Pneumatic Futures by Robyn Wolochow

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

PNEUMATIC FUTURES is the resulting publication of my architectural thesis project during my final semester of the M. Arch Program at the University of Michigan, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

The project seeks to establish Cleveland as a hub for a new national Hyperloop system, simultaneously examining three independent scales - the national scale, the scale of the city, and the architectural scale - to create a new transportation hub in Cleveland that injects new urban life and activity into the city. The end goal is to design a multi-nodal transportation hub that connects the newly proposed hyperloop system to the existing infrastructural systems and flow networks within the city, helping to weave these disjointed systems into a single cohesive and interconnected infrastructural network.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES Copyright ÂŠ 2015 Robyn Wolochow University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture + Urban Planning 2000 Bonisteel Boulevard Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2069 USA Typeset in DIN Light DIN Regular DIN Medium DIN Bold Every reasonable attempt has been made to identify owners of copyright. Errors or omissions will be corrected in subsequent editions

PNEUMATIC FUTURES an architecture thesis proposition by robyn wolochow

CONTENTS Forward

Introduction

Infrastructure of Cleveland

Timeline: Cleveland Infrastructure

Scale 1: A National Network

National High Speed Transit Ohio Transit Proposals Midwest Hyperloop Network

Scale 2: Flows of Cleveland

Existing Flows Selecting a Site Tower City Center Hyperloop Route Analysis

Scale 3: A New Transit Hub

Initial design studies Mid-review Scheme Next Steps

Conclusion: Looking Forward

Appendix

The Hyperloop: A New Rapid Transit Thesis Prep: Cleveland Ecologies Precedent Library

93 109 117

References / Works Cited

121

About the Designer

125

Acknowledgements

127

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

FORWARD:

FOOTNOTE 1

The phrase “Flee to the CLE” was first made popular after the 30 Rock episode ‘Cleveland’ (Episode 1:20, 2007) when a character considers moving to Cleveland (mainly due to cheaper costs of living, urban cleanliness, and kindness and laid-back nature of the residents as compared to New York City) and coins the phrase “Flee to the Cleve.” Clevelanders then changed it to “Flee to the CLE” after the Cleveland airport code CLE. The phrase is now used by city administrators, city social media sites, and events pages as a way of attracting people to the city. However, by Cleveland-haters, the phrase was re-dubbed “Flee the CLE,” in response to urban and social issues, population decline, and vacancy, suggesting that people should leave the city, if they haven’t already.

I am someone who is very excited about the future. A particular optimism I have - and share with many - is in future transportation technologies. When I first read the documents, press, and initial feasability studies of Elon Musk’s Hyperloop in 2013 - my interest was immediately peaked. As an architect, I do not have the extensive knowledge of physics, aerodynamics, or civil engineering necessary to tackle the design of the system itself, or the massive infrastructural network necessary to make it possible. However what facinates me - and what I seek to explore in the following pages - is the design of the urban moments at which the Hyperloop enters a city - and what its implications are at the urban scale. In my thesis proposal, which you are about to read, I seek to explore the potential of a national hyperloop system and make an initial attempt at station design, while exploring the particular urban and social impact of public tranist at never-before-seen velocities. The given site of my Master of Architecture thesis section, as decided by my thesis advisors McLain Clutter and Maria Arquero, is the city of Cleveland. Located at the intersection of the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie in northern Ohio, Cleveland presents a unique opportunity to study the urban

implications of a hyperloop system. Cleveland is a typical Rust Belt city in that it reached its population peak at the height of American industry in the late 1940s and has since seen population decline, vacancy, and loss of investment. However the city also has a surprsingly strong economy compared with other Rust Belt cities: it is ranked 29th in national export cities, has many unique points-of-interest destinations, and it boasts a world-famous health care system that makes it a national destination for health care education and services. These conditions create a unique combination of both Destination and Departure - a critical condition for a regional transpotation hub. The establishment of Cleveland as a Hyperloop hub would not only bring increased social and economic activity to the city, but would also provide easy export of goods, services, and people to other cities along the system. A hyperloop station in Cleveland would allow both of the desires created by its unique urban condition of simultaneous Destination and Departure, allowing citizens to both “Flee the CLE” and “Flee to the CLE.”1 Cleveland has an opportunity to be the first city in the Midwest to embrace the new hyperloop technology, identifying itself as a new regional transportation hub. Just as Chicago

FORWARD

benefited through the routing of national train traffic through the city during the construction and expansion of the national railway system, so too can Cleveland benefit economically, socially, politically, and environmentally from the establishment of the city as a central hub within the regional network. Though my proposal looks specifically at the city of Cleveland in the design of a transportation hub for a new Hyperloop system, what I am really seeking to achieve is an exploration and argument for how any city, not just Cleveland, can go about connecting to the Hyperloop national system. It seeks to suggest ways of selecting an appropriate station site, explores issues that may arise when attempting to follow pre-existing rights-of-way, proposes connectivity to alternate existing public transportation systems within the city, and proposes architectural and urban solutions to the city entry point. At the end of the day, I want to make the Hyperloop a reality, not only as a way of quickly, cheaply, safely, and efficiently traveling from Point A to Point B, but also to improve current urban conditions and create a newly inter-connected national and global system. This project first asks you, the reader, to accept a given framework as a reality: that a new national hyperloop system has been approved, funded,

and nationally regulated, allowing construction and planning to officially begin. At the earliest, it is estimated that a commercially-available hyperloop system is still at least a decade away. However now, while we wait for the hiccoughs in the engineering, for the structural analyses, for the infrastructural design completion, more feasibility studies, and early prototypes, is the exact moment when architects should get involved. How will never-before-seen intercity public transit affect the urban condition of our cities? Will there be an architectural design ready to accomodate the hyperloop and its ability to connect to existing urban infrastructures? The task I have given myself - one which I believe to be highly relevant and current - is to begin the discussion on these issues. To get people to start thinking about and talking about a radically new urban condition, and a potentially radically new architectural design. The project seeks to challenge the pre-conception of transportation hubs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that they need to be big, monumental, open structures. Instead this project proposes a linear architecture â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the formalism of which is unique to the new hyperloop infrastructural system.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION: The hyperloop is coming to Cleveland. Throughout its history, infrastructural innovation has driven Cleveland’s urban transformation and reinvention. For decades, massive transportation and utility networks served as a backbone for the agglomeration of industrial economies, and strategically provided momentum to the city’s growth. However Cleveland, like other Rust Belt cities, has suffered from depopulation and low urban investment since the decline of industry in the midtwentieth century. Today, instigated by the pressures of global and regional competition, Cleveland presents itself again as a locus for infrastructural revolution. Building on this legacy, Pneumatic Futures establishes downtown Cleveland as a hub within a new national hyperloop network, injecting urban activity into the city through the high-speed exchange of people, products, and services. The project operates at multiple temporal and spatial scales and

delineates new regional and urban orders. At the territorial scale, it transforms the national geography with a network of pneumatic tubes that connect major urban centers in minutes, redefining the extents of the metropolitan area. At the local scale, the proposal examines the potential of a new transit hub to affect Cleveland’s urbanisms and development patterns, designating a new gateway into the city and repositioning the central district within the larger urban metabolism. The technical demands of the hyperloop infrastructure impose a linear formal language for the architectural intervention, creating a central spine along the Cuyahoga River that feeds into the urban fabric at multiple entry points. The resulting multi-nodal transportation hub ties the newly proposed hyperloop system to the city’s existing infrastructural networks and generates a new public connection between downtown and the waterfront.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

TIMELINE: CLEVELAND INFRASTRUCTURE | Cleveland’s historical precedent of infrastructural advancement

1834 1796

Cleveland established on the banks of the Cuyahoga River and near the shore of Lake Erie.

The first urban transportation system is established as the Cleveland & Newburgh Railway. The line ran along Euclid Avenue to Public Square. The line went bankrupt in 1840 and ceased operations in 1842.

1827

The Ohio and Erie Canal opens to freight traffic, making Cleveland a new transportation hub. The canal carried freight between 1827 and 1861, until railroads replaced the canal system as the primary mode of freight tansit. The canal was abandoned in 1913.

1853

Union Depot is completed. The depot burns down in 1864 and is rebuilt in 1865, making it the largest terminal in America. Replaced with Union Terminal in 1930, the depot ceased operations in 1953 and was torn down in 1959.

1853

1850 Cleveland’s first two railroad lines open, connecting Cleveland to Pittsburgh, and Columbus.

Cleveland City Council authorizes $400,000 in bonds for the development of a centralized public water system that eventually becomes Cleveland Water. Construction of the city’s first water intake, reservoir, and distribution pipe system begins in 1854.

1873 The railroad line between Loraine and Uhrichsville opens to transport coal.

1913

1878 The Superior viaduct is completed - the city’s first high-level bridge.

1885

Cleveland’s Valley Railroad becomes the new Cleveland, Terminal, and Valley Railway

1881

1860

East Cleveland Railway Company begins operating Cleveland's first street railway. The original horse car route operated on Euclid Avenue.

1880

Valley Railroad is constructed to connect Cleveland to the coal-rich Tuscarawas River Valley.

The New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railway, better known as the Nickel Plate Road, is completed. By 1882 the company connected Buffalo, NY, with Chicago, via Cleveland, with Cleveland as its headquarters.

1891 John William Lambert builds the nation’s first gasoline-powered automobile available for commercial purchase, in Ohio City, OH. just outside Cleveland.

1890

The Arcade officially opens, making it the country’s first large-scale indoor shopping mall.

1895

1902

Akron-Cleveland railroad begins service. At the time it was the longest electrified rail line in the world. The line operated until 1932.

Cleveland is automobile capital of the world, producing more cars than any other city.

1901

Tom L. Johnson elected mayor of Cleveland. A strong supporter of municipal ownership, he helped Cleveland become one of the first cities with municipal owernship of public transit and utilities.

All existing street car routes fully electrified.

1901

The city’s first light rail line is completed, connecting Shaker Heights to downtown.

1910

Cleveland Railway Company founded by consolidating all streetcar companies. This public transit operator operated until 1942, managing the city’s street-car lines.

1914

Cleveland’s Central Generating Station is completed, making it the largest municipal power plant in the United States, with the cheapest power, nationally.

1914

First electric traffic signal in the U.S. at Euclid Avenue & East 105th.

1920 Shaker Heights public transit lines to downtown built.

1917

Detroit-Superior bridge is completed, making it the first fixed high-level vehicular bridge in the city, and one of the longest steel spans in the world.

1922 Site preparation for Tower City Center and Union Terminal begins, including demolishing over 2,200 buildings

1925

The Cleveland H opens - making first municipally

1925

1926

RTA Bus service begins. Cleveland Railway begins to operate a downtown loop.

Construction for begins.

r Terminal Tower

INFRASTRUCTURE of CLEVELAND Cleveland has a long history of infrastructural advancement and achievement of “firsts.” With each new infrastructural or technological advancement, Cleveland grew, redeveloped, and re-defined its urban condition. This project proposes a new infrastructural agent as a way of reviving the city. The hyperloop system, as a new national infrastructural network establishes Cleveland as a pivotal location within the national sphere, bringing economic, social, and political benefits to a city currently facing low urban investment and depopulation.

1932

1928 Terminal Tower opens to first tenants.

1930

Loraine-Carnegie Bridge opens, making it the second high-level bridge in the city. Built to relieve traffic from the Detroit-Superior bridge.

1952

Construction of a public heavy rail line, now the Red Line, begins.

1956

Cement-lined water-pipes become the city standard, and the new system is installed throughout the city.

Cleveland Union Terminal officially opens.

1927 Structural work for Terminal Tower is completed. At the time, it was the second largest excavation project in the world, after the Panama Canal.

1957

1942 1929 Shaker Square opens - one of the first planned suburban shopping malls, and the first to be serviced by light rail.

Cleveland’s public transit operations are transferred to the new Cleveland Transit System. Cleveland begins replacing the streetcar network with track-less buses and trolleys.

Hopkins Airport it the nation’s y-owned airport.

INFRASTRUCTURE OF CLEVELAND

1954

Cleveland’s last CTS streetcar runs. The streetcars were then sold to the Toronto Transit System, where they operated until the early 1980s.

