I was editing my comments as you were writing yours! Yes, the implications for CSU are very much a part of the city's holistic planning.

 

 

But wouldn't this be incredibly close to where they are wanting to place the RTA's west-side transportation center?  Seems like they could maybe work something out there..

Yes, they are very close. I don't think RTA sees eye-to-eye with the city on this.

 

I've also heard some other motivations on why RTA wants the west-side transit center, including possibly to relocate its offices to it. But I may be inventing that memory. Can anyone affirm or debunk that memory of mine?

It'd be cool if the art deco Greyhound station could become a 24-Hour diner. This news is very interesting.

Wouldn't they want the center to clear some of their traffic off of Public Square?  I would think that would be one of the ramifications of any serious alterations to the flow of traffic within the Square that have been contemplated on here.. 

It'd be cool if the art deco Greyhound station could become a 24-Hour diner. This news is very interesting.

It's a bit big for that, I'd rather see it become residential, but I would suppose that if this happens (and I refuse to get excited at this point) discussion would belong in a different thread.

 

Personally I'd rather see the Amtrak station moved into Tower City so that it could share platforms with the CVSR than see a rebuilt station on the North Coast. Tower City is more convenient to more downtown workers than the north end of the mall.

 

Tower City is more convenient to more downtown workers than the north end of the mall.

 

 

Not necessarily though. Key Tower isnt a long walk from the end of the mall and could actually be quicker due to passing less traffic. It is also about the same difference from the Warehouse District and East 9th.

 

There have been a number of planning efforts in recent years (and decades) comparing a station site on the lakefront vs. one at Tower City. What these planning efforts show is that, if you draw concentric circles around both sites and count the number of workers within them, the numbers are much higher around Tower City as are the additional transit linkages and access to more special event attendance (concerts, Cavs, Indians, etc). I don't remember the specific numbers, but I'll look for them when I have a large amount of free time.

 

But, ultimately, none of this is relevant for the type of transportation that would serve an intermodal hub on the lakefront. Amtrak and Greyhound do not carry day-to-day workers.

There have been a number of planning efforts in recent years (and decades) comparing a station site on the lakefront vs. one at Tower City. What these planning efforts show is that, if you draw concentric circles around both sites and count the number of workers within them, the numbers are much higher around Tower City as are the additional transit linkages and access to more special event attendance (concerts, Cavs, Indians, etc). I don't remember the specific numbers, but I'll look for them when I have a large amount of free time.

 

But, ultimately, none of this is relevant for the type of transportation that would serve an intermodal hub on the lakefront. Amtrak and Greyhound do not carry day-to-day workers.

 

Additionally, wouldn't there need to be a lot of very expensive remediation work done in order to re-route traffic into TC?

 

The lafefront would likely be a more cost effective way to make this intermodal center happen.

 

Additionally, wouldn't there need to be a lot of very expensive remediation work done in order to re-route traffic into TC?

 

The lafefront would likely be a more cost effective way to make this intermodal center happen.

 

Yes, for the small level of passenger rail service we have. But for an expanded level of service, Tower City makes more sense. Consider this: if you take the existing Amtrak service, add several weekday round-trip rush hour-only WestShore commuter trains, and the several daily round trips of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic RR , you get up to 20 passenger trains a day on some days.

Additionally, wouldn't there need to be a lot of very expensive remediation work done in order to re-route traffic into TC?

Yes, but there'd need to be a lot of expensive work done to make a North Coast Transit Center accessible too. If we're going to someday need to spend that kind of money so that the CVSR and/or the West Shore Commuter route can get into Tower City, why build two train stations? I have no idea how much either would cost, so if we can save significantly by building at the end of the mall, great, otherwise it seems foolish to me.

 

Besides, isn't the Convention Center spending significantly on giant windows that will look out over this spot toward the lake?

Do you think the people from the Browns plan would want the greyhound station (and other regional buses) relocated there? Could affect property values and the desire of people to live there. Bus stations and their 24 hr bathrooms and warm interiors are havens for the homeless and other activity. I would love to see a new Lakefront station (combining Amtrak, commuter rail, and the waterfront line)--second to be relocating the first two to CUT (which I know is not financially likely), but the bus element--and more bus traffic in a high end neighborhood that is a higher priority (Lakefront Plan)--I'm less crazy about.

