Don't forget that they won't be removing the pedestrian bridges to Browns Stadium.  That would be the way to get to the train station from the CC.  Not a direct connection, but a connection nonetheless.

 

EDIT - Looking at google maps it would appear that pedestrian access to the Amtrak station is currently non existent from the Browns pedestrian bridges.  It looks like it wouldn't take much to provide access though.  Just add some stairs and a walkway to the station and you should be good.

Thank you Grumpy and Hootenany, that was my original question.  Really not clear in the redering that there are human-scale steps, though I'm aware of the bridge you're talking about.  And what I'm hoping for, ideally, is an entrance to the CC dedicated to rail passengers, perhaps utilizing that bridge.  I hope we're not supposed to walk from that bridge to the main CC entrance on St. Clair.  Quite a haul, especially if you've got baggage.  Locations of entrances to this thing are critical, and it's something we gotta work out before construction begins.

 

That's why I used the word "door" to describe what I'm asking for.  You don't think it's important to ask explicitly for something as obvious as a door?  Look at the mall now.  It's missing several important doors. 

KJP, what was the history of the intermodal hub?  IIRC it was supposed to be a large bus/train/taxi center near where the NCTC is proposed.  Was it going to be an RTA facility?

 

How do the plans for the NCTC differ from the intermodal hub?

 

(Thanks in advance)

 

The NCTC and intermodal hub are the same thing. RTA GM Ron Tober wanted the NCTC as the center for his proposed network of regional commuter rail services out to Lorain, Aurora, Painesville, Akron/Canton and possibly Medina. He also wanted to bring Greyhound and Amtrak into it. In 1998, RTA commissioned a study from Parsons Brinckerhoff to do two things:

 

1. conduct preliminary engineering for a West Third Street Waterfront Line station to serve the new Cleveland Browns Stadium

2. conduct an alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering for an intermodal transportation center (dubbed the NCTC) somewhere along the downtown lakefront

 

The P/E for West 3rd was completed, as was the alternatives analysis for the NCTC. But the P/E never got started because the region (indeed the Northeast US) was in the midst of the $10 billion Conrail split between Norfolk Southern and CSX. Part of that assumed running three times as many freight trains on the proposed commuter rail route through Lakewood and Lorain. Rep. Kucinich and others turned it into an "stop the trains" battle. He didn't want any trains added, freight or commuter, for fear it would wreck an agreement with NS limiting through freight traffic. RTA and NOACA were warned by Kucinich to stop any further studies or planning of commuter rail.

 

That also killed RTA's involvement in the NCTC. With RTA expenses already on the rise, Tober was forced out by the board. Calabrese was brought in and canceled all new-capacity transit projects except for those already in the funding pipeline (ie: Euclid Corridor).

 

But the idea of the NCTC was kept alive by the Ohio Rail Development Commission as it advanced its studies of the Ohio Hub passenger rail system starting in 2001. That network would need a downtown Cleveland rail station and the NCTC, or something like it, would suffice. Ohio Hub feasibilities studies were completed in 2005 and the economic impact study was finished in 2007. As an outgrowth of the Ohio Hub plan, the 3C "Quick Start" project came to the fore in 2008, but didn't really get into serious planning until stimulus funding was considered for it in early 2009 by ODOT.

 

While the NCTC is not a specific project component of the 3C "Quick Start", Cleveland city officials saw it as a logical vehicle for advancing the idea for an attractive pedestrian linkage between the rebuilt convention center and North Coast Harbor. Such a linkage was included in the lakefront planning process, but included everything from a cable car to a pedestrian promenade. Some city planning efforts over the years (going back to the 1980s) included visions of an intermodal transportation center above or next to the lakefront tracks (ie: some  convention center plans). Other planning exercises (ie: CivicVision 2000 in the 1980s) did not.

 

So it should not be too much of a surprise to see the city wanting to re-start planning for the intermodal center, whether it's called the NCTC or not. But like lots of good ideas, many don't go away. They often wait for the right conditions to come along before they can take seed.