First commercial long-distance coal pipeline opened to operations. More than one million tons of coal per year could be moved from the mine in Ohio to the power station 108 miles away.

Clevleand is an ideal location for a hub for the hyperloop not only due to its strategic location along the southern shore of Lake Erie and centrally between the Midwest and the East Coast cities, but its historical precedent of infrastructural innovation and municipal ownership of utility and transportation lines suggest it could once again serve as a revolutionary focal point of infrastructural development in the U.S. The following pages present a timeline of significant infrastructural events and development, demonstrating the many ways in which Cleveland was revolutionary in its implementation and construction of infrastructure.

1968

Cleveland Transit System (now the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, or RTA) finishes its extension to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, making Cleveland the first North American city with direct rapid transit access from downtown to an airport.

1958 Cleveland begins construction on its interstate highway system. Of the 41,000 miles of proposed highway in Eisienhower’s 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act, Ohio was to construct 1,500 miles. By 1958 Ohio had spent more money on its Interstate Highways than either New York or California. By the end of 1971, Ohio had built 1,333 miles of interstate.

1975

GCRTA assumes control of the Cleveland Transit System and its heavy rail line to the Cleveland Hopkins Airport, the local and suburban bus systems, and Shaker Heights Rapid Transit.

1974 GCRTA established (RTA). The RTA owns and operates the Rapid Transit rail system, which consists of one heavy rail line (Red Line), two light rail lines (Blue and Green lines), and buses, including regular routes, express or flyer buses, loop, and paratransit buses.

1976 Terminal tower added to National Register of Historic Places as the Union Terminal Group.

1976 Last passenger service leaves Cleveland Union Terminal. The Cleveland passenger train service returns to the waterfront, where it still operates.

1983

1994

2004

Cleveland Public Power (CPP) founded and takes over urban power grid. Municipal ownership of the city’s power system dates back to Mayor Tom L. Johnson.

Walkway and skyway addded connecting Tower City station to Progressive Field and Quicken Loans Arena. Funded by the RTA, the hope was this walkway would increase RTA ridership.

RTA adopts revised master plan, called Transit 2025, which proposes several rail extensions, bus line improvements, and transit-oriented developments

1987

1990

Tower City Center heavily rebuilt. In desperate need of updating, the remodel created a better passenger experience and improved the retail and commercial elements of the station.

Tower City Center development opens. RTA rebuilds in major train station at Tower City Center. Here, all three major rapid-transit lines in the Cleveland area (Blue, Green, and Red lines coverge.

2007

RTA named the best public transit system in North America by the American Public

2010 Terminal Tower’s $40 million renovation completed. RTA provides over 44 million trips to residents and visitors, making it the largest transit agency in Ohio.

1996

2005

2008

Blue and Green lines extended to the waterfront area.

RTA begins building a bus rapid transit line along Euclid Avenue. Originally planned as a below-ground subway system, budget restraints led to its implementation as rapid bus transit

Cleveland HealthLine officially opens. RTA’s HealthLine, a state-of-the art bus-rapid transit (BRT) system, offers rail-like convenience with the flexibility of a bus. It connects Public Square to the Louis Stokes Station at Windermere in East Cleveland.

2013

Elon Musk first publish report on Hyperloop hi travel. It is received wit mixture of skepticism a enthusiasm.

2014

Hyperloop Transportati Technologies (HTT) coby Dr. Marco Villa (form director of mission ope SpaceX) and Dr. Patrici (past president of the A Society of Civil Enginee Design development fo highperloop system co

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

TIMELINE: CLEVELAND INFRAST

TIMELINE: CLEVELAND INFRASTRUCTURE Cleveland’s historical precedent of infrastructural advancement

1834 1796

Cleveland established on the banks of the Cuyahoga River and near the shore of Lake Erie.

1827

1853

1850 Cleveland’s first two railroad lines open, connecting Cleveland to Pittsburgh, and Columbus.

1873

The railro Loraine a transport

1860

East Clev begins op street rai car route Avenue.

INFRASTRUCTURE OF CLEVELAND

FRASTRUCTURE | Cleveland’s historical prec

The nd is e . nal in

1873 The railroad line between Loraine and Uhrichsville opens to transport coal.

1878 The Superior viaduct is completed - the city’s first high-level bridge.

1885

Cleveland’s Valley Railroad becomes the new Cleveland, Terminal, and Valley Railway

torn

orizes

nd ity’s , and gins in

1881

1860

East Cleveland Railway Company begins operating Cleveland's first street railway. The original horse car route operated on Euclid Avenue.

1880

Valley Railroad is constructed to connect Cleveland to the coal-rich Tuscarawas River Valley.

189

John natio autom comm City,

189

The A makin largemall.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

al precedent of infrastructural advancement

pany

1913 1891 John William Lambert builds the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first gasoline-powered automobile available for commercial purchase, in Ohio City, OH. just outside Cleveland.

1890

The Arcade officially opens, making it the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first large-scale indoor shopping mall.

1895

1902

Akron-Cleveland railroad begins service. At the time it was the longest electrified rail line in the world. The line operated until 1932.

Cleveland is automobile capital of the world, producing more cars than any other city.

1901

Tom L. Johnson elected mayor of Cleveland. A strong supporter of municipal ownership, he helped Cleveland become one of the first cities with municipal owernship of public transit and utilities.

All existing street car routes fully electrified.

1901

The city comple Heights

1910

Clevela founded streetca transit o 1942, m street-c

apital more

mayor of orter of helped the

it and

INFRASTRUCTURE OF CLEVELAND

1913 The city’s first light rail line is completed, connecting Shaker Heights to downtown.

1910

Cleveland Railway Company founded by consolidating all streetcar companies. This public transit operator operated until 1942, managing the city’s street-car lines.

1914

Cleveland’s Central Generating Station is completed, making it the largest municipal power plant in the United States, with the cheapest power, nationally.

1914

First electric traffic signal in the U.S. at Euclid Avenue & East 105th.

1920

192

Shaker Heights public transit lines to downtown built.

Site Cent begi over

1917

192

Detroit-Superior bridge is completed, making it the first fixed high-level vehicular bridge in the city, and one of the longest steel spans in the world.

RTA Cleve oper

t dge gest

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

1922 Site preparation for Tower City Center and Union Terminal begins, including demolishing over 2,200 buildings

1925

The Cleveland Hopkins Airport opens - making it the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first municipally-owned airport.

1925

1926

RTA Bus service begins. Cleveland Railway begins to operate a downtown loop.

Construction for Terminal Tower begins.

1928 Terminal Tower opens to first tenants.

1930

Clevela officiall

1927 Structural work for Terminal Tower is completed. At the time, it was the second largest excavation project in the world, after the Panama Canal.

1929

Shaker the firs shoppin be serv

nal e time,

world,

INFRASTRUCTURE OF CLEVELAND

1932

1930

Loraine-Carnegie Bridge opens, making it the second high-level bridge in the city. Built to relieve traffic from the Detroit-Superior bridge.

1952

Construction of a public heavy rail line, now the Red Line, begins.

195

Cem beco the n throu

Cleveland Union Terminal officially opens.

1942 1929 Shaker Square opens - one of the first planned suburban shopping malls, and the first to be serviced by light rail.

Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public transit operations are transferred to the new Cleveland Transit System. Cleveland begins replacing the streetcar network with track-less buses and trolleys.

195

1954

Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s last CTS streetcar runs. The streetcars were then sold to the Toronto Transit System, where they operated until the early 1980s.

First coal oper milli could Ohio mile

r n

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

1956

Cement-lined water-pipes become the city standard, and the new system is installed throughout the city.

1957

First commercial long-distance coal pipeline opened to operations. More than one million tons of coal per year could be moved from the mine in Ohio to the power station 108 miles away.

1968

1958 Cleveland begins construction on its interstate highway system. Of the 41,000 miles of proposed highway in Eisienhowerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act, Ohio was to construct 1,500 miles. By 1958 Ohio had spent more money on its Interstate Highways than either New York or California. By the end of 1971, Ohio had built 1,333 miles of interstate.

1975

GCRTA assumes control of the Cleveland Transit System and its heavy rail line to the Cleveland Hopkins Airport, the local and suburban bus systems, and Shaker Heights Rapid Transit.

1976

Termina Nationa Places a Group.

1976

Last pas Clevelan Clevelan service r where it

f the and its eland and nd nsit.

The he which line nes nd routes, op, and

INFRASTRUCTURE OF CLEVELAND

1976 Terminal tower added to National Register of Historic Places as the Union Terminal Group.

1976 Last passenger service leaves Cleveland Union Terminal. The Cleveland passenger train service returns to the waterfront, where it still operates.

1983

1994

200

Cleveland Public Power (CPP) founded and takes over urban power grid. Municipal ownership of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s power system dates back to Mayor Tom L. Johnson.

Walkway and skyway addded connecting Tower City station to Progressive Field and Quicken Loans Arena. Funded by the RTA, the hope was this walkway would increase RTA ridership.

RTA calle prop bus l trans

1987

1990

199

Tower City Center heavily rebuilt. In desperate need of updating, the remodel created a better passenger experience and improved the retail and commercial elements of the station.

Tower City Center development opens. RTA rebuilds in major train station at Tower City Center. Here, all three major rapid-transit lines in the Cleveland area (Blue, Green, and Red lines coverge.

Blue the w

d on to en RTA, would

ent r enter.

, and

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

2004

2007

2010

RTA adopts revised master plan, called Transit 2025, which proposes several rail extensions, bus line improvements, and transit-oriented developments

RTA named the best public transit system in North America by the American Public

Terminal Towerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s $40 million renovation completed. RTA provides over 44 million trips to residents and visitors, making it the largest transit agency in Ohio.

1996

2005

2008

Blue and Green lines extended to the waterfront area.

RTA begins building a bus rapid transit line along Euclid Avenue. Originally planned as a below-ground subway system, budget restraints led to its implementation as rapid bus transit

Cleveland HealthLine officially opens. RTAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s HealthLine, a state-of-the art bus-rapid transit (BRT) system, offers rail-like convenience with the flexibility of a bus. It connects Public Square to the Louis Stokes Station at Windermere in East Cleveland.

2013

Elon M report travel. mixtur enthus

2014

Hyperl Techno by Dr. directo SpaceX (past p Societ Design highpe

on A ps

ally

transit ke ility of quare at and.

INFRASTRUCTURE OF CLEVELAND

2013

Elon Musk first publishes his report on Hyperloop high-speed travel. It is received with a mixture of skepticism and enthusiasm.

2014 Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) co-founded by Dr. Marco Villa (former director of mission operations for SpaceX) and Dr. Patricia Galloway (past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers) . Design development for highperloop system commences.

2014 Hyperloop Transportation Technologies receives JumpStart funding, and begins its research and development.

2014 Hyperloop Transportation Technologies proposes its first national map of a potential national hyperloop system. The projective map excludes the city of Cleveland, instead making Chicago a hub.

2015 Elon Musk announces Hyperloop test track to be built in Texas.

202

HTT announces construction of a Hyperloop Track to begin in Quay Valley, California.

Natio Autho Dealaccum the co

2015

202

Robyn Wolochow proposes a new hyperloop national network, with Cleveland as a strategically located hub. The central station is proposed adjacent to the Tower City RTA Station.