It's a city. As much as I wish homeless people weren't homeless, they aren't going to go away. And cities are where many of them are. So if you don't want homeless people around, better find another place to spend your time other than downtown. As for whether there are more beggars at the bus station or outside downtown sporting events, I think that's subject to debate. And based on experience rather than perceptions, I think you will find that Greyhound polices the interior of their station pretty well.

Seems like nearby residential reduces our Greyhound station's safety, rather than the other way around. 

Seems like nearby residential reduces our Greyhound station's safety, rather than the other way around. 

 

Agree, specifically the building across the street (always forget the name of it).

It's a city. As much as I wish homeless people weren't homeless, they aren't going to go away. And cities are where many of them are. So if you don't want homeless people around, better find another place to spend your time other than downtown. As for whether there are more beggars at the bus station or outside downtown sporting events, I think that's subject to debate. And based on experience rather than perceptions, I think you will find that Greyhound polices the interior of their station pretty well.

 

I know cities and homelessness go hand in hand (at least in the US). And i think the INTERIOR of the current greyhound station is very safe as well--I never saw any trouble in there. But people have been hassled outside of it--even as written by folks on this board. A bus station usually does not add value to a property, but does the opposite.

 

By the way, the CLE Greyhound station, i once read, is the largest Greyhound station in the country.

People get hassled inside/outside Browns stadium too.  Wasn't a 10 year old kid tackled by a grown man down there just last year?

 

I also agree that the element around the Greyhound station has more to do with current perception than the element within the station.

The Greyhound station is surrounded by parking lots.  The Playhouse Square garage is directly across the street.  It's a desert.  Other than the Allerton, there's nothing of interest to pedestrians between Chester and Euclid on E13th.  E17th between Chester and Euclid is equally dead.  The Greyhound station really is quite isolated.

 

CSU students walk by from the Chesterfield and such, but I rarely see anyone else in the area other than Greyhound patrons.  The Allerton building on the corner of Chester and E13 doesn't seem to be as much of a problem as it once was.

 

I am very interested in seeing some kind of updated design for this.

^ Same.  I'm under the impression that the winning design from the 2009 competition won't necessarily be what's built, is that correct?  That's a shame, because I really liked the below-level terraced-hill design that bridges the mall and the lakefront with a roof area where people can hang out.

 

That being said, I hope that there's a little something above ground to visually complete the Burnham Plan.  Yes, it's nice that the current lack of a structure between the court house and city hall provides a nice view, but the empty space there is also kind of weird.  It's very apparent that something's supposed to be there, but isn't.

 

At the very least, I'd like there to be some kind of gate like this in Sevastopol, Ukraine:

<img src="http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta01/497/524/steps-of-sevastopol-sevastopol.jpg" />

 

Or like the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany:

<img src="http://www.travlang.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/brandenburg-gate-at-seen.jpg" />

 

Or something modern like the glass pyramid at Paris' Louvre:

<img src="http://0.tqn.com/d/goeurope/1/0/W/k/1/paris-louvre-pyramid.jpg" />

 

A gate of some sort would be low enough and see-through enough to provide some view of the lakefront through it.  A modern design similar to the Louvre pyramid would complement the RRHF, also designed by I.M. Pei.

I always thought it should be similar to the Galleria, with shops on the first floor at one end and an open, sunlit solarium over the over the tracks and platforms below.

 

 

 

 

If nothing else, I think an arch/gate is a wonderful idea.  It was be much more affordable, serve as a bookend, and allow you to see beyond to the lake. 

Would any of you guys like something like this? I think it's not only functional with the ped access and retail, but it captures the grandeur of a terrific era.

 

It's the bridge from the Great Lakes Exposition - I think I've posted this 3x here on UO lol.

 

Design should be less grand/monumental and more functional and elegant. I like big stone structures but I think we missed the boat on that - aren't they prohibitively expensive now? And it doesn't really make sense for that area, since it's going to be over/around a highway.

 

I liked the idea of 'capping' the freeway with something, and the comparison to the galleria is good.