^That is a great example of why I <3 urbanohio.com

Thank you Grumpy and Hootenany, that was my original question. Really not clear in the redering that there are human-scale steps, though I'm aware of the bridge you're talking about. And what I'm hoping for, ideally, is an entrance to the CC dedicated to rail passengers, perhaps utilizing that bridge. I hope we're not supposed to walk from that bridge to the main CC entrance on St. Clair. Quite a haul, especially if you've got baggage. Locations of entrances to this thing are critical, and it's something we gotta work out before construction begins.

 

That's why I used the word "door" to describe what I'm asking for. You don't think it's important to ask explicitly for something as obvious as a door? Look at the mall now. It's missing several important doors.

^I get what you're saying 327. But wouldn't travelers with luggage wanna go check into their hotel first? Who's getting off a train and heading straight for the CC/MM unless it's a daytrip?

I suppose they'd wanna walk indoors through the CC, instead of outdoors down Ontario by the jail in winter.  Think of the Tower City walkway to the Q, but simpler.  And at least one hotel, presumably more, would be attached in some way to the CC.  Even if they're not staying in one of those, the one they're at will be south of the station guaranteed.  Does this let some guests never go outside at all, if that's what they want?  Yes.  Does it make them do that?  No.  And either way, it lets them get a first impression unencumbered by any immediate tunda trudge.  A pedestrian bridge isn't long enough to piss you off, but a walk to St. Clair and beyond might do it.  One long block of snow can mean a lot if you just got here and you're not in the mood for it.   

 

For the full effect we'd need NCTC.  Obviously.  When all these projects are done, we'll have a large section of downtown fully connected underneath.  Frankly I think we need that for winter tourism.  But until then, that station needs to be integrated in some way to the new CC.  An entrance by the pedestrian bridge would probably suffice.

The MM/CC and NCTC are not directly related and, as they say in the planning world, are projects of independent utility. That being said, Jackson's administration recognize that the MM/CC and NCTC would increase the other's utility. Another planning term: they are synergistic! So Mayor Jackson staff is tying to find funding to advance the NCTC's planning to the preliminary engineering phase so federal construction dollars can be secured.

 

I was not aware of that.  If the Mayor's office is behind that then I retract my accusations against the Good Mayor. 

 

Mark my words!

 

 

Just a quick thought...would NCTC render all the infrastructure designed for rail under Tower City useless and an eventual masoleum by shifting all such activity to NCTC.....or will one be for light rail, the other for heaveier travels?

NCTC = for intercity passenger and possible future regional commuter rail, plus the Waterfront Line if it is someday restored to full service.

 

Tower City = will remain RTA's main transit hub for rail rapid transit, bus rapid transit and most bus routes. It cannot be duplicated affordably.

 

 

will one be for light rail, the other for heaveier travels?

 

Etheostoma--The Red Line is HEAVY, not light, rail.

Cross-posted from the "What other states are doing" as the Denver shows what kinds of funding sources can be brought together to pay for a major station project.....

 

 

FTA's Peter Rogoff announces $304 million for Denver Union Station

Monday, February 08, 2010

 

FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff announced federal funding for Denver Union Station, the centerpiece of the Regional Transportation District's FasTracks transit expansion plan. The Department of Transportation approved a $151.6-million Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan and a $152.1-million loan application under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program for Denver Union Station.

 

These loans, which constitute 64 percent of the nearly half-billion-dollar project cost, will help transform Denver Union Station into a true multi-modal transportation system, connecting light rail, commuter rail, buses, streets and public spaces.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/ftas-peter-rogoff-announces-304-million-for-denver-union-station.html

will help transform Denver Union Station into a true multi-modal transportation system, connecting light rail, commuter rail, buses, streets and public spaces.

 

What about Amtrak?  They seem to leave out the fact that you can catch a train to San Francisco or Chicago from that building as well.

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson forms new panel to study revitalizing malls, Public Square

Updated: Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 10:57 PM

Mark Gillispie, The Plain Dealer

 

...Jackson's new Group Plan panel is forming at a critical time for Cleveland, given that nearly $2 billion in new projects are slated to get under way. Those projects include a casino, a medical mart and convention center and the Flats' East Bank development.

