Port Authority Developments: Building a new CDF and possibly
moving operations
(August 09)
We thought it might be helpful to recap some of the factors driving the agenda of the Cleveland Cuyahoga Port Authority and its role in the Port of Cleveland. The Port of Cleveland refers to the various commercial, recreational, and in general water related businesses that operate on the Cuyahoga River (to the southern end of the shipping channel at about the Arcelor Mittal Steel mill) and inside the Federal breakwall. The Cuyahoga River and inside the breakwall must continually be dredged to maintain commercial navigation which is defined as a depth of 27 feet. By law, the dredgings must be put in a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). Dike 14 is an example of a CDF. 14 is about 88 acres. The current CDF in use is on the northeast end of Burke Airport. A new CDF must be ready for the 2015 dredging season. Construction of walls for the new CDF needs to start by 2012. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE,Buffalo District) is responsible for the work of dredging and disposal. ACE is also due to issue an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in August. An EIS is required for work to proceed on the new CDF.
The site selected for the new CDF is the E 55th State Park and Marina area. The other serious sites for a CDF seemed to be outside the breakwall. Much ado has been made over the choice of the State park area. Certainly, the Port Authority has held meetings showing an eventual 200 acre port area that could accommodate container cargo coming down the St Lawrence Seaway after being transferred from ocean going megaships that can’t get into the Great Lakes. This is cargo that is mainly handled on the saltwater coasts. We reviewed the Port Authority’s own report about the container trade and concluded that this is a possibility but hardly a sure thing. That 200 acre proposal would swallow up the existing marina and parkland on the north and east end of the marina (roughly 40 acres) The other 160 acres are the new CDF that would be attached to the parkland on the east side of the E 55th site. The 1st phase of the new CDF would be finished in 2024. The new CDF would be roughly 1.5 times the size of the existing port facilities east of the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. The Port Authority (PA) feels part of the new CDF could be used before 2024 . The use they favor is relocation of their facilities. Going much past 2024 is not something we are going to spend much time on. We would also like to note that the Lakefront Bikeway in the area near the water intake for the First Energy coal burning electric plant is often pounded by heavy waves in a Northeaster. It is also very close to the Shoreway. In short, a poor design that could use improvement. The new CDF does not seem to factor in any improvements in this area. This is the time to see if the new CDF can help improve conditions in this area.
With construction of the new CDF (assumed to be the E55th attachment), the Federal share of the ACE dredging/disposal work will drop from 100% to 75%. Financing of the local share (25%) is not clear. We can speculate that a Countywide property tax increase may be put up for a vote. Property taxes are the main source of revenue for the PA . User fees from those who use the Port of Cleveland are a possibility. The City and County probably don’t want to use general revenue for this purpose if at all possible. We are not aware of other sources to finance this.
There is also the matter of how much business the PA facilities are going to do in the future. The traditional metric is usually expressed in tons per year. In the year 2000, tonnage was about 500,000 Projections were being made that tonnage would be about a million circa 2010. Tonnage for 2008 was about 500,000 which included bulk facilities on the river channel portion. Total tonnage for the entire Port of Cleveland is roughly 12.000.000 tons.and is comprised of bulk commodities like iron ore, limestone, and construction aggregates.. The tonnage figures seem to reflect the needs of manufacturing and construction in the region as Cleveland as a port services mainly a 70 mile radius.
Financial considerations aside, the confluence of river and lake make Whiskey Island and the current location of PA not just another location. Most people would probably agree that this area is quite appealing as public lakefront. If our waterfront was a blank slate, both sides of the mouth of the river would be great public places. We are grateful to see the west side (Whiskey Island) begin to showcase Cleveland’s natural beauty (even if water quality is still lousy). We would like to see a connection with a bridge for a multipurpose trail (no cars) from Whiskey Island to the PA facilities. We would like to see a bridge regardless of whether or not the PA relocates. We think connections should be made from the Warehouse District, Flats East Bank, Flats West Bank, and E9th Rock Hall area to Whiskey Island. The PA is going ahead with what redevelopment of their current facilities would actually consist of. Change of use to residential, office, retail, and public spaces are being proposed. We assume the value of the PA land might be considerable. We attended a meeting with the NY architects who were chosen by the PA. The architects are thinking in terms of phased development. The redevelopment of the current PA facilities would emphasize green building, a street grid designed to minimize winter winds, a public promenade around the perimeter, stormwater retention on the site, and a “Metroparks” style multipurpose trail thru the area.
Have you noticed a lot of conditional moving parts in what the PA is undertaking? The reputation of the PA board has been less than stellar in the past. Old friend Ed Hauser worked tirelessly to improve the transparency of PA business. In order to succeed with some or all of these proposals, they are going to need to be above board. The climate of public interaction has improved of late. They have undertaken their proposals for moving at probably the worst time in the last 30 years. If some of our commentary seems ambivalent, consider that our main goal is improved parks, public spaces, and their connections thru a multi purpose trail system. We don’t like to see our goals as incompatible with the PA . We all seem to be at the public trough. It’s hard to tell exactly what all this means to most people of this region. Priorities, priorities!?
J Veres