With t Cleve per R propo for fu munic system

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

I II

II I I

SCALE 1: A NATIONAL NETWORK

SCALE 1:

A NATIONAL NETWORK Since the construction of the highway The North American national railroad system, there have been little to no network was developed throughout the advancements in the national infrastructural 19th century as a series of individual lines network. This project proposes a new connecting cities and industrial districts, national infrastructure network based on beginning with the construction of the Baltimore and Ohio line in the 1820s. Today, the technological advancements made in the last few years, specifically looking to this rail network continues to provide Elon Muskâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal for the hyperloop. This transportation service across the country. CLEVELAND In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower hyperloop system would connect the major U.S. cities via never-before-seen high-speed proposed a national highway network to passenger and greight transit. connect the country more efficiently for The following pages show the proposed trade, travel, and connectivity. Construction national hyperloop network, and offer began in 1956. A 35 year project was an explanation into the establishment of initiated - one that continues today with Cleveland as a strategically located central constant road repairs, extensions, and rehub. routing of previous roadways. L

II I I

CLEVELAND

LEGEND Railroad National Highway

PNEUMATIC FUTURES LEGEND : Lines capable for speed above 300 km/h Newly built lines capable for 200-299 km/h Upgraded lines and other lines with CRH service Conventional lines with no CRH service

URÜMQUI

BEIJING

LANZHOU

ZHENGZHOU

SHANGHAI

TAIPEI

HONG KONG

CHINA HIGH-SPEED RAIL

LEGEND : 190 - 200 mph 310 - 320 km/h 165 - 185 mph 270 - 300 km/h 150 - 160 mph 240 - 260 km/h 125 - 145 mph 200 - 230 km/h < 125 mph < 200 km/h Under construction/ upgrading

Railway map of China. No country has experienced as rapid an expansion of high-speed railway (more than 125 mph) than China. China, in fact, has the longest HSR network than any other country, with over 9,500 miles of track as of December 2014, some of which exceeds speeds of 200 mph. This system, the operation of which began in 2007, is longer than the rest of the world’s high speed rail combined.1 A strong central government and a surplus of workers have allowed unprecedented development rates in transportation infrastructure.

HELSINKI OSLO STOCKHOLM

COPENHAGEN

DUBLIN AMSTERDAM

BERLIN

LONDON PRAGUE PARIS VIENNA

EUROPE HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Railway map of Europe. Over the last ten years, Europe, too, has invested in high speed transite. As the map shows, a connective high-speed transit that transverses across Europe entire does not yet exist, but rather shorter corridors connecting major cities have been developed. It is estimated in the coming years investment and development in high-speed rail will continue. 1 China Highlights, Important High-Speed Railway Lines in China.

ISTANBUL

MADRID

BARCELONA

ROME

LISBON ATHENS

SCALE 1: A NATIONAL NETWORK

VANCOUVER SEATTLE

PORTLAND

Montreal ST. ALBANS BRUNSWICK MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL

ALBANY GRAND RAPIDS

MILWAUKEE DUBUQUE SALT LAKE CITY

PORT HURON PONTIAC DETROIT

CHICAGO

DENVER

PHILADELPHIA BALTIMORE

WASHINGTON, D.C. QUINCY KANSAS CITY

BAKERSFIELD

NEW HAVEN NEW YORK

CLEVELAND

INDIANAPOLIS

SACRAMENTO

BOSTON PROVIDENCE

BUFFALO

PITTSBURGH

OMAHA

OAKLAND SAN JOSE

RUTLAND

TORONTO

CINCINNATI RICHMOND NEWPORT NEWS NORFOLK

ST. LOUIS

LAS VEGAS GREENSBORO

LOS ANGELES

RALEIGH

CHARLOTTE

ALBUQUERQUE

OKLAHOMA CITY

MEMPHIS LITTLE ROCK

SAN DIEGO

TUCSON FORT WORTH

ATLANTA

SAVANNAH

DALLAS

JACKSONVILLE AUSTIN SAN ANTONIO

NEW ORLEANS HOUSTON

LEGEND

ORLANDO TAMPA

160+ mph (257+ km/h) MIAMI

125 mph (201 km/h) 110 mph (177 km/h) < 110 mph (< 177 km/h) Planned/Under construction

US HIGH SPEED RAIL NETWORK The above map shows the proposed plans for high speed rail in the United States, as planned by the US High Speed Rail Association. 2 US High Speed Rail Association: 21st Century Transportation for America. US High speed Rail Network Map.

Compared with other countries, specifically in western Europe and China, the United States railway network is extremely outdated. Though the US High Speed Rail Association has big plans for high speed rail with its 2030 plan of over 17,000 miles of track, the political climate, economic environment, and the project’s lack of support has prevented any real advances in the plan. The most recent published vision for High speed rail in the United States uses the Hub model to create disparate high-speed rail systems that connect to one another using the conventional rail system. The hubs, as currently visioned, are a Pacific Northwest corridor that connects Vancouver, BC, Seattle, Portland, and Eugene, a California corridor, a Chicago Hub Network that connects Chicago to several nearby Midwest cities, A Northern New England corridor, a Northeast corridor, and Southeast corridor, a Gulf-coast corridor, and a Florida

corridor. These disparate corridors follow a phasing plan that starts with the largest cities in the busiest corridors, growing to connect the regional routes at the national level. The busiest corridors are known as ‘megaregions’ and are envisioned to be connected using state-of-the-art dedicated track, advanced control stations, and top-ofthe-line 220 mph trains. These megaregions utilize a support network of 110 mph trains to connect smaller cities and towns together within the high speed system.2 The Hyperloop system, in comparison, has the potential to connect the entire country together in a single system of highspeed public transit, reducing travel times both regionally and nationally - achieving speeds much higher than those of existing high-speed rail technologies. For more information about the potential speeds and technological advancements of the hyperloop, refer to The Hyperloop: A New Rapid Transit section in the Appendix.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

CITIES WITHIN 1-HOUR DISTANCE ON HYPERLOOP FROM 3 PROPOSED HUBS

Edmonton

Calgary Vancouver Winnipeg Seattle

Montreal Portland

Ottawa

Boston

St. Paul Minneapolis Toronto Milwaukee

Detroit CLEVELAND

Chicago Omaha

Salt Lake City

Sacramento Oakland

Denver

San Francisco

Columbus Indianapolis

New York City Philadelphia Baltimore

Pittsburgh

Washington DC

Cincinnati

Kansas City St. Louis

Fresno

Louisville

Raleigh

Las Vegas

Charlotte Nashville

Tulsa

Memphis

LOS ANGELES Albuquerque

Long Beach San Diego

Atlanta

Oklahoma City

Phoenix

DALLAS

Tucson El Paso

Jacksonville Austin Houston

New Orleans

Tampa

San Antonio

Miami Los Mochis

Guadalajara Mexico City

Acapulco

HYPERLOOP HUBS

The above map locates three central hyperloop hubs within the national North American network. These hubs, located at Los Angeles, Dallas, and Cleveland, connects more than 40 cities within a national hyperloop network. These selected sites are chosen for their strategic location wtihin the national geography and their proximity to destination cities.

The above map proposes three central hubs in the national hyperloop network: one in Los Angeles, one in Dallas, and one in Cleveland. With these three hubs, 40 of the largest cities in the U.S. and Canada are connected with the new infrastructure, accessible within an hour and a half.1 Geographically, Cleveland is an ideal hub location, able to connect to to a large number of Midwest and Eastern urban centers within this timeframe. Similarly,

Los Angeles and Dallas are strategically located to similarly incorporate major cities into the network. This map shows how the proposed hub locations serve as central anchors within the system, but it does not suggest the actual routes of the hyperloop. The actual routes would create a more linear, connected network that is capable of including the cities outside of the 1.5 hr travel radius. The map on the right more closely proposes the network routes.

SCALE 1: A NATIONAL NETWORK

PROPOSED HYPERLOOP NATIONAL NETWORK

Edmonton

Calgary Vancouver Winnipeg Seattle

Montreal Portland

Ottawa

Boston

Minneapolis / St. Paul Toronto Milwaukee

Detroit

New York City CLEVELAND

Chicago Omaha Columbus

Salt Lake City

Sacramento Oakland

Indianapolis

Washington DC

Cincinnati

Kansas City

Denver

San Francisco

Philadelphia Baltimore

Pittsburgh

St. Louis

Fresno

Louisville Las Vegas

LOS ANGELES Long Beach San Diego

Albuquerque

Raleigh

Nashville

Tulsa

Charlotte

Memphis

Oklahoma City

Atlanta

Phoenix DALLAS Tucson El Paso

Jacksonville Austin

Houston

New Orleans

Tampa

San Antonio

Miami Los Mochis

Guadalajara Mexico City

Acapulco

HYPERLOOP ROUTES

These proposed routes for the national hyperloop system do not take into consideration the topographical challenges that would arise in attempting to cross the national geography. Unless certain engineering advances can be made, it is likely, due to extreme elevational changes between the west and east coasts, that the hyperloop network is more suited for regional transportation, rather than a full national system.

This map proposes a national network of hyperloop infrastructure that includes the major urban centers in North America. Similar to the existing railroad lines, routes are created between cities that are large enough to support the new infrastructure. A certain critical mass is necessary before it becomes economically and socially feasible to introduce a hyperloop system. The selected cities would create a high-enough demand from commuters and visitors for

the new system to be sustainable. Where possible, the routes would follow existing rights of way that have already been carved into the landscape by the national railroad and highway infrastructures. The complications that arise from attempting to following these existing rights-of-way for the new hyperloop infrastructure, due to increased velocities and technical requirements, will be explored in the following pages.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SW CLEVELAND

CLEVELAND

GALION

NORTH COLUMBUS SPRINGFIELD

COLUMBUS

DAYTON MIDDLETOWN CINCINNATI

3C CORRIDOR PROPOSED RAIL

The proposed 3C high-speed corridor in Ohio would connect Cleveland, Galion, Columbus, Springfield, Dayton, Middletown, and Cincinnati in a highspeed commuter network. 1 Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. ClevelandColumbus-Cincinnati High-Speed Rail Study, Final Report. Ohio Rail Development Commission. (2001) 2 Simes, Randy A. UrbanCincy, The Best and Workst States in America for Transit Funding. February 7, 2014.

NORTH CINCINNATI

HIGH SPEED RAIL IN OHIO Previous proposals have been made acknowledging the possibilities and economic potential of a high-speed rail network in the Midwest. In 2001, the Ohio Rail Development Commission funded a study looking at the possibility of constructing a high speed rail corridor between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati.1 This proposed rail network, called the 3C Corridor, had obtained partial funding of $400 million in federal dollars before Governor Kasich sent back the money, claiming that “operations and maintenance would have been too onerous on the state.”2

With the 3C Corridor Proposal, the travel time between Cleveland and Cincinnati is expected to be 3 hours and 49 minutes, and 3 hours and 28 minutes for local and express options, respectively. The average speed is proposed to be 110 mph. These speeds are actually quite low, not even qualifying as high-speed rail according to the standard definition of at least 200 km per hr (125 mph). Existing train transportation does not exist along Amtrak’s routes between Cleveland and Cincinnati, but rather travelers must travel by bus, using either Greyhound or Megabus options.

SCALE 1: A NATIONAL NETWORK

2:00 2:30 MILWAUKEE

BUFFALO

TORONTO 1:30

1:20 DETROIT 2:15 CHICAGO 0:50 TOLEDO

CLEVELAND NEW YORK 1:00

3:00 INDIANAPOLIS

1:00 COLUMBUS

4:00

PITTSBURGH

2:00 CINCINNATI

MIDWEST HSR PROPOSAL

The result of a 2014 study, this diagram shows the estimated travel times between Cleveland and other Midwest cities, should Cleveland be selected to serve as a hub within a Midwest highspeed network.