 

And there is optimism that in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression that even more investment is coming, including a mixed-use project on the lakefront and an "intermodal" transportation center.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/cleveland_mayor_frank_jackson_15.html

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/intermodal_transportation_cent.html

 

Cleveland plans intermodal transportation center to link key landmarks

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland plans to build a long-awaited intermodal transportation center near the lakefront to link the new medical mart, convention center and Flats East Bank redevelopment.

 

The center, north of the east edge of Mall C, would serve rail passengers, motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. It would likely extend over railroad tracks to just south of the Shoreway and include walkways to the mall and North Coast Harbor, city planning director Bob Brown said Tuesday.

Sweet!

 

Although this passage from the article raises questions:

 

"Four years ago, the city was awarded $718,900 in federal funds by the Federal Transit Administration to plan an intermodal facility, Brown said. But the money sat unused because all the talk of lakefront development or a new convention center never led to any concrete plans... Half of the federal earmark funds, which are administered by RTA, expired two years ago and the other half expires June 30, which prompted the RTA board on Tuesday to give the money to Cleveland.  The city will provide a 20 percent match, so about $432,000 will be available to prepare a plan and preliminary design."

 

So let me get this straight... the feds awarded us $718k, but RTA and the city watched half of it evaporate through inaction?  Seriously?  The justification given is that other plans were uncertain 4 years ago.  So what?  It's not like a multimodal transit center would be useless if MM/CC or FEB didn't happen.  In fact, it might singlehandedly spur the kind of development it was waiting on. 

 

Why did we waste all that money?  I hope the article is mistaken on this point.  If it isn't, I'm thoroughly disgusted.  We need every break we can get.  We can't allow gross incompetence to destroy our opportunities, to wipe out federal grants in the six-figure range. 

Glad to see the city moving forward on this. It's been a long time coming.

 

I'd also like to see this served by Laketran, Akron Metro, PARTA and Greyhound buses, plus any RTA buses that travel past this site (ie: #39/Euclid, #47/Loop and the B-Line Trolley). All regional and intercity surface transportation modes should be united under one roof to ease connectivity. Toronto Union Station, which also has a large GO Transit bus hub, is an example.

I'd like to see RTA replace the proposed WHD West Side transit center with one at the NCTC.  That would give us another direct connection between the bus routes and our rapid transit system, a one-seat ride to the Ohio Hub trains, and there's probably more physical space for the buses down there than in the WHD.

Agree with KJP re: including more modes of transportation and bus lines.

 

While happy to see this "moving" don't really know how fast it will happen (article says 5-10...I think that is optomistic and anything can happen to plans that take so long...for example a change in administrations in DC to Republican),  really don't know how "serious" (even though it should be) the city is.  It seems that the only reason they are moving forward is because the RTA funding was going to disappear at the end of the month.  Also discouraging that $350,000 was lost due to in action (even if there were some good reasons for the inaction). 

Coupled with the above great news.... this is VERY interesting....

 

USDOT, HUD launch joint effort to foster 'sustainable communities'

 

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began a collaborative effort aimed at helping to foster "sustainable communities" where transportation, housing and commercial development investments would be coordinated.

 

USDOT and HUD will jointly award up to $75 million in funding — $35 million in Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery II (TIGER II) planning grants and $40 million in Sustainable Community Challenge Grants — for localized planning activities.

 

More at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=23659

 

 

Yes there is another round of stimulus related grants available.  I really hope the Cleveland area is prepared to be jumping on some of these: 

 

 

TIGER II Grants

Pre-applications due July 16, 2010

 

Protect Essential Highways, Highway Bridge Approaches, and Public Works

Applications accepted on continuing basis

 

Economic Development Administration (EDA) American Recovery Program

Applications accepted on continuing basis and processed as received

 

Bikes Belong Grant

Applications reviewed quarterly

I'd like to see RTA replace the proposed WHD West Side transit center ....

 

Where is this proposed to go?  Any links/renderings with more info?