Here's what I suspect we'll probably see:

 

The city's Gerbil Tube from the north end of Mall C curving to the north to North Coast Harbor (http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/13cglakejpg-e02d4b0ec3a6e15b.jpg) with the mid-tube access point (stairwell, elevator, etc) to a new parking deck, Waterfront Line station and the Amtrak station.

 

Here's what I'd like to see happen:

 

1. If Greyhound/Lakefront/Megabus wants to relocate to this site, they could/should be involved in any discussions with the city regarding the design of the parking deck so that there's enough vertical and turning clearance on the ground level for buses to use this as a climate-protected station facility. Buses could access this station from the East Shoreway and South Marginal Road.

2. If more Amtrak trains serve Cleveland to warrant more than the existing station platform, then the Gerbil Tube could be retrofitted with an additional access points linking it and a second or third trackside platform. BTW, I'm told the existing platform will be widened this spring to the reach the next track north -- moreso because of ADA requirements as the existing platform is too narrow but it has other potential benefits in terms of future expansion.

3. Perhaps the Amtrak station could also be relocated into a second level of this parking deck (sacrificing a couple dozen parking spaces) and have passengers use the Gerbil Tube to reach the existing platform by elevator/stairwell so that more than one train can use this platform at a time. This cannot be done with the current at-grade station because if a long train is on the track nearest to the station, it blocks pedestrian access to the platform.

 

^Speaking of said tube, From Crains:

 

Downtown pedestrian bridge hits snag

The city of Cleveland's plan for lakefront redevelopment has hit a bump after missing out at the end of the year on an $81 million federal grant to build a pedestrian bridge from Mall C, on a bluff overlooking Lake Erie, over railroad tracks and the...

PRINT OR DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED

 

No link available

 

 

^

That IS a gerbil tube! How dreadfully boring!!

#1. The bridge design wasn't a fully developed, it was kind of like a massing for a building.  They just knew where it was going and that it would be open air and weather protected.

#2.  WTF???  Who dropped the ball on federal money?

^Speaking of said tube, From Crains:

 

Downtown pedestrian bridge hits snag

The city of Cleveland's plan for lakefront redevelopment has hit a bump after missing out at the end of the year on an $81 million federal grant to build a pedestrian bridge from Mall C, on a bluff overlooking Lake Erie, over railroad tracks and the...

PRINT OR DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED

 

No link available

 

 

 

Link (for Crain's subscribers):

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20120116/SUB1/301169965

#2.  WTF???  Who dropped the ball on federal money?

 

I don't know if anyone "dropped the ball" but I suspect (since I can't read the article) that this was TIGER III funding, which has many times more in requested money nationally than funding available.

 

Seeing the parking deck in the city's graphic published by the PD made me wonder -- what if the parking deck was redesigned to allow for to become the North Coast Transportation Center. So I made these graphics showing how it could be done, from the ground floor up....

 

 

 

Additional levels, from the 3rd level up, could look like this:

^OK, my bad.  Not getting money awarded is a whole different thing that missing the application date.  I misread the headline.

Let me get this straight: They're planning to build a garage between the Shoreway and RTA??? If they are going to do that, then it would be a crime to not include an intermodal hub.

 

BTW, I like your diagrams...

^^^ I like your diagrams too, and I think if that's what's likely to happen, it's workable.  However, I would like to make the additions in the attached image to complete the Group Plan.

 

I realize that maybe the red is hard to read, but red is the centerpiece building that would complete the Burnham plan, attached to the mall via a plaza.  Considering that the waiting room would already be built, I'm thinking that the anchor structure would have retail, hotel, conference rooms, and maybe offices for RTA, 3C, and HSR and Amtrak branch administration offices.  Of course, if the NCTC is built in stages, it could be 20+ years before the whole thing is completed.

 

A modification now that the image has already been posted: the pedestrian entrance for the shoreway would probably also be in the red building, to prevent conflict with the buses that are going in and out in the area where I had originally marked.  And I meant "pending future traffic" not "lending."  :roll:

This is fascinating. You'd have the capability of having a two platform/four track setup at track level, more than enough capacity for the foreseeable future. You could also flip the station (red) and plaza to step down and allow overhead walkways into the Browns stadium and the Science Museum/ R&R museum. The area at Ninth St could also be developed over the tracks. A lot of possibilities there.