HIGH SPEED RAIL IN THE MIDWEST In February of 2014, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association (MHSRA) did a study calculating the potential high speed rail travel times from Cleveland to several major Midwest cities. Given the relocation of several major airline hubs from the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, most notably Unitedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision to relocate its hub from Cleveland in April of 2014, high speed rail proposals have been gaining popularity in Cleveland as alternative methods of connecting Cleveland to additional economic and social opportunities. The diagram above shows the proposed high-speed-rail network, as

proposed by the MHSRA, with Cleveland as a central hub location. Many of the high-speed rail proposals for the United States place Chicago as a hub, however Cleveland has an opportunity to jump at the chance to serve as a hub for the Midwest and West regions. Reasons for Cleveland as a hub over Chicago include its central location which, on the proposed hyerloop system, would allow travel to both Midwest and Eastern cities within an hour, its ability to connect to northern cities across Lake Erie, and its history of infrastructural innovation and municipal ownership - as described in the Timeline of Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Infrastructural History on pages 11-21.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

MONTREAL MINNEAPOLIS TORONTO

BOSTON

MILWAUKEE CHICAGO

DETROIT

CLEVELAND NEW YORK PITTSBURGH COLUMBUS

INDIANAPOLIS OMAHA

WASHINGTON DC

CINCINNATI

ST. LOUIS

PHILADELPHIA BALTIMORE

LOUISVILLE

RALEIGH

NASHVILLE

CHARLOTTE

MEMPHIS ATLANTA ATLANTA | 715 miles 23 hr 30 min 4 hr 10 min 10 hr 25 min 17 hr 45 min 60 minutes

CINCINNATI | 250 miles 15 hr 20 min 4 hr 30 min 4 hr 00 min 4 hr 45 min 20 minutes

MILWAUKEE | 450 miles 8 hr 15 min 1 hr 25 min 6 hr 30 min 10 hr 35 min 35 minutes

OMAHA | 800 miles 15 hr 40 min 3 hr 45 min 12 hr 15 min 18 hr 20 min 65 minutes

BALTIMORE | 400 miles

BOSTON | 640 miles

CHARLOTTE | 515 miles

CHICAGO | 345 miles

11 hr 50 min 1 hr 20 min 5 hr 50 min 8 hr 30 min

15 hr 20 min 3 hr 30 min 9 hr 30 min 15 hr 20 min

20 hr 30 min 5 hr 30 min 8 hr 10 min 11 hr 10 min

6 hr 45 min 1 hr 30 min 5 hr 05 min 7 hr 20 min

35 minutes

55 minutes

45 minutes

30 minutes

COLUMBUS | 145 miles

DETROIT | 170 miles

INDIANAPOLIS | 320 mi

LOUISVILLE | 350 miles

N/A 3 hr 30 min 2 hr 15 min 2 hr 35 min

3 hr 15 min 3 hr 30 min 2 hr 30 min 3 hr 35 min

11 hr 15 min 3 hr 15 min 5 hr 00 min 7 hr 45 min

N/A 3 hr 40 min 6 hr 05 min 8 hr 20 min

12 minutes

15 minutes

25 minutes

30 minutes

MINNEAPOLIS | 750 mi

MONTREAL | 580 miles

NASHVILLE | 520 miles

NEW YORK | 465 miles

N/A 2 hr 15 min 11 hr 20 min 17 hr 30 min

N/A 4 hr 20 min 8 hr 45 min 18 hr 15 min

N/A 3 hr 30 min 8 hr 00 min 12 hr 20 min

12 hr 30 min 1 hr 35 min 7 hr 30 min 12 hr 30 min

60 minutes

45 minutes

40 minutes

PHILADELPHIA | 430 mi

PITTSBURGH | 130 miles

ST. LOUIS | 560 miles

TORONTO | 300 miles

10 hr 30 min 1 hr 30 min 6 hr 30 min 10 hr 15 min

3 hr 15 min 3 hr 30 min 2 hr 05 min 2 hr 25 min

12 hr 20 min 1 hr 50 min 8 hr 15 min 12 hr 45 min

7 hr 15 min 1 hr 10 min 4 hr 35 min 8 hr 30 min

35 minutes

10 minutes

45 minutes

25 minutes

SCALE 1: A NATIONAL NETWORK

33 MONTREAL 45 minutes

MINNEAPOLIS 60 minutes

TORONTO

BOSTON

25 minutes

55 minutes

DETROIT

15 minutes

MILWAUKEE 35 minutes

CLEVELAND

CHICAGO

NEW YORK 40 minutes

PITTSBURGH

30 minutes

PHILADELPHIA

10 minutes

35 minutes

INDIANAPOLIS

COLUMBUS

25 minutes

BALTIMORE

12 minutes

35 minutes

CINCINNATI OMAHA 65 minutes

WASHINGTON DC | 370 miles

20 minutes

ST. LOUIS

30 minutes

LOUISVILLE

45 minutes

11 hr 15 min 1 hr 20 min 5 hr 50 min

30 minutes

10 hr 10 min

NASHVILLE | 520 miles 45 minutes

45 minutes

N/A 3 hr 10 min 9 hr 00 min

MEMPHIS | 730 miles 60 minutes

TO DALLAS | 1,185 mi 1 hr 45 minutes

17 hr 10 min 4 hr 15 min 10 hr 40 min 17 hr 45 min 60 min

RALEIGH | 570 miles

CHARLOTTE

17 hr 15 min

ATLANTA

60 minutes

JACKSONVILLE | 900 miles 1 hr 15 minutes

TO NEW ORLEANS | 1.050 miles 1 hr 25 minutes

NOTE: The projected Hyperloop travel times are with an assumed average velocity of 750 mph.

25 hr 10 min 3 hr 45 min 13 hr 34 min 26 hr 20 min

TO ORLANDO | 1,040 miles 1 hr 25 minutes

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

ECONOMIC & SOCIAL ADVANTAGE: “Becoming an interregional hub could generate for Ohio $3 billion in economic development.” - Cleveland.com

ECONOMICS OF HSR

The potential economic benefits of a midwest high-speed rail (HSR) network are numerous. A full analysis into the economic benefits of a midwest hyperloop network was not completed as part of this thesis proposal, however, the economic benefits would most likely be even greater with a hyperloop system than with high=speed rail, despite higher initial costs. 1 “High-speed rail benefits Ohio: Wali Ahmed Shariff” Published December 23, 2013 on Cleveland.com. 2 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. Economic Impacts of the Midwest Regional Rail System: A Transportation Network for the 21st Century.

In 2010, when Ohio was awarded $400 million to build a new high speed rail network to connect Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, an economic study was conducted to examine the growth potential in Ohio generated by the new infrastructure. It was estimated that becoming an interregional hub could generate for Ohio $3 billion in economic development.1 Another study by the Midwest High Speed Rail Association (MHSRA) entitled “Economic Impacts of the Midwest Regional Rail System,” concluded that the overall economic benefit of the system would be $23.1 billion, with a Benefit-to-Cost Ratio of 1.8 and providing more than 57,450 permanent new jobs. It was also estimated that during constuction of the system, an average of 15,200 annual jobs would be created.2 These figures - one dollar and eighty centers returned for every dollar spent on the system - represent one of the highest returns for any regional rail system in the U.S. This report analyzed the capital investment by corridor between major Midwest cities. The route between Cleveland and Chicago, for example, was estimated to cost $1.2 billion in infrastructure and $152 million in train equipment, for a total of $1.4 billion to complete the corridor. This route, which on current train service takes 6 hours

24 minutes, would be reduced by over 2 hours to 4 hours and 22 minutes. The Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) as proposed will consist of 3,000 miles of track, using existing rail rights-ofway shared with freight and commuter rail. It plans to provide access to approximately 80% of the region’s 65 million residents. Like the other high speed rail proposals discussed in the previous pages, this regional rail network designates Chicago as a central hub, with direct routes to Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Carbondale, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, and Milwaukee. Compared to the Midwest Regional Rail System, as currently planned, the Midwest Hyperloop Network proposed in this thesis project offers significantly reduced travel times, increased economic benefits to Cleveland and the Midwest region, and improved environmental efficiency. The proposed network as mapped on the previous page, connects the same cities as the MWRRS proposal (which contain the majority of the Midwest population), however with Cleveland as a central hub location, instead of Chicago, the Canadian cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa could also be incorporated into the system. This bordercrossing, though potentially politically controversial, would greatly facilitate access between the two countries.

SCALE 1: A NATIONAL NETWORK

MONTREAL

MINNEAPOLIS TORONTO

DETROIT

COLUMBUS

PHILADELPHIA BALTIMORE

SANDUSKY

NEW YORK COLUMBUS

INDIANAPOLIS OMAHA

WARREN

G IN IV

ST. LOUIS

YOUNGSTOWN

PHILADELPHIA BALTIMORE

SANDU

WASHINGTON DC

CINCINNATI LOUISVILLE

AKRON

NASHVILLE

CLEVELAND PITTSBURGH

LOUISVILLE

RALEIGH

NASHVILLE

CHARLOTTE

EMPHIS

DETROIT

LORAIN

WASHINGTON DC

CINCINNATI

CHICAGO

CLEVELAND

NEW YORK PITTSBURGH

BOSTON

MILWAUKEE

SITE

CLEVELAND

NAPOLIS

OUIS

TORONTO

BOSTON

CHARLOTTE

MEMPHIS

CANTON WOOSTER

ATLANTA

ATLANTA N

64 mi

600 mi

CLEVELAND POPULATION CITY: 396,815 people URBAN: 1,780,673 people METRO: 2,064,725 people

NEW METRO AREA: 1 HOUR ON HYPERLOOP

95.8 MILLION PEOPLE METRO AREA BY CAR

Left: The approximate area surrounding Cleveland accessible to the downtown district within 1-hr by car. This area has an approximate driving radius of 50 miles.

METRO AREA BY HYPERLOOP

Right: This map instead shows the area that would be accessible to the site within 1 hour by Hyperloop. This represents the new Metropolitan area of Cleveland, as redefined by the newly achievable transit speeds.

NOTE ON POPULATION DATA

Population figures are approximate values from the 2010 U.S. Census Data. Given population data includes the total metropolitan region for each city.

CHICAGO 9.5 MILLION

INDIANAPOLIS 1.7 MILLION

LOUISVILLE 1.3 MILLION

MINNEAPOLIS 3.5 MILLION

MONTREAL 4.1 MILLION

NASHVILLE 1.6 MILLION

PHILADELPHIA 6.0 MILLION

PITTSBURGH 2.4 MILLION

RALEIGH 1.2 MILLION

WASHINGTON DC 5.9 MILLION

ATLANTA 5.5 MILLION

BALTIMORE 2.7 MILLION

BOSTON 7.6 MILLION

CHARLOTTE 2.3 MILLION

CINCINNATI 2.1 MILLION

COLUMBUS 1.9 MILLION

DETROIT 4.3 MILLION

MEMPHIS 1.3 MILLION

MILWAUKEE 1.6 MILLION

NEW YORK 20.0 MILLION

OMAHA 895,000

TORONTO 5.6 MILLION

ST. LOUIS 2.8 MILLION

+ +

95.8 MILLION

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

TORONTO

MILWAUKEE DETROIT

CLEVELAND

TOLEDO CHICAGO

PITTSBURGH

COLUMBUS

INDIANAPOLIS

CINCINATTI

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Development around new hyperloop stations in the major cities of the Midwest is likely to increase at higher rates due to the proximity to the hyperloop. Unlike in traditional raildependent development, the connective routes between cities do not facilitate development as they do not have the ability to plug-in to the hyperloop network.

ANTICIPATING URBAN GROWTH A major result of a national hyperloop system is in the future development and urban growth of cities. Growth is likely to occur at higher rates near hyperloop stations as people, services, and industry seek to locate themselves within easy range of the new high-speed transportation network. The cost of living in cities will start to matter even more as commutes between cities become shorter, allowing workers to live in one city and work in another. For example, imagine being able to work in one of the larger, more expensive metropolitan areas such as New York or Toronto, while

paying the costs of living of a much cheaper city without increasing the length of your commute. The development of a national hyperloop network is also likely to initiate development in a new way compared with other regional transportation infrastructure. Unlike with rail, it is difficult to plug-in to the hyperloop network except at specific locations with hypperloop stations. This might result in denser, more populous, and more spread out cities without any increased development along connective routes. A new hyperloop infrastructure thus brings into question many economic and social issues that may arise in regards to

SCALE 1: A NATIONAL NETWORK

ITâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S CHEAPER TO LIVE IN

CLEVELAND

COST OF LIVING: 9.5% below national average MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: $48,972 MEDIAN HOME PRICE: $116,000 UNEMPLOYMENT: 6.8%

CLEVELAND AS A CITY OF COMMUTERS?

2ND CHEAPEST TO LIVE*

NOTE 1

Cost of living data is from Forbes. Collected online in January, 2015.

NOTE 2

Of the great lakes cities with proposed hyperloop stations, Cleveland ranks 2nd in terms of cost of living, after Detroit.