^ http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23756.0.html

I'd like to see RTA replace the proposed WHD West Side transit center with one at the NCTC. That would give us another direct connection between the bus routes and our rapid transit system, a one-seat ride to the Ohio Hub trains, and there's probably more physical space for the buses down there than in the WHD.

 

I agree. How many transit centers does downtown need? Tower City is an obvious one and cannot be moved easily, nor should it as Public Square makes for a natural transit hub. CSU makes sense because of the College Town concept for that area. And then the lakefront because that's where the mainline railroads are. Now if we just had a downtown loop rail line that linked all three transit centers..... Oops, wrong thread. Here it is:

 

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

I'm thrilled this worthwhile project is finally moving forward.  Like others, though, I am totally disgusted that RTA sat on this money for years waiting for the NCTC and MM to materialize and, in the process, wasted half of it... I'm not surprised this happened under Joe Calabrese's incompetent RTA. This should be thoroughly investigated. 

 

Thank goodness, as KJP noted, the Ohio Railway Commission kept the project alive.

 

I'm also put off by the looooong completion projection:  5 to 10 years.. why?  Maybe there's some justification for this, but I often feel officials here do this because they're scared sh_tless  of success.  ... that's why its so refreshing with really short timeframes for a change:  1 year for 3-Cs and/or the Cleveland casino to get started.  Maybe they're unrealistic, but at least you get the sense the relevant public figures behind them are itching to get their projects up and running as opposed to the long-laggers, who seem to build in cushions almost seemingly expecting, even hoping, some intervening event will deep-6 the project.  Another one of those OIC (Only in Cleveland) kinda things, I guess.

 

Federal funds would be sought for this, so the minimum planning timeline is seven years. But since funding can't always be had for each step when you want to have it, the timeline averages 10 years -- Everywhere, not just in Cleveland.

 

Here is a best-case scenario timeline for projects seeking federal funds...

 

Step 1 – Program level, first-tier PEIS, two years;

Step 2 – Project level, second-tier EIS, one year;

Step 3 – Preliminary engineering, one year;

Step 4 – Final design, one year;

Step 5 – Construction, two years.

 

The 3C project is moving at record-breaking speed because Gov. Strickland and Director Molitoris saw an opportunity to tap 100 percent federal funds through the stimulus. Even so, the project in its current form started in 2008 when Strickland wrote a letter to Amtrak requesting the planning work. Trains will not start running until probably 2013 or so. And there could always be additional delays. So that's at least five years for a dramatically accelerated, 100-percent federally funded project.

 

Stop the Cleveland self-pity. Show me a federally funded transportation project anywhere in the U.S. since NEPA was passed in the 1960s that progressed through the planning process in less than five years.

There's no self-pity going on here, only pity for the fools who wasted Cleveland's federal money.  The point is that we should already be several years into that planning process with this project.  The article stated that planning money was given to us 4 years ago, and we let half of it evaporate by failing to start planning until just now.  Nobody is arguing the federal timeline.  This issue here is Cleveland leadership's approach to that timeline. 

Really?

 

I'm also put off by the looooong completion projection: 5 to 10 years.. why? Maybe there's some justification for this, but I often feel officials here do this because they're scared sh_tless of success. ... that's why its so refreshing with really short timeframes for a change: 1 year for 3-Cs and/or the Cleveland casino to get started. Maybe they're unrealistic, but at least you get the sense the relevant public figures behind them are itching to get their projects up and running as opposed to the long-laggers, who seem to build in cushions almost seemingly expecting, even hoping, some intervening event will deep-6 the project. Another one of those OIC (Only in Cleveland) kinda things, I guess.

 

Stop the Cleveland self-pity. Show me a federally funded transportation project anywhere in the U.S. since NEPA was passed in the 1960s that progressed through the planning process in less than five years.

 

Self pity my ass... it wouldn't be 5-10 years if your new-best buddy, Joe Calabrese, wasn't picking his nose, frittering away 1/2 federal funds for this project while the money just sat there.  If he'd moved forward with this project, at least acted like a responsible co-player in all this and partnered with whatever agency he needed to -- instead of his usual cry/rant that RTA is too broke, and too county-oriented to stand the hell up and act like real, engaged transit chief, the NCTC would probably be nearing completion by now, if not being completed.

