the FEB happens, it'll help, but otherwise this line is basically doomed to lackluster perfomance. I'd hate to see it get worse with the removal of two of the busiest stations.

 

Perhaps I could get behind the idea if the NCTC is designed right so that it's easy for riders to get off, take an escalator up into the concourse and walk over to lakeside, but I'm not optomistic that we won't see a station cost engineered into mediocrity that makes this walk seem unclean, unsafe, or inconvenient.

 

Maybe West 3rd and East 9th entries/exits can remain??  Build the NCTC but have access at W3 and E9.

Question to the masses: should the two Waterfront Line stations (West 3rd and East 9th/North Coast) be eliminated and consolidated into a single station at the NCTC?

It seems to me that the vast majority of people that ride the line (other than on Browns' game days) are people headed to City Hall, the Federal Building, or the Northpoint building. For most of them, its shorter to get off at E 9th and walk up the hill, than it would be to get off at the NCTC. So theoretically, you're going to be encouraging more people to just get off at Tower City and walk over if you eliminate that station. Doing anything to the W 3rd station is only going to affect Browns fans, as for most people it's already faster to walk from TC to W 3rd, than wait on the WFL.

 

I do like the idea of saving on operating costs by demo'ing the stations, especially since capital funds seem easier to come by than operating funds, but it seems like by doing this, you'd be putting nails in the coffin of the WFL. Unless the line is extended, its ridership is going to be embarrassingly low for the foreseeable future. When the FEB happens, it'll help, but otherwise this line is basically doomed to lackluster perfomance. I'd hate to see it get worse with the removal of two of the busiest stations.

 

Perhaps I could get behind the idea if the NCTC is designed right so that it's easy for riders to get off, take an escalator up into the concourse and walk over to lakeside, but I'm not optomistic that we won't see a station cost engineered into mediocrity that makes this walk seem unclean, unsafe, or inconvenient.

 

Maybe West 3rd and East 9th entries/exits can remain??   Build the NCTC but have access at W3 and E9.

 

I would think that be the best option. The WFL is getting major upgrades and the city is looking to expand it as a citywide connection to the lake and build new stations all the way to E55. its on the waterfront plans. I would think that the w3 station should be kept and the e9 station will become a new intermodal transport station that includes WFL stops and amtrak stops.

I would think that be the best option. The WFL is getting major upgrades and the city is looking to expand it as a citywide connection to the lake and build new stations all the way to E55. its on the waterfront plans. I would think that the w3 station should be kept and the e9 station will become a new intermodal transport station that includes WFL stops and amtrak stops.

I really don't think we're going to see the WFL significantly upgraded or expanded anytime soon. I know that the lakefront plan proposed this, but no one has been seriously pushing the idea in the last couple years.

True. I think that city and RTA officials want to see what happens with the Convention Center and Flats East Bank first.

True. I think that city and RTA officials want to see what happens with the Convention Center and Flats East Bank first.

Though I think it would be prudent to be working with the port authority to coordinate; a station around E 55th that a portion of the port's workers could use, and make sure new tracks going into the new port don't block the ROW that would be needed to extend the WFL beyond the port.

I think it would also be prudent to work with the Port Authority as they flush out their redevelopment plan before making any decisions about the existing Rapid stations. Their broad vision seems to suggest three continguous neighborhoods on their current site, each high-density and mixed-use. And their hope is to have at least SOMETHING going up on the site within 3-5 years (I believe the initial inclinations were to start on the land immediately to the north of Browns Stadium). Were this plan to be fully realized, maintaining the W. 3rd and E.9th station, and supplementing with the North Coast Transportation Center, seems like it would raise the potential for ridership. I know we're talking about a relatively short distance to be able to walk to an alternate station if one or both of those were torn down, but I think we all know Americans' propensity for laziness :)

I think it would also be prudent to work with the Port Authority as they flush out their redevelopment plan before making any decisions about the existing Rapid stations. Their broad vision seems to suggest three continguous neighborhoods on their current site, each high-density and mixed-use. And their hope is to have at least SOMETHING going up on the site within 3-5 years (I believe the initial inclinations were to start on the land immediately to the north of Browns Stadium). Were this plan to be fully realized, maintaining the W. 3rd and E.9th station, and supplementing with the North Coast Transportation Center, seems like it would raise the potential for ridership. I know we're talking about a relatively short distance to be able to walk to an alternate station if one or both of those were torn down, but I think we all know Americans' propensity for laziness :)

 

Yep, just ask prokno5's room mate!

well at least once these big projects start upgrading the WFL stops its possible to see growth happening there. think about it running with tower city, flats, flats east bank, e9/convention center, then maybe some live/work stuff goin on at e55th or somewhere closer.. it could start getting much better traffic. there are opportunities between 9th and 55th for many-a-transit/wfl-made-live-work-space.

 

 

Good thoughts! They'd be even better if posted here:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17056.0.html

 

:wink:

Medical Mart project in Cleveland could be the impetus to improve the bleak downtown Mall

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

October 25, 2009, 12:00AM

 

The Mall in downtown Cleveland is the city's grandest public space, but that's not saying much, given that it feels dead most of the time.

 

This is not what Chicago architect Daniel Burnham had in mind when he conceived the Mall in 1903 as the heart of the Group Plan for Cleveland. He envisioned a great city greensward framed by bustling streets and beautiful, neoclassical civic buildings.

 

Much of the Group Plan did get built, including the Mall, which stretches three blocks north from Rockwell Avenue to a lakefront overlook north of Lakeside Avenue.

 

Unfortunately, the big train station Burnham planned for the north end of the Mall did not get built, depriving the space of traffic and vitality.