Funny how we want the moon AND the sky! I'd be happy if they could just get the $81 million in federal funds for the gerbil tube, which they apparently planned to leverage with $20 +/- million in local funds. A parking garage of that size would cost tens of millions of dollars to build (fortunately it's all on public sector-owned property). If we complicate things by inserting a transportation center into half of it, now we're talking about adding tens of million of dollars more in cost. True, it would cost MUCH less than building over the tracks (and without all the complications of trying to build public structures over rail lines carrying hazardous material shipments), but we're still talking probably something in the $50 million to $75 million range.

Funny how we want the moon AND the sky! I'd be happy if they could just get the $81 million in federal funds for the gerbil tube, which they apparently planned to leverage with $20 +/- million in local funds. A parking garage of that size would cost tens of millions of dollars to build (fortunately it's all on public sector-owned property). If we complicate things by inserting a transportation center into half of it, now we're talking about adding tens of million of dollars more in cost. True, it would cost MUCH less than building over the tracks (and without all the complications of trying to build public structures over rail lines carrying hazardous material shipments), but we're still talking probably something in the $50 million to $75 million range.

 

I was thinking this could be done in stages...a two track station at first, four tracks later. Ditto the other stuff. The inportant thing is to establish an intermodal presence and not be left out.

What surprised me is how easily a large bus station for Greyhound, Megabus, Lakefront and the regional transit services to the collar-counties (Laketran, Akron Metro, Portage Area RTA, etc) could be accommodated at the parking-deck-turned-transportation-center. I was able to include 25 bus bays at the center -- the existing Cleveland Greyhound station has only 18 bays. And that was designed in 1948 when bus travel was nearing its peak. The Greyhound station had 200 daily departures in the 1960s, which has dropped to about 50 today. So 25 is being generous! Perhaps the transit services could layover in downtown Cleveland at the center during the day, saving a trip all the way back to the collar counties. Hence my provision of a crew quarters at the transit center. And the buses could "plug in" during the winter to keep their diesel engines warm, rather than idle away and burn up fuel.

Just looking over what you have...$50-$75 million for an intermodal hub is quite reasonable. You get a lot for your money and save by piggybacking on to the parking garage. Furthermore, the site has room to grow. Any idea about discussions with the city?

 

This would be a huge improvement over what we have now and it would allow rail passenger service to expand.

Just looking over what you have...$50-$75 million for an intermodal hub is quite reasonable. You get a lot for your money and save by piggybacking on to the parking garage. Furthermore, the site has room to grow. Any idea about discussions with the city?

 

This would be a huge improvement over what we have now and it would allow rail passenger service to expand.

 

Plus it opens up the very cool Greyhound building for development. Something more oriented to the growing student residential pop.

Aren't they looking at building an RTA bus depot 5 blocks away from there? Could they not be merged here if there is room?

Aren't they looking at building an RTA bus depot 5 blocks away from there? Could they not be merged here if there is room?

 

Yes, and the reasons why they are looking at building the West Side Transit Center in the Warehouse District has less to do with transit and more to do with GCRTA's high bond rating because it is a financially stable government agency sustained by a permanent sales tax. That means GCRTA can offer much lower construction bonds than the private market can for building large capital construction projects -- including parking decks that allow for nearby surface lots to be developed, and to serve as the foundation for a high-rise apartment building to reduce its cost of construction. Oh, and by the way, they'll also run some buses through there so that it actually functions as a transit center.

I was thinking this could be done in stages...a two track station at first, four tracks later. Ditto the other stuff. The inportant thing is to establish an intermodal presence and not be left out.

 

I agree with this.  While yes, getting the NCTC done in a cost-effective manner is important, I also hope to get it done right, the way Burnham intended.  If it means it'll be a while before it gets done, it's better than not having it done at all.

 

This is fascinating. You'd have the capability of having a two platform/four track setup at track level, more than enough capacity for the foreseeable future. You could also flip the station (red) and plaza to step down and allow overhead walkways into the Browns stadium and the Science Museum/ R&R museum. The area at Ninth St could also be developed over the tracks. A lot of possibilities there.