I'd also like to see this served by Laketran, Akron Metro, PARTA and Greyhound buses, plus any RTA buses that travel past this site (ie: #39/Euclid, #47/Loop and the B-Line Trolley). All regional and intercity surface transportation modes should be united under one roof to ease connectivity. Toronto Union Station, which also has a large GO Transit bus hub, is an example.

 

Greyhound? They would have to split operations between this and chester ave--which they won't like as it will add costs to them. but i agree with you on the suburban bus lines--with two "if's"

 

1--that the lines still serve other points downtown--its a long walk from the NCTC to say Public Square or Euclid & 9th when its 20 degrees out.

 

2--that a tremendous level of bus traffic (remember, no one really LIKES buses) does not make the area around the NCTC a big industrial-like area thereby killing the possibility of a true residential neighborhood developing north of the tracks after the port moves. A train station is a good thing; no one wants to live next to a 'bus station' (and I truly understand the concept and benefit of intermodalism). at the very minimum there should be RTA loop buses here, but the maximum number of buses here should be considered carefully before overwhelming the station and thus killing a neighborhood before it begins.

I'd also like to see this served by Laketran, Akron Metro, PARTA and Greyhound buses, plus any RTA buses that travel past this site (ie: #39/Euclid, #47/Loop and the B-Line Trolley). All regional and intercity surface transportation modes should be united under one roof to ease connectivity. Toronto Union Station, which also has a large GO Transit bus hub, is an example.

Why would the suburban bus services want to route their buses through here? As it is I currently ride a Laketran bus into Cleveland every day (Since RTA made so many cuts and wasn't convenient anymore) and once it gets off the freeway it does a big loop around downtown so everyone can get off near where they work or near public square where they can catch a connection. Why would it make sense to go out of the way to stop at the NCTC?

Self pity my ass... it wouldn't be 5-10 years if your new-best buddy, Joe Calabrese, wasn't picking his nose, frittering away 1/2 federal funds for this project while the money just sat there.  If he'd moved forward with this project, at least acted like a responsible co-player in all this and partnered with whatever agency he needed to -- instead of his usual cry/rant that RTA is too broke, and too county-oriented to stand the hell up and act like real, engaged transit chief, the NCTC would probably be nearing completion by now, if not being completed.

 

Yep. It sucks. So let's work on the future because we can't change the past.

I'd also like to see this served by Laketran, Akron Metro, PARTA and Greyhound buses, plus any RTA buses that travel past this site (ie: #39/Euclid, #47/Loop and the B-Line Trolley). All regional and intercity surface transportation modes should be united under one roof to ease connectivity. Toronto Union Station, which also has a large GO Transit bus hub, is an example.

Why would the suburban bus services want to route their buses through here? As it is I currently ride a Laketran bus into Cleveland every day (Since RTA made so many cuts and wasn't convenient anymore) and once it gets off the freeway it does a big loop around downtown so everyone can get off near where they work or near public square where they can catch a connection. Why would it make sense to go out of the way to stop at the NCTC?

 

How would it be out of the way?  They pop off of route 2 and head straight to the NCTC and then continue a counter-clockwise loop around downtown getting back onto route 2 at 9th.  Or get they get off at 9th and do a clockwise loop around DT ending at the NCTC.  Either way, I don't think it would be really be out of the way.  And you would want your laketran bus to stop there if you're trying to catch a 3C train to Columbus or Cincinnati.

 

I also agree with KJP that Greyhound should move it's operations to the NCTC.  It makes so much sense from a logistical standpoint.  Ramps could be built that would connect directly to Route 2 that would keep the buses off the city streets.  The NCTC has the potential to be the downtown hub of our intercity travel if Greyhound moves operations there.  The centralization will also make it easier for RTA and cabs to offer service to the area since the arrivals (of buses and trains combined) will be more frequent and in one location.