DETROIT Cost of Living: 15.6% below national average Median Household Income: $40,560 Median Home Price: $45,560 Unemployment: 9.5%

CINCINNATI Cost of Living: 7.1% below national average Median Household Income: $53,331 Median Home Price: $133,800 Unemployment: 5.3%

PITTSBURGH Cost of Living: 4.5% below national average Median Household Income: $50,225 Median Home Price: $131,400 Unemployment: 5.5%

CHICAGO Cost of Living: 0.6% below national average Median Household Income: $60,334 Median Home Price: $192,700 Unemployment: 7.4%

COLUMBUS Cost of Living: 6.3% below national average Median Household Income: $54,434 Median Home Price: $140,300 Unemployment: 4.6%

INDIANAPOLIS Cost of Living: 6.7% below national average Median Household Income: $53,125 Median Home Price: $135,400 Unemployment: 5.3%

MILWAUKEE Cost of Living: 0.2% below national average Median Household Income: $53,221 Median Home Price: $198,100 Unemployment: 6.2%

TORONTO Cost of Living: 1.2% below national average Median Household Income: $68,110 (Canadian) Median Home Price: $888,000 (Canadian) Unemployment: 6.8%

urban development. Do some cities become simply commuter cities? Does the cost of living in the cities with hyperloop access stations become too high, excluding many from utilizing the new infrastructure? Does the hyperloop encourage infill and increased density or encourage sprawl? Now is the time - before the dreams of the hyperloop have come to fruition - to

consider the consequences it will have on urban growth and development. How will cities expand - how will development patterns be permanently altered? What are the positive and negative effects of these changes in development patterns? Will there be a mass exodus to or from cities with hyperloop stations? Will new cities arise in the vicinity to allow easy access to hyperloop stations?

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

SCALE 2:

FLOWS OF CLEVELAND This section explores the existing infrastructural and flow networks of Cleveland and seeks to locate, based on these flows, potential nodes within the system. Three of the identified nodes were considered as possible site locations for the hyperloop transportation hub,and were analyzed for their potential to connect the hyperloop infrastructure within the existing urban network. In the selection of a site it was critical to locate the hyperloop transit hub within the central city to maximize walkability and allow the increased urban activity due to the hyperloop traffic to benefit the city and positively affect the existing urban fabric.

The selected site, along the Cuyahoga River at Tower City Center, offers a prime location for the hyperloop to plug in to Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing urban network, providing direct access to downtown and serving to revitalize the waterfront district - an area of the city that has been largely abandoned since the decline of industry in the mid-twentieth century. Tower City Center, Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s closest thing to a transit hub within its current transportation infrastructure, is both historically significant as a transportation epicenter, but also serves as an existing retail, dining, recreation, and events center that directly connects to sporting facilities, hotels, casino, and restaurants.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

CLE | Cleveland Megabus

BKL | Burke Lakefront Airport

Most Common Destinations: Atlanta, GA; Buffalo, NY; Chattanooga, TN; Chicago, ILCincinnati, OH; Columbus, OH; Erie, PA; Knoxville, TN; Lexington, KY; New York, NY; State College, PA; Toledo, OH

Current Air Cargo Service: AirNet Express - to Columbus Bankair - to Minneapolis/St.Paul Central Air Southwest - to Dayton, Hamilton, Kalamazoo, Ypsilanti

CLEVELAND AMTRAK

CLEVELAND GREYHOUND

Most Common Destinations: Toronto, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, Washington DC

Most Commone Destinations: Indianapolis, IN; Nashville, TN; Atlanta, GA; Buffalo, NY; Chattanooga, TN; Chicago, IL; Cincinnati, OH; Columbus, OH; Milwaukee, WI; New York, NY; Toledo, OH; Pittsburgh, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Boston, MA

TOWER CITY STATION Red Line Blue Line Green Line

PORT | Port of Cleveland

DOWNTOWN

Current Tenants: Essroc Cement Kenmore Construction Company Carmeuse Lime & Stone Federal Marine Terminals

RED LINE

Rapid Transit, Rail

CLE | Cleveland Hopkins International Airport Air Cargo: FedEx; Servisair GlobeGround; Southwest United Parcel Service (UPS) United States Postal Service (USPS) Delta Airlines Cargo

I-80

Ohio Turnpike

I-71

To Cincinnati

CUYAHOGA RIVER Flows to Lake Erie

I-77

Ohio to SC

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

CLEVELAND | EXISTING FLOWS TRANSIT FLOWS 1. Highways and Roadways 2. Railroad System 3. Rapid Transit Routes 4. Bus Routes 5. Major Parking Centers 6. Existing Transit Nodes PRODUCT FLOWS 1. Imports 2. Exports 3. Delivery Routes 4. Points of Exchange 5. Manufacturing Centers

LAKE COUNTY CUYAHOGA COUNTY

I-90

Ohio Turnpike (I-80)

CLEVELAND

PROGRAMMATIC FLOWS 1. Live/Work Commuter Routes 2. From Downtown to Suburbs 3. Entertainment Districts 4. Community Involvement

EALTH LINE

NATURAL FLOWS 1. Cuyahoga River to Lake Erie

apid Bus Transit

Outerbelt East Freeway

BLUE LINE

Rapid Transit, Rail

ROUTE 422

Ohio, Pennsylvania

I-480

CLE Airport, Bedford N

0.5

1.0

2.0

4.0 miles

LEGEND Cleveland Boundary

High-traffic Public Transit Route

Highway

Existing Rail Lines

Cuyahoga River

Existing Transit Node

Cleveland Suburbs

GEAUGA COUNTY

CUYAHOGA COUNTY

I-271

GREEN LINE

Rapid Transit, Rail

NETWORK OF NODES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

HIGHWAYS & RAILROADS

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

CLE | Cleveland Megabus

BKL | Burke Lakefront Airport

CLEVELAND AMTRAK

CLEVELAND GREYHOUND

PRIMARY TRANSIT NODE

PRIMARY TRANSIT NODES

PRIMARY TRANSIT NODE

TOWER CITY STATION PRIMARY TRANSIT NODE

CLEVELAND

PORT | Port of Cleveland PRIMARY TRANSIT NODE

HEALTH LINE

Rapid Bus Transit

GREEN LINE

Rapid Transit, Rail

RED LINE

Rapid Transit, Rail

BLUE LINE

Rapid Transit, Rail

I-480

To CLE Airport

CLE | Cleveland Hopkins International Airport PRIMARY TRANSIT NODE

0.5

1.0

2.0

4.0 miles

LEGEND Highway

High-traffic Public Transit Route Existing Rail Lines

Primary Transit Node

City Bus Routes

Cleveland Boundary

Secondary Transit Node

I-80

Ohio Turnpike

TRANSIT FLOWS

Cleveland’s existing transportation flows, including heavy rail, major roads, public transit routes, and airports, were mapped in order to locate potential site locations for the Hyperloop Transit Hub. Possible sites require easy access to alternative transportation methods in order to allow hyperloop passengers to easily transfer to local transit.

The above drawing maps the existing public the successful connection betwen modes transit,I-71 freight, and road infrastructure I-77 of transportation for passengers of the To Cincinnati within Cleveland to identify moments of Ohio to SCHyperloop. At the selected site, passengers will be able to transfer from the hyperloop to intersection among the flows of traffic. vehicular routes or RTA metro lines. These intersections are categorized as Secondary nodes of intersection offer nodes at two scales: primary and secondary. potential intervention points for an urban These nodes offer opportunities for architectural and infrastructural intervention infrastructural network that formally, programmatically, and socially connect at a variety of scales. the hyperloop arrival point with the rest The locations of the primary nodes of of the city, widening the station’s area of transportational movement provide an influence, enhancing the urban fabric and ideal connection point to the Hyperloop strengthening the city network through Transportation Hub. A major programmatic newly identified urban nodes. element of the transportation hub will be

CARGO BY AIR & WATER

CARGO BY TRUCK

CARGO BY TRAIN

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

45 N

BKL | Burke Lakefront Airport Current Air Cargo Service: AirNet Express - to Columbus Bankair - to Minneapolis/St.Paul Central Air Southwest - to Dayton, Hamilton, Kalamazoo, Ypsilanti

I-90

Ohio Turnpike (I

CLEVELAND

PORT | Port of Cleveland Current Tenants: Essroc Cement Kenmore Construction Company Carmeuse Lime & Stone Federal Marine Terminals

CLE | Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

0.5

Air Cargo: FedEx; Servisair GlobeGround; Southwest United Parcel Service (UPS) United States N Postal Service (USPS) Delta Airlines Cargo

I-80

CEMENT

OhioLIMESTONE Turnpike / IRON ORE

CLEVELAND IMPORTS/EXPORTS

Cleveland’s extensive transportation network helps transport its exports and imports to their final destinations. Central to this network are the transfer points at the Port of Cleveland, Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, and Burke Lakefront Airport.

Cleveland Boundary

I-71

To Cincinnati ELECTRICAL CHEMICALS EQUIPMENT

1.0

2.0

4.0 miles

LEGEND Freight Routes (Railroad)

Truck Routes (Highway)

Water Traffic Routes (barges, etc)

Major Point of Exchange

Production Point

I-77

HEAVY MACHINERY

MACHINERY

Ohio to SC MEDICAL HOUSEHOLD SERVICES PRODUCTS

This map identifies the major transfer points of imports and exports entering and exiting the city. Freight by rail passes through the central train station along the short of Lake Erie. Freight by water passes through the Port of Cleveland, also adjacent to the lake, and is transported nationally and internationally to destinations in the US, Canada, Europe, and Asia.1

CARS & TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT

WHEAT / SHIPPING GRAIN CONTAINERS

Freight by air arrives and departs via the Cleveland International Airport. Cleveland’s largest exports, shown above, include cement, limestone, chemicals, and equipment, while additional items pass through the city at a smaller scale. The map indicates where these items pass through, and begins to suggest the freight that could pass through the proposed hyperloop site.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SELECTING A SITE

1. PORCO LOUNGE & TIKI ROOM 2527 West 25th Street 2. SLYMAN’S RESTAURANT 3106 Saint Clair Avenue Northeast 3. MAHA’S CAFE 3323 West 25th Street 4. THE VELVET TANGO ROOM 2095 Columbus Road 5. RISING STAR COFFEE ROASTERS 1455 West 29th Street 6. HAPPY DOG 5801 Detroit Avenue 7. SUPERIOR PHO RESTAURANT 3030 Superior Avenue 8. L’ALBATROS 11401 Bellflower Road 9. POUR CLEVELAND 530 Euclid Avenue 10. LOLA 2058 East 4th Street

As part of the final site selection process, a thorough study was done to identify and map current social nodes within the city. Popular restaurants, recreation areas, and attractions were located, helping to identify areas of the city that are heavy in social destinations. This study further supported to decision to construct the new Hyperloop Transit Hub within the downtown central district of Cleveland, allowing easy access to these sites.

11. SOKOLOWSKI’S UNIVERSITY INN 1201 University Rd. 12. NATE’S DELI & RESTAURANT 1923 West 25th Street 13. LOLITA 900 Literary Road 14. MASON’S CREAMERY 4401 Bridge Avenue 15. CLEVELAND TEA REVIVAL 1434 West 29th Street 16. EARTH BISTRO CAFE 11122 Clifton Boulevard 17. EDWINS LEADERSHIP & RESTAURANT INSTITUTE Address: 13101 Shaker Square 18. MARKET AVENUE WINE BAR 2526 Market Avenue 19. MISTER BRISKET 2156 South Taylor Road 20. LA CAVE DU VIN 2785 Euclid Heights Boulevard

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

CLEVELAND RESTAURANTS

The selected restuarants are ranked highest on social media sites, including Yelp, UrbanSpoon, and TripAdvisor.

CLEVELAND ATTRACTIONS

These attractions are the highest rated and most publicised on the “This is Cleveland” city-run website. This site was the result of a re-branding for the city to increase tourism and city pride. Images not taken by the author.