 

The flip is definitely possible, though as KJP says, it'll cost a lot more to build over the tracks, especially if the structure is also going to have retail, hotel, offices, and other stuff.  An alternative is that the station itself is the terraced structure down to the lakefront, which allows people to mosey on top over it on their way to the lakefront.  This, in essence, is then the winning design from the 2009 competition:

<img src="http://www.bustler.net/images/uploads/2009_cleveland_design_competition_lakefront_station_cover.jpg" />

 

In the event that the station is hidden from view because it's built into the bluff as indicated in the winning design, then I sincerely do advocate for the inclusion of a gate, arch, glass pyramid, ferris wheel - something on top - to cap off the Group Plan.

That design reminds me of something from War of the Worlds. Or The Blob. Yecchhh...guess I'm not a futuristic type.

I'm told USDOT will make its decision on this and other TIGER IV grant applications in about two weeks. Cleveland's request is for $20 million of a $46.7 million project including the walkways, roadways and parking deck. The pedestrian connections to Amtrak and the GCRTA station are pretty weak, but the linkages can be added on to in the near future by Amtrak (which plans to invest $4.25 million in the Cleveland station next year) and GCRTA (which plans to return the Waterfront Line to daily service next year). Anyway, lots of stuff to consider here, but the best place to start is the Project Narrative....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/grants/index.php

Thanks, KJP.

 

So, is this application for the "super" ped. bridge from the mall to North Coast Harbor?

That, and the parking deck with bike station, bus station, rail station access and redesigned roadway linking West 3rd with East 9th. All of that is included in the $46.7 million. The ped bridge was scaled back to something less massive. This is still all about a ped bridge, but now they're trying to incorporate other uses into it. You can see from how this is presented that their minds are still focused on a ped bridge, and that other uses are of lesser priority to them. The uses seem to decline in order of priority to parking, then bike station, Amtrak station, finally the RTA station which does not appear connected at all. If all uses were presented in equal importance, this facility would look very different.

 

BTW, the feds are trying push money onto projects that reduce vehicle-miles traveled, and especially to passenger rail with this round of TIGER grants. We'll see if the city did enough to design their project to meet federal grantmaking preferences.

Come on election year politics, swing state baby needs a new bridge!

(actually a few bridges)

Surprised there are not that many comments on this TIGER grant, but this could be huge. I think the best thing about the application is that it seems reasonable. It looks like a well thought out request. Of course TIGER money is thin and it is a longshot but I hope those reviewing the app. take into consideration that this project really hits alot of transportation points. It's definitely more function than flash. And while not beautiful, I think we can work with it. And I am at the point where I'm less concerned with the aesthetics of a proposal, and more focused on the chances of it succeeding. It's certainly different from my vision of what should be there, but it's a good start. Cleveland needs this, now.

(I'm lazy)

Does the garage go all the way to E. 9th?  Any retail frontage?

(I'm lazy)

Does the garage go all the way to E. 9th?  Any retail frontage?

 

No on both. This new garage goes no further east than the existing City Hall garage. The precise alignment of this new deck with the City Hall deck tells me the city did that to create a development site all along East 9th here.

 

BTW: I found this data interesting.......

 

Ohio fact sheets on ridership at each station and a few of their largest contracts with Ohio businesses are shown at:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980432

 

 

Lake Shore Limited (CHI-NYC/BOS) -- total FY2011 ridership:  387,043

Capitol Limited (CHI-WDC) -- total FY2011 ridership: 226,597

TOTAL FY2011 ridership on Amtrak trains through Cleveland: 613,640

SOURCE: http://tinyurl.com/4x8cpjj

 

 

By Comparison:

Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport -- number of enplanements: 4,704,329

Akron-Canton Regional Airport -- number of enplanements: 715,367

Erie International Airport -- number of enplanements: 126,778

Toledo Express Airport -- number of enplanements: 93,669

Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport -- number of enplanements: 17,391

 

SOURCES: http://www.ranker.com/list/all-ohio-airports/american-airports

http://www.erievitalsigns.org/view_enplanements.html