Greyhound? They would have to split operations between this and chester ave--which they won't like as it will add costs to them. but i agree with you on the suburban bus lines--with two "if's"

 

I'm pretty sure Greyhound bus lines does not own the Greyhound station. I think they lease it from a real estate company that also uses the name Greyhound. They are very separate operations. For example, in Toledo, Greyhound bus lines wanted to relocate to the former New York Central station renovated as the MLK Plaza with an Amtrak station. But the Greyhound real estate company wouldn't let the bus carrier out of its lease. I hope the same thing doesn't happen here in Cleveland.

 

1--that the lines still serve other points downtown--its a long walk from the NCTC to say Public Square or Euclid & 9th when its 20 degrees out.

 

Agreed.

 

2--that a tremendous level of bus traffic (remember, no one really LIKES buses) does not make the area around the NCTC a big industrial-like area thereby killing the possibility of a true residential neighborhood developing north of the tracks after the port moves.

 

It hasn't hurt the area around Toronto Union Station, or San Francisco's Transbay Terminal, or Seattle's King Street Station....

 

Why would the suburban bus services want to route their buses through here?

 

I think most of Laketran's buses already travel past this site as they exit or enter East 9th to/from the Shoreway. Akron Metro and PARTA routes are another matter. They would have to be rerouted.

Here's some samples of transit center designs, locations, modes and amenities in other cities....

 

St. Louis (might be the most applicable to what Cleveland might offer in term of transportation options: Amtrak, Greyhound, light rail, city bus. Was built for $28 million):

Inside St. Louis' Gateway Station 12/1/08

New St. Louis Gateway Station 10/15/08 (1)

You can see St. Louis' original "Amshack" station on the right in this video:

New St. Louis Gateway Station 10/15/08 (2)

 

Milwaukee (news clip of Intermodal Station grand opening in 2007):

More news:

More views:

 

Dallas Union Station:

 

Detroit:

 

New Rochelle:

 

If I come across more, I'll post them.

Self pity my ass... it wouldn't be 5-10 years if your new-best buddy, Joe Calabrese, wasn't picking his nose, frittering away 1/2 federal funds for this project while the money just sat there. If he'd moved forward with this project, at least acted like a responsible co-player in all this and partnered with whatever agency he needed to -- instead of his usual cry/rant that RTA is too broke, and too county-oriented to stand the hell up and act like real, engaged transit chief, the NCTC would probably be nearing completion by now, if not being completed.

 

Yep. It sucks. So let's work on the future because we can't change the past.

 

NCTC is a problem for Calabrese because it naturally raises the issue about closing the loop with the waterfront line.  That would be a rail project.  Best not open that can of worms.

On the other hand, if we converted the WFL to a bus line, now Joe could go somewhere with that.  Hey how about converting the WFL to bus rapid transit!

NCTC is a problem for Calabrese because it naturally raises the issue about closing the loop with the waterfront line.  That would be a rail project.  Best not open that can of worms.

On the other hand, if we converted the WFL to a bus line, now Joe could go somewhere with that.  Hey how about converting the WFL to bus rapid transit!

Shhh!!! We don't want to give RTA any ideas.

The motivation for the NCTC first came from the NEOrail commuter rail plans. It went away because NEOrail went away. NCTC came back because 3C Quick Start received funding and All Aboard Ohio encouraged the city to tap the expiring HUD Lakefront Plan money. If the 3C project is turned down, or another rail project doesn't come along, then the NCTC is probably going to fade away again.

I've been meaning to post these graphics for a long time but couldn't find them. Well, I found them! These are from the mid-1990s and show options for the two Cleveland Browns Stadium sites. But the reason why I'm posting them here is because they were part of the discussion of where to put transit stations and an intermodal hub (ie: North Coast Transportation Center). Notice how the lakefront stadium is oriented -- a 90-degree turn from the old stadium and the current stadium. But the interest was in building something quickly and at lower cost, so they built it on the foundations of the old stadium and used its utility lines, access roads, etc...

 

 

KJP, any news that you have heard?