1. CLEVELAND BOTANICAL GARDEN 11030 East Boulevard 2. CLEVELAND AQUARIUM 2000 Sycamore Street 3. A CHRISTMAS STORY HOUSE 3159 West 11th Street 4. ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME 1100 East 9th Street 5. FIRST ENERGY STADIUM (BROWNS) 100 Alfred Lerner Way 6. CLEVELAND CAVALIERS 1 Center Court 7. PROGRESSIVE FIELD (INDIANS) 2401 Ontario Street 8. CLEVELAND METROPARKS ZOO 3900 Wildlife Way 9. CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART 11150 East Boulevard 10. MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 1 Wade Oval Drive

11. SEVERANCE HALL ORCHESTRA 11001 Euclid Avenue 12. WEST SIDE MARKET 1979 West 25th Street 13. CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL PARK 14. GREAT LAKES SCIENCE CENTER 601 Erieside Avenue 15. MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART 11400 Euclid Avenue 16. PLAYHOUSE SQUARE 1501 Euclid Avenue 17. HORSESHOE CASINO 100 Public Square 18. CLEVELAND CONVENTION CENTER 300 Lakeside Avenue 19. TERMINAL TOWER 50 Public Square 20. CLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARY 325 Superior Avenue

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

500

1000

2000 ft

LEGEND Highway

Potential Site for Transit Hub

Major Road

Surface Parking

Railroad

Vacant Land

Existing Transit Node

SURFACE PARKING

Unlike many high-density cities, Cleveland contains a large amount of surface parking within the downtown district. One of the reasons for this is that when the downtown area was facing severe disinvestment and de-population, the city decided to increase the amount of parking within the downtown blocks to encourage people from the suburbs to return to the city. The hope was that giving these suburbanites places to park their cars would increase downtown activity. This parking is strategically located near the major urban draws: the football stadium, baseball stadium, civic centers, and major landmarks.

The above drawing maps out “available” land in the hopes of identifying possible sites for the Hyperloop Transportation Hub. This “available” land consists of land that is officially vacant, and land dedicated to surface parking. In identifying potential sites for the transportation hub, areas with large amounts of connecting available land, as well as adjacency to current transit nodes, were considered. The above map identifies three potential sites for the transportation hub, ranging in size from approximately 275,000 square feet to approximately 600,000 square feet. As the zoomed in aerials to the right show,

these three sites all meet three basic requirements: they are located within the downtown district within walking distance of the high activity areas, they are comprised of large parcels of avaialble land, and they could be easily connected to existing transit nodes and infrastructural systems. A list of advantages and disadvantages for each of the three sites has been provided to the right. Each of these advantages and disadvantages were taken into consideration when selecting the final site. The chosen site also represents a historically significant moment of time in Cleveland’s infrastructural history.

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

SITE 1 | Riverfront Gateway SITE 1 | Riverfront Gateway Advantages:

1. Adjacent to existing transit station

SITE 1 | Riverfront Advantages: 2. Waterfront access Gateway

1. to downtown existing transit station 3. Adjacent Walkability SITE 1 | Riverfront Gateway Advantages:

2. access 4. Waterfront Large amount of available land 1. to downtown existing transit station 3. Adjacent Walkability Advantages: 2. Waterfront access 4. Large amount of available land Disadvantages: 1. 3. Adjacent tonarrow existing transit station Walkability downtown 1. Long and site geometry 2. 4. Waterfront access Large amount of available land Disadvantages: 2. Severe topography change 3. 1. Walkability downtown Long andright-of-way narrow site difficult geometry 3. Existing turning radius 4. Disadvantages: Large amount of available 2. Severe topography changeland 1. andright-of-way narrow site difficult geometry 3. Long Existing turning radius 2. Severe topography change Disadvantages: Approximate Site Area: Existing difficult turning radius 600,000 sf right-of-way 1. 3. Long and narrow site geometry Site Area: 2. Approximate Severe topography change 3. 600,000 Existingsfright-of-way difficult turning radius Approximate Site Area: 600,000 sf

Approximate Site Area: 600,000 sf

100 200

400

100 200

400

SITE 2 | Parking Lot Promenade

100 200

400

SITE 2 | Parking Lot Promenade Advantages:

1. Replaces unnecessary surface parking SITE 2 |2Parking Lot Promenade SITE | Parking Advantages: 2. Centrally located Lot Promenade 1. unnecessary 3. Replaces Efficient site geometry surface parking

Advantages: Advantages: 2. Centrally located 1. 1. Replaces parking Replaces unnecessary surface parking 3. Efficient unnecessary site geometry surface Disadvantages: Centrally located 2. 2. Centrally 1. Difficult located entry point - high density development Efficient sitegeometry geometry 3. 3. Efficient site Disadvantages: 2. Not immediately adjacent to any transit stations 1. point - high density development 3. Difficult Far fromentry existing right-of-way

Disadvantages: 2. Not immediately adjacent to any transit stations Disadvantages: Difficult entry point high density density development 3. Far from existing right-of-way Approximate Site Area: 1. 1. Difficult entry point -- high development Not immediately adjacent to any transit stations 275,000 sf 2. 2. Not immediately adjacent to any transit 3. Far from existing right-of-way Approximate Site Area: stations 275,000 sf 3. Approximate Far from existing right-of-way Site Area: 275,000 sf

Approximate Site Area: 275,000 sf 100 200

400

100 200

400

SITE 3 | Lakefront Lookout

100 200

400

SITE 3 |3Lakefront Lookout SITE | Lakefront Lookout Advantages:

1. Connection to Port of Cleveland and Amtrak

SITE 3 | Lakefront Lookout Advantages: Advantages: 2. Immediate adjacentcy to Convention Center 1. Connection to Port of Cleveland and 3. Along existing right-of-way 1. Connection to Port of Cleveland andAmtrak Amtrak 2. Immediateadjacentcy adjacentcy to to Convention Convention Center 2. Advantages: Immediate Center 1. Connection to Port of Cleveland and Amtrak Alongexisting existing right-of-way Disadvantages: 3. 3. Along right-of-way 2. adjacentcy to Convention Center 1. Immediate Not centrally located within downtown 3. Along existing right-of-wayin vicinity Disadvantages: 2. Low-density development Disadvantages: 1. centrallynear located within downtown 3. Not Too touristy stadium? 1. Disadvantages: Not centrally located withinindowntown 2. development vicinity 4. Low-density Too close to amtrak? Comeptition? 2. 1. Low-density indowntown vicinity Not centrallydevelopment located within 3. Too touristy near stadium? 3. 2. Too near stadium? Low-density development in vicinity 4. Tootouristy close toSite amtrak? Comeptition? Approximate Area: Tooclose touristy near stadium? 4. 3. Too Comeptition? 400,000 sf to amtrak? 4. Too close toSite amtrak? Approximate Area: Comeptition? 400,000 sf Site Area: Approximate Approximate Site Area: 400,000 sf 400,000 sf 100 200

400

100 200

400

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SITE 1 | Riverfront Gateway Advantages: 1. Adjacent to existing transit station 2. Waterfront access 3. Walkability downtown 4. Large amount of available land Disadvantages: 1. Long and narrow site geometry 2. Severe topography change 3. Existing right-of-way difficult turning radius Approximate Site Area: 600,000 sf

100 200

400

SITE 2 | Parking Lot Promenade Advantages: 1. Replaces unnecessary surface parking 2. Centrally located 3. Efficient site geometry Disadvantages: 1. Difficult entry point - high density development 2. Not immediately adjacent to any transit stations 3. Far from existing right-of-way Approximate Site Area: 275,000 sf

100 200

400

SITE 3 | Lakefront Lookout Advantages: 1. Connection to Port of Cleveland and Amtrak 2. Immediate adjacentcy to Convention Center 3. Along existing right-of-way Disadvantages: 1. Not centrally located within downtown 2. Low-density development in vicinity 3. Too touristy near stadium? 4. Too close to amtrak? Comeptition? Approximate Site Area: 400,000 sf

100 200

400

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

The selected site takes advantage of the large area dedicated to surface parking at Tower City Center, the interior shopping mall and transit center located at Terminal Tower. This site, as shown in the timeline (page 11) is a historically significant site that has been charged with urban activity and means of connectivity since the 1930s when it was selected as a replacement site for the Union Depot along the shore of Lake Erie to the north of the city. The site, including the nearby area, now contains approximately 4,000 parking spots for visitors to the Tower City Center retail, dining, hospitality, casino, and cinema amenities,

the major sports arenas for the Cleveland Cavaliers at Quicken Loans Arena and the Cleveland Indians at Progressive Field, and the existing transit hub for the Cleveland RTA rail lines, with a current daily ridership of 30,000 people. The programmatic variation, historical significance, and ideal location within the downtown district in terms of walkability and proximity to major destinations, made this site the best option for the proposed hyperloop station - which seeks to capitalize on the existing urban amenities while injecting new life into Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s downtown area.

FOOD COURT

The interior of Tower City Center is largely underground - connected below street level to the Horseshoe Casino, Renaissance Cleveland Hotel, Tower City Cinemas, the Cavaliers Arena and the Federal Courthouse. The lowest level contains the entrance and loading platforms for the RTA metro lines.

TOWER CITY CENTER

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

Commercial Transportation | Freight Train, Truck, Hyperloop Cargo Capsule, Air Cargo, Barges Public Transit | Bus, Rapid Bus Transit, Metro (Rail Transit), Hyperloop, Commercial Flights Individual Transportation | Private automobile

CLEVELAND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

AUTOMOBILE | 18’ x 8’ x 5’

BUS | 40’ x 9’ x 10’

EXTENDED BUS | 60’ x 9’ x 10’

FREIGHT BOXCAR | 60’ x 18’ x 9’

METRO CAR | 65’ x 12’ x 9’

TRUCK | 74’ x 15’ x 8’

HYPERLOOP CAPSULE | 95’ x 7.5‘ x 7.5’

AIRPLANE JET | 110’ x 110’ x 40’

0’

10’

20’

50’

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

EXTENDED BUS | Turning Radius: 40 feet

0’

TRUCK | Turning Radius: 45 feet 0’

20’

50’

10’

20’

AIRPLANE | Turning Radius: 120 feet 100’

50’

VEHICLE TURNING & AREA REQUIREMENTS

Turning Radius: 24 feet

HYPERLOOP | Turning Radius: 14.6 miles = 77,088 feet

AUTOMOBILE |

RAILROAD | Turning Radius: 350 feet

BUS | Turning Radius: 42 feet

CLEVELAND TRANSIT VEHICLES

Transportation vehicles from top down: Cleveland downtown trolley, red line metro, standard city bus, Health Line extended increased-frequency bus, Blue Line.

RTA SYSTEM MAP

Right: The complete system map of the RTA bus, rail, and trolley service as of December, 2014. The RTA is planning several additions to the system, including the extension of ten priority corridors. Map courtesy of Cleveland RTA. 1 Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. ClevelandColumbus-Cincinnati High-Speed Rail Study, Final Report. Ohio Rail Development Commission. (2001) Image Credits (top-down) 1 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, E-Line Trolley. 2 Craig Sanders. Lee-Van Aken Rapid Station, RTA Blue Line. 3 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Bus Route 14. 4 Joshua Gunter, The Plain Dealer. Cleveland Health Line. 5 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Red Line. Photobucket, joZephC.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE: With the addition of a new Hyperloop Hub within Cleveland, it was brought into question whether a new infrastructural railway, such as an AirTram or new metro line, would be necessary to fully integrate the new transportation hub with the rest of the city. However, research shows that actually the city of Cleveland (and Cuyahoga County as a whole) is quite infrastructureheavy. The map to the right shows the full system map of the RTA (Regional Transit Authority) of Cuyahoga County. With more than 75 transit lines, almost every area of Cleveland can be accessed via public transit. The RTA utilizes three main types of public transit vehicles. The bus lines use both standard length and double-length buses, and operate at an average frequency of approximately every 15-30 minutes. The Health Line uses extra-length buses an an increased frequency. Additionally Cuyahoga County boasts three rapid-transit metro lines, using 3-car metro vehicles, operating approximately every 5-10 minutes. This extensive public transit network already sufficiently serves the city of Cleveland, so it was decided to instead locate the Hyperloop Station at a location where it could take full advantage of the existing infrastructural network, allowing full access to the entire city. The selected location at Tower City Center has direct access to each of the light rail lines, and a majority of the bus routes. The RTA conducted a recent study analyzing the ridership on its public transit routes. The results of the study identified several routes that have especially high ridership. The RTA then developed a plan to increase or improve the existing infrastructure along those routes. Specifically it plans to prioritize the development and extension of the bus routes along Lorain, St. Clair, and Broadway Avenues, Clifton Boulevard, and Kinsman and Cedar Roads.These plans for extensions and increased development reflect current development patterns and increasing population density along these routes.

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

Euclid Hospital

SYSTEM MAP

39 30

37 39F

30 39 37 39

239

30 39

BRATENAHL

239 39F

Collinwood H.S.

37 40

Gordon Park

Metrohealth Hospital for Women

EAST CLEVELAND

30 1 Glenville H.S.

41F 41

HL 9

West Park

FAIRVIEW PARK

45A 78

22 86 263 78

Brookpark

James Rhodes H.S.

BROOKLYN

79B

79A

Tri-C Western Campus

68 51

MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS

gt on

hin

At tle

So Pa uth rk

ut So

or e n

m nn

Av alo

Le e

John Kennedy H.S.

48A

Southp Hos

48A

GARFIELD HEIGHTS

Marymount Hospital

48 90F 761

Maple Heights H.S.

BEDFO

90F

76 40 761 35

VALLEY VIEW

SEVEN HILLS

Bedford Reservation

20 Parmatown Transit Center

MAPLE HEIGHTS 76

77F

79A

Southwest General Hospital

Parma Community Hospital

45A

Baldwin Wallace College

35 135

Parma H.S.

PARMA HEIGHTS

WARRENSVILL HEIGHTS

PARMA

251 451

BROOKLYN HEIGHTS

45A

79B

SHAK HEIGH

761

48 48A 15

VA Parma Multispecialty Clinic

Kaiser Foundation Hospital

37 40

90F

CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS

Airport

32 37

77F

BROOK PARK

Shaker Hts. H.S.

2 10

135 54

Metrohealth Broadway Health Center

20 251 451

Co ve nt ry

dla

2 16

2 10 16

Metro Health South Campus

79A

77F 90F

Cleveland Metro General Hospital

35 51

Cleveland Metroparks Zoo

79B

752

251

PuritasW. 150th

263 451

Brookside Park

John Marshall H.S.

Fairview Hospital

22 86

81 135

451 251 263

NEWBURGH HEIGHTS

2 16 81

79A 79B

22 49 75

Lincoln West H.S.

Westgate Transit Center in Fairview Park

, 26, 49, 55

21 45A

246

Triskett

246

Rocky River Reservation

As h

43 25

aw ay

ROCKY RIVER

W. 117thMadison

20 21 35 45A 51

79A 246 79B

E. 79th

W oo

Rocky River H.S.

University Hospitals Westlake

W. 65thLorain

Lakewood H.S.

E. 116th

Woodhill

E. 79th

48 48A

W. 25thOhio City

CedarUniversity

E. 105thQuincy

Lutheran Hospital

45 W. Blvd.- Cudell

East Tech H.S. Tri-C Metro Campus & Unified Technologies Center

Heights H.S.

hin

55F

246

Lakewood Hospital

11 15 14

55F 55

26 43 55F

55F

Cleveland Clinic

LAKEWOOD

55F

Edgewater Park

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS

Max Hayes H.S.

St. Vincent Charity Hospital

or e

55 55F

Euclid- E. 120th

38 HL 9

Clague Road Park-N-Ride Lot

Forest Hill Park

Veterans Hospital

3 38

83 Lakewood 8355 Park

Ea to n

3 School of The Arts

gt on

Superior

Dr ex m

39F

239

Rockerfeller Park

Le e

Shaw H.S.

StokesWindermere

INDEPENDENCE

Cuyahoga Valley National Park

20 45/45A 79A/B

45A Rocky River Reservation

Sprague and Fair Park-N-Ride Lot

77F

Strongsville Park-N-Ride Lot

51, 251, 451

135 45A

STRONGSVILLE

Distance In Miles 1 1.5

Minutes to walk the above distance* 10 20 30 40 *Most people walk about 3 miles per hour

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

TO DETROIT

TO TORONTO

SITE OPTION A

HYPERLOOP TRANSIT HUB

CLEVELAND

SITE OPTION B

HYPERLOOP TRANSIT HUB

TO CHICAGO .75 mi

1.6 miles

1.65 miles

.9 miles

TO PITTSBURGH LEGEND Cleveland Boundary 1.9 miles

TO COLUMBUS

HYPERLOOP TURNING RADII

Current research and engineering studies of the Hyperloop system suggest that at its predicted velocites, the hyperloop will require a turning radius ranging from 2.28 miles at 300 mph to 14.6 miles at its maximum velocity of 760 mph. This turning radius is significantly larger than that for existing infrastructure such as highway systems and railroad tracks, making it difficult for the hyperloop to follow existing right-of-way along the entire route between cities.

N 0.5

1.0

2.0

4.0 miles

The above map shows potential pathways of the hyperloop from Cleveland to adjacent city stations. These pathways follow existing rights-of-way and culminate at the two already-identified potential sites for the Hyperloop Transportation Hub. As the map shows, if the hyperloop follows existing right-of-way infrastructural routes, it is subject to turning radii that are too small for the high velocities of the system. This means one of four options must occur. The first option is to reduce the speed of the hyperloop within the city limits, to allow for smaller turning radii along existing rightsof-way. The second option is to construct

Existing Right-of-Way

Proposed Hyperloop Route Possible New HPL Right-of-Way

Proposed Site

Hyperloop Turning Radius

HPL Departure Platform

the hyperloop underground, where rightof-way is more flexible and straighter paths can be created. The third option is to build the hyperloop loading platforms away from existing infrastructure, such as off the shore of Lake Erie. The final option is to construct new rights-of-way for the hyperloop system, that allow for larger turning radii, higher velocities, and direct access to the chosen transportation hub sites. The speed of the hyperloop within the city limits would most likely be substantially lower, however constructing pathways below ground, below water, or along new pathways is still a likely alternative solution.

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

250

500

1000 ft

250

500

1000 ft

TURNING RADII AT LAKEFRONT

The above map shows the right-of-way routes in the immediate adjacencies to the first potential site for the Hyperloop transportation hub. This site, along the shore of Lake Erie, has a railway line running along the shore, directly along the chosen site area. Ohio State Route 2 also passes by the site, but as the map shows, has turning radii that may not be compatible with the high speeds of the hyperloop. Smaller, lessmajor roads in this area of the city are straighter, as they make up the urban street grid, and may be at a scale possible to combine a hyperloop tubing system above, alongside, or below.

TURNING RADII AT TOWER CITY

The second potential site is directly to the north of the Cuyahoga River, adjacent to the City Tower transit station. An ideal site in terms of connecting to existing transportation infrastructure, this site is also located at the terminus of a railroad line. Highway 20 and Highway 10, both smaller state highways, pass alongside the site as well.

500

1000

2000 ft

500

1000

2000 ft

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

TO TORONTO

DIUS: 14.6

miles

TO DETROIT

LAKE COUNTY CUYAHOGA COUNTY

TURNING RA

SITE OPTION A

HYPERLOOP TRANSIT HUB

CLEVELAND

TO CHICAGO TO COLUMBUS

TO NEW YORK GEAUGA COUNTY

CUYAHOGA COUNTY

GEAUGA COUNTY

S: 14.6 miles

CUYAHOGA COUNTY

TO PITTSBURGH

TURNING RADIU

0.5

1.0

2.0

4.0 miles

LEGEND Cleveland Boundary Existing Right-of-Way

Proposed Hyperloop Route Possible New HPL Right-of-Way

Proposed Site

Hyperloop Turning Radius

HPL Departure Platform

TO TORONTO

TURNING RA

DIUS: 14.6

miles

TO DETROIT

LAKE COUNTY CUYAHOGA COUNTY

CLEVELAND

TO CHICAGO TO COLUMBUS

TO NEW YORK

TURNING RADIU

S: 14.6 miles

TO PITTSBURGH

0.5

1.0

2.0

4.0 miles

LEGEND Cleveland Boundary Existing Right-of-Way

Proposed Hyperloop Route Possible New HPL Right-of-Way

Proposed Site

Hyperloop Turning Radius

HPL Departure Platform

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

375

750

1500

3000 ft

LEGEND Existing Right-of-Way

Proposed Hyperloop Route Possible New HPL Right-of-W

Proposed Site

Hyperloop Turning Radius

Cleveland Boundary

HPL Departure Platform

HYPERLOOP TURNING RADII

Top left: The 14.6 mile turning radius of the hyperloop at its maximum speeds prohibits using existing infrastructural rights-of-way within the city limits of Cleveland.

ROUTES IN AND OUT

Bottomw left: As a way of reducing the construction and interference within downtown Cleveland, all direct lines into the city are combined along a single linear route through the site at Tower City Center. Re-routing stations outside the city limits then direct capsules towards their final destinations.

A LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE

Top right: The large turning radii of the hyperloop system impose a linear type of city-making with locations along the route that plug in to the network.

Since the existing rights-of-way along the highway and rail routes are not suitable for the high velocities of the hyperloop system, new paths must be created to direct the hyperloop flows in and out of Cleveland. This series of maps shows the proposed pathways in and out of the city. Routes are combined along a singular, straight pathway through the selected site along the Cuyahoga River at Tower City Center, and then branch out to various destinations outside of the city limits. To the north-west of the city the central line splits towards Toronto, Detroit, Chicago, and Columbus, with a re-routing station located off the short of Lake Erie where rights of way are easier to negotiate. To the south-east, a re-routing station just outside the city limits directs hyperloop capsules towards New York City and Pittsburgh. This system allows the Cleveland Hyperloop Station at Tower City Center to serve all direct routes out of Cleveland without requiring all six lines to pass directly through downtown. This reduces the amount

of construction and interference that occurs within the central city, while still allowing the hyperloop station to be located within the more walkable, high-activity zone of downtown Cleveland. The route that passes through downtown Cleveland, as shown in the map above, connects these two re-routing stations along a linear pathway allowing locations along the route to plug in to the system as people, vehicles, and cargo are loaded into hyperloop capsules and transported to their final destinations. This linear route passes through the proposed Hyperloop Transit Station, bisecting the site and providing an architectural opportunity to design a station for the new infrastructural typology. The technical requirements of the hyperloop infrastructure as it passs through Cleveland are the primary influence towards the final architectural design. The architecture of the proposed Hyperloop Transit Hub, which will be more fully explained in the following pages, emphasizes the linearity of the system.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

SITE EXCAVATION PHOTOS

This collection of images show the construction of the Cleveland Union Terminal, from 1922 to the official opening in 1930. The project included a massive excavation, the second largest in the world at the time, after the Panama Canal.

SITE EXCAVATION Tower City Center, or as it was called at the time of its construction in 1922 The Cleveland Union Terminal, involved the second largest excavation project in the world after the construction of the Panama Canal. Massive footings for the railroad viaducts and the 807-foot Terminal Tower needed to be built, as well as an underground railway system of freight and passenger rail. This excavation project, shown in the images to the left, allowed for multiple transportation systems, including railroad, freight lines, and underground public transit lines to converge at a single location. Though constructed almost a hundred years ago, the center still functions much as it did then, though several of the original railroad routes no longer operate. The site offers the perfect condition for the addition of a hyperloop transportation hub.

HYPERLOOP PROJECT SITE Just as the Cleveland Union Terminal needed to excavate and create topographical changes to allow multiple transportation and infrasutructural systems to intersect and inter-connect, so must the Hyperloop hub constuct a new topography to allow a successful integration of infrastructure and transportation modes. Instead of achieving this new topography through excavation, this project seeks to achieve the same formal phenomenon through the application of layers of a new architecture against the sides of the existing site - creating a cliff-like addition to the site that allows for a new high density mixed-use transportation hub. This new cliff of vertically-stacked and overlapping infrastructural systems creates a new urban condition along the Cuyahoga River, connecting the riverfront to the drastically elevated downtown district.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

PREVIOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE SITE

Sdf

contributed a great deal of research to the recommendation and made sure the rest of The selected site for the Hyperloop Transit the committee was aware of the particular Hub has previously been explored as a needs and wants of event planners and potential convention center location for convention-goers. In addition to the Medical the city of Cleveland, prior to the final site Mart concept, the most appealing parts of selection in downtown. The Cleveland the Riverfront site was its connectivity— Convention Center was completed in 2013. offering indoor connections to Tower City The following text excerpt is from 2008 Center, transportation, and Quicken Loans during the site selection process for the new Arena. “We know we have an attractive Convtion Center: package with truly great attractions, some very vibrant nightlife, an array of “A site for a proposed new Convention hotel brands, acclaimed restaurants with Center in Cleveland, Ohio has been celebrity chefs and affordable pricing,” noted announced. In what is being called the Roche. “What will help us sell the center in Riverfront Site, this new location—along the shoulder seasons is connectivity.” Cuyahoga River—will be located adjacent The estimated cost of developing a new to the Tower City Center, a 34-acre mix convention center and medical mart— use project that includes Cleveland’s mass including design, engineering and property transit hub as well as an office, retail and acquisition expenses—is $536 million. If the entertainment complex. plan is approved, construction is expected to The decision came after nearly a year begin in 2009 and be completed by 2012. of study, a 12-member site selection The existing Cleveland Convention committee assembled by Greater Cleveland Center, which is located in the heart of Partnership, which included members of downtown Cleveland, features 21 meeting Positively Cleveland, the city’s Convention rooms, more than 375,000 square feet of & Visitors Bureau as well as business in exhibition space, a 10,000 seat auditorium, the community. The decision, reportedly the 3,000 seat Cleveland Music Hall and 600 unanimous, was given as a recommendation seat Little Theater. The facility maintains 300 to Cuyahoga County Commissioners. indoor Convention Center parking spaces. Cleveland is the Cuyahoga County seat. Additional parking is within a short walking “Positively Cleveland has been advocating distance and the facility is well-served by on behalf of the hospitality industry for a public transportation. The new convention new center for years,” said Dennis Roche, center proposal is expected to replace the President of Positively Cleveland, who was old venue, which is city owned and will on the committee that made the Riverfront likely be repurposed. Cleveland also has the site recommendation. “We are excited that International Exposition Center—a larger the project is moving forward and soon we meeting and event facility. The International can begin marketing a destination with a Exposition Center was recently expanded competitive center.” and features more than one million square One of the innovative features of the feet of contiguous exhibition and conference proposed venue that will enhance its space, including an 800,000-square-foot competitiveness is an accompanying main exhibit hall. The facility attracts “Medical Mart”—a permanent state-ofmore two million visitors annually the-art showroom for medical devices and through consumer exhibits, trade shows, equipment. Designed to attract medical conventions and other events.”1 and healthcare conventions, meetings and tradeshows, the Medical Mart will be located This proposal, though not selected as the site for the new Convention Center, brings in the Higbee Building, a historic Cleveland to light ideas of creating a “Medical Mart” structure that is a major component of the Tower City Center and will be attached to the for the Cleveland Clinic, and suggests ways of integrating with the existing mixed-use proposed convention center. development at Tower City Center. The convention and visitors bureau

SCALE 2: FLOWS OF CLEVELAND

CONVENTION CENTER SITE?

The proposed convention center for the Tower City Center site would have contained a Medical Mart, large exhibition spaces, event areas, and ample office and convention rooms. The sections show how the structure would connect to Tower City Center and fully encompass the existing Canal Road.

Images courtesy of Forest City Development / HNTB / KA.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB

SCALE 3:

A NEW TRANSIT HUB At the heart of this thesis proposal is the architectural scale. The project seeks to design a new architectural typology that creates an entry point for the hyperloop into the existing urban fabric of Cleveland, and creates a successful transfer point between the hyperloop and the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing transportation infrastructure. Unlike existing transportation architectural typologies, this station creates city in a new way, providing multiple, controlled points of entry into the city and strategic initial views of Cleveland. Architecturally, the transit hub seeks to greate a gateway into the city, but rather than achieving this through a monumentally-scaled architectural

intervention, the structure instead offers a low-profile addition to the waterfront along the Cuyahoga River, integrating itself at multiple elevational levels to the surrounding buildings and landscape. Through a series of exterior and interior ramps and vertical circulation elements, the building creates a public connection between dowtown at street level to the waterfront, offering recreational program and proposing a new relationship between the city and its central river. The structural elements, design of the faĂ§ade, and circulation emphasize the linearity imposed by the technical demands of the hyperloop infrastructure.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB INITIAL MASSING STUDIES An initial massing study of the chosen site shows the available area and the multiple directionalities it presents. As a transit hub, one formal option is to emphasize the directionality of the various flows intersecting at the transit hub. Each directionality is represented as a three-dimensional volume, occuring at different levels to mimic and follow the PROJECT VOLUME Top left: An initial project volume study, existing topographical change of the site. occupying the available land at Tower City Center. This land is currently These varying levels could be used to surface parking or vacant land. In later studies, however, the site area was connect transportation of people and goods reduced, and simplified, eliminating the portions to the east, instead at different levels, using vertical connection emphasizing the linear directionality of points. the hyperloop infrastructure passing through the length-driven site. The chosen site has an adjacent existing BUILDING CIRCULATION BOOLEAN OPERATIONS railway line, that terminates the site. BOOLEAN OPERATIONS: EXTRACTING FROM THE MASS TO CREATE INTERSECTING FLOW at PATHS CIRCULATION ABUILDING second project volume study sought BOOLEAN OPERATIONS: EXTRACTING FROM THE MASS TO CREATE INTERSECTING FLOW PATHS Originally constructed to connect the to create individual volumes for each of the circulation types passing through industry located along the river to national the site. Each of these circulation volumes were then carved out from freight routes, this railway provides an ideal the overall project volume using a series of boolean operations, locating right-of-way opportunity for the proposed the spaces where public activity and hyperloop system. Though the turning circulation can occur.

73 radii of the railroad are too small for the predicted velocities of the hyperloop, as mentioned previously, it could still serve as the terminus/starting point of the hyperloop for one direction. As the annotated diagrams below illustrate, separate volumes could also help separate the many functionalities of the transportation hub, locating unique programs in each volume. Moments of intersection between volumes could serve as shared program zones, or provide circulation between programmatic volumes. Volumes could be dedicated to program categories, such as cargo storage and loading, passenger facilities, dining and retail, or maintenance and administration. As these various programmatic volumes intersect, boolean operations can begin to carve out areas from the overall project volume, creating void spaces for circulation and public space at the intersections. TO PITTSBURGH TO PITTSBURGH

TO PITTSBURGH TO PITTSBURGH

TO DETROIT, TO DETROIT, TORONTO, &TORONTO, CHICAGO & CHICAGO TO DETROIT, TO DETROIT, TORONTO, CHICAGO TORONTO, CHICAGO

D OA D N R ROA O R N HU RO M HU O M FR O RY FR NT TRY E N IAN N E TRTRIA S DE S PEPEDE

TO COLUMBUS TO COLUMBUS

AD D ROROA N N RORO . HUHU SSTT. M M AALL RFORO F N N S CAA ESESS MM C OO CACCC R R A FF RR SSSS CACA CCECE C R RA A CACA

TO COLUMBUS TO COLUMBUS

D OA N R OAD RO N R U H RO HYPERLOOP OM HU HYPERLOOP FR M RY FRO T EN TRY IAN EN TR IAN S R DE T PEEDES P D OAD OA NR NR RO O U H UR OM H FR OM PEDESTRIAN RYY FR PEDESTRIAN T ENNTR AR E ULLAR IC U H C VVEEHI

CANAL CANAL ROAD ROAD ENTRANCE ENTRANCE

AUTOMOBILE AUTOMOBILE

COMBINEDCIRCULATION CIRCULATION COMBINED

CANAL RD CANAL RD ENTRANCE ENTRANCE

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SITE

450,000 sqft

IDENTIFYING THE SITE The proposed site, with an area of 450,000 square feet, is nested between the existing Tower City Center retail center & RTA station, and the waterfront of the Cuyahoga River.

THE NEW HYPERLOOP INFRASTRUCTURE The proposed path of the hyperloop network passes through the site area, emerging from its underground path beneath the majority of downtown. The infrastructure is linear in nature, accomodating the 14.6 mile necessary turning radius.

PROJECT VOLUME The chosen site contains a topographic elevational change of 105 feet between the elevation at the waterfront and that at streetlevel at Huron Road. This drastic elevational change creates a project volume within the site area.

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB

CUTTING PLANES Following the linear nature of the hyperloop infrastructure passing through the project volume, cutting planes are used to split the project volume into narrow strips to formally break up the volume.

BRIDGING THE ELEVATIONAL CHANGE By lowering the height of the strips of program, the topographic change between street level and waterfront is gradually bridged.

RAMPING The strips of program were varied further to create a series of exterior and interior ramps that allow pedestrians to travel from Huron Road to the waterfront, along either interior or exterior routes of public space.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB

MID-REVIEW

The reviewers for Mid-Review on 3.13.15 included Mireille Roddier (University of Michgian, Taubman College of Architecture + Urban Planning) and Michael Piper (University of Toronto, John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design)

DEVELOPING A FORMAL VISION These initial renderings and massing studies begin to explore the experiential quality of the proposed space. The ramping of the strips used to generate the overall massing allow light to enter the interior of the space in a unique way, providing intentional views of moments of the city and the exterior urban plazas on the exterior of the building.

renderings to help show the process of developing the final design. These images, generated for the mid review on 3.13.15, demonstrate the vision for the final project. These renderings emphasize the linearity of the design, the ramping between the elevational level at Huron Road and the waterfront, as well as the method of entry into the building through the decent from street level.

DESIGN INTENT Whereas typical transit centers feature large, central atriums providing views of all modes of transportation, loading, and crowding, this design for the hyperloop center instead creates narrow strips without any central chamber. This architectural strategy creates a unique urban condition, directing people into a larger number of urban flows at multiple sites of intervention. The exterior of the massing, explores the potential for a ramping system to bridge the topographic difference between street level at Huron Road and the waterfront below. This ramping creates multiple entry points into the station at various levels down from the 110-foot elevational difference. The ramping also creates a unique urban condition for the station. Most major transportation hubs and city landmarks contain more of a street presence to indicate an entrance and a more obvious point of entry into the surrounding urban fabric. This station instead creates an extended urban platform at street level from which passengers descend down to the level of the hyperloop and the Cleveland RTA rail lines. The ramping of the floor plates and a light-weight structural system occuring at the division points of the programmatic strips, create a system in which the entire southern facade of the structure can be composed of glass - leaving it open to views of the city and provide ample sunlight to the interior of the station. I have intentionally included these early

FEEDBACK The design feedback at mid-review encouraged the project to provide more of a gateway entry point into the city - with more intentional entry points into the city and strategic views as passengers arrive at the station. It was suggested that this entry gateway needed to be iconic in its statement to the city. This particular suggestion offers a unique opportunity to explore the ways in which low-profile buildings can create the iconic moment. The building needs to more appropriately reflect the scale of the urban environment surrounding it. Also suggested was to reconsider the means of entrance into the building. The Mid-Review scheme lifted up the formal strips of the building above street level, creating raised entry points that provide direct access to the hyperloop loading level below. It was suggested that the entry points should instead be limited to a formal descent from the extended urban platform at street level, with raised entry points only occuring farther back from the street - perhaps attached to the adjacent buildings across the street. NEW TYPE OF URBANISM The next steps for the project involve continuing to develop the new type of urbanism this project creates. The building doesn’t empty out in one place, but rather in many locations. It creates “City” in a unique way compared with other transit centers, and the architecture needs to reflect that.

PUBLIC SQUARE

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

I ER

E AV

STRETCH

PULL

STRETCH

STREET ENTRANCE

TRUCK ENTRANCE

PULL

PUBLIC SQUARE N

100 ft

200 ft

400 ft

E AV

R PE

PROSPECT AVENUE

HURON ROAD STREET ENTRANCE

STREET ENTRANCE

PICNIC AREA

D OA LR

TRUCK ENTRANCE

PROPOSED RIVER EXTENSION

N CA

WATERFRONT RECREATION AREA BARGE LOADING / UNLOADING

LEGEND

Proposed River Outline Hyperlooop Below Roads Train Tracks

100 ft

200 ft

400 ft

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB INTEGRATION INTO THE SITE The design of the hyperloop station seeks to tie into the