 

READ THE REST AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2009/10/medical_mart_project_in_clevel.html

 

...Especially the last six paragraphs!

What is the point of having the transit center at this location? The waterfront line is hardly used. The amtrak train comes once each day in the middle of the night. If it were used as a bus drop off, it is too far from any office buildings.

 

By that same argument, what's the point of rebuilding a convention center that's hardly used?

 

The NCTC would offer these benefits:

 

> pedestrian concourse (indoor) and rooftop plaza (outdoor) linkages over the railroad tracks and possibly the Shoreway between the convention center and North Coast Harbor, including leasable spaces for retailers, advertisers, etc.

 

> unite RTA bus and rail, Laketran, Akron Metro, PARTA, Amtrak and possibly, Greyhound, Lakefront and Megabus into a single facility.

 

> could also include some convention and medical mart facilities, either in the interim or for long-term expansion, overflow, etc.

 

I really loved the idea of having a transit center just north of mall c. Does anyone involve in the decision making consider a transit center for possible future plans? If they don't maybe someone should tell them about it.

 

The city of Cleveland is attempting to ID planning funding to conduct preliminary engineering of the North Coast Transportation Center in order to attract federal funding for it.

 

Well that's great news. Any idea how much it would cost to plan the preliminary engineering?

Unfortunately, no. I'd just be guessing.

Although I would have preferred this original intended site for all the transit and intentions, I feel doing that today would have the entire mall end up looking just as dirty as most of "Public Scare." Bleak as it may be seen (Mall)...its actually very clean and inviting for lounging and casual strolls, quiet..and a great place to sit, think and catch a sunset. Its welcoming even at night---contrary to the square. That's my opinion though. If on the other hand we can demonstrate a much better stewardship of P.S.,  then maybe. Maybe the mall area can be used for light rail only, afterall, its not that far a walk from P.S. to the Mall to attend conventions etc...we can make sensible links someway.

wasn't there a design competition for the NCTC?  work has fried my brain this week,  I could not find any info on it in the thread.  Any news?

Check the link below:

 

http://clevelandcompetition.com/index.html

wow, my subconscious brain is so much better than its conscious other half.  So they are being reviewed today?  Has there been any press about this?

CLEVELAND DESIGN COMPETITION

This year's contest drew 85 submissions, on view at the Colonial Marketplace, West Arcade in Cleveland, that envision a new multimodal transit center north of Mall C downtown.

 

JAN. 29-FEB. 19: IDEA FACTORY

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100127/ARTS/100129854/1157/newsletter61

The winning designs as well as some notable designs have been posted to the web site:

 

http://clevelandcompetition.com/gallery-09.html

what are the next steps? also, who will own/build/contract out the new station? would it be the City, Amtrak, RTA? Now that 3C will happen, does the new Lakefront Station become a real project?

The winning designs as well as some notable designs have been posted to the web site:

 

http://clevelandcompetition.com/gallery-09.html

 

Absolutely amazing!!!!

 

I'm probably least excited by the winner, not practical imho, but all the renderings are very exciting and bring some new ideas to the table. We have so much potential here....

 

BRIDGE THAT SHOREWAY.

So will this be a go? In my lifetime? I always thought the current Amtrak station resembled more of a credit union office than a transportation station.

So will this be a go? In my lifetime? I always thought the current Amtrak station resembled more of a credit union office than a transportation station.

This isn't a go yet. This was just a design competition that seeks solutions to the problem of the tracks, which is a positive step, but there is still a long road ahead to get shovels in the ground.

who will be the project 'owner'? Amtrak? City of Cleveland? RTA?

Practical or not, that winning entry is pretty sweet. 

Yeah... I'm sure that entry would cost a gagillion dollars... but it is utterly amazing.  The 3rd place entry however, looks somewhat feasible and functional.

To quote from the 3-C thread:

 

Did you see the presidents budget today?  Another $1 Billion (at least) for high speed rail in 2011 and several other financial mechanisms for funding transit systems.  There will be more funding in the coming years to potentially increase speeds along the 3-C and to add additional legs of the Ohio Hub.  Be patient folks!

 

I wonder if a portion of this money/future money could be utilized into constructing the new rail station if proposed correctly??  Basically, transportation federal money.

To quote from the 3-C thread:

 

Did you see the presidents budget today?  Another $1 Billion (at least) for high speed rail in 2011 and several other financial mechanisms for funding transit systems.  There will be more funding in the coming years to potentially increase speeds along the 3-C and to add additional legs of the Ohio Hub.  Be patient folks!

 

I wonder if a portion of this money/future money could be utilized into constructing the new rail station if proposed correctly??

 

Most certainly it could.  Thats why the need to get on the ball with this (thinking seriously about the prospect and potential). 

There may be no better time in the near future.  So we need some local cooperation now. 

In other words I will be very Pissed off if Cleveland blows their chance at funding this.   

I'm still baffled that it's not being done in conjunction with the MM/CC.  Even if it's to be done at a later stage... they should still be talking about it now and they aren't.  I do recall Falanga saying he had no interest in rail connections for the CC, but that was before trains became the next big thing.

I'm still baffled that it's not being done in conjunction with the MM/CC. Even if it's to be done at a later stage... they should still be talking about it now and they aren't. I do recall Falanga saying he had no interest in rail connections for the CC, but that was before trains became the next big thing.

 

Indeed it should have been tied into to the CC project. Very shortsighted on Clevelands part.

 

They should have had a plan together to do that, which could have been at least partially funded by stimulous $$$ or transportation $$$ (there are various creative approaches to fund something like this).  Not to say its easy, but they at least have to be thinking in those terms. 

 

They really need to get on the ball with this.  Leadership?