 

One question, based on the quality of the discussions of the new group plan, how far north would the NCTC go?  Is it possible it can be configured to at least visually link to the "Phase 1" development along the lake that the Port had planned, and still says is viable?

 

 

The city is waiting to hear back from the USDOT on whether its TIGER 2 application for preliminary engineering was approved. But the odds are against Cleveland considering how many applications were made (not sure of the number, but the dollar amount of the requests nationwide was many times larger than the dollar amount available).

 

I haven't followed the new group plan discussions. Got any links to bring me up to speed?

Federal TIGER 2 funding for preliminary engineering for this project was not included....

 

A complete list of capital grant recipients can be viewed at: http://www.dot.gov/docs/tiger2grantinfo.pdf

 

A complete list of planning grant recipients can be viewed at: http://www.dot.gov/docs/tiger2planninggrantinfo.pdf

Boo

How long does the city have to wait to reapply?

 

Not one Ohio project was funded this round, while LA got funds for two separate projects and Atlanta gets $40 mil for a streetcar project.

 

And yes, I'm a hater.

How long does the city have to wait to reapply?

 

Not one Ohio project was funded this round, while LA got funds for two separate projects and Atlanta gets $40 mil for a streetcar project.

 

And yes, I'm a hater.

 

Cleveland can reapply for FTA funds at any time, but there is no TIGER 3 to apply to.

 

And Cleveland did get $10.5 million for the University Circle/Cedar Rapid station reconstruction. A press release about that was posted in the Cedar station thread in the transit section.

Not one Ohio project was funded this round, while LA got funds for two separate projects and Atlanta gets $40 mil for a streetcar project.

 

Not true, check that list again.  There is a capital grant for a rail station near Case Western in Cleveland.

 

University - Cedar Rapid Transit Station Improvements OH $10,500,000

 

See related thread -- Cleveland: Cedar Hill Rapid Station

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,12801.0.html

 

 

I'm hearing that RTA and the city have suspended the NCTC preliminary engineering considering what is happening with 3C.

it IS too bad 3C got canned or I would have been thrilled about this too. I think its the perfect location and can start discussion on closing the loop. The designs we got from the Cleveland Design Competition were pretty excellent (and none of them were mine! ;)

 

Anyways, I hope John Kasich gets SO sick of 71! the bat rastard.

 

p.s. kjp I like your signature.

 

 

The North Coast Transportation Center project, the lakefront intermodal passenger terminal, or whatever we want to call it, died when the state's 3C project lost its funding and when the WestShore Corridor's alternative analysis began showing its trains should go to Tower City Center, not the lakefront.

 

 

I've been hearing rumbling for some weeks, but I was at a meeting today where I learned officially that the reports of this intermodal transportation center's death were greatly exaggerated. Turns out the City Planning Commission, Group Plan Commission, Downtown Cleveland Alliance and the Cleveland Browns are all fully committed to seeing this get built on the lakefront. These and possibly other stakeholders want to see it built for several reasons:

 

> It would create a round-the-clock activity center on the Lakefront by uniting Amtrak, Greyhound and regional buses into one facility.

> It would involve a structure that spans the tracks, creating improved pedestrian linkages between the Medical Mart/Convention Center and the attractions at North Coast Harbor, including the new developments proposed by the Cleveland Browns.

> And it would warrant restoring full service to the Waterfront Line, rather than just its current weekends and special events-only operations.

 

So there you have it. The city has taken over the sponsorship of preliminary engineering of the North Coast Transportation Center from the Greater Cleveland RTA as GCRTA was no longer interested in being the sponsor.  Parsons Brinckerhoff is the likely consultant to oversee the PE since they did an alternatives analysis of where to put the intermodal transportation center. I don't know if the city has enough money to fully carry out the PE, however.

 

EDIT: btw, relocating Greyhound to the intermodal transportation center on the lakefront will also avail more land for CSU residential development. I do not know what it is to become of the art-deco Greyhound terminal building if the bus station facilities are moved to a new location.

Good to hear! Plus it would give CSU more land to develop north of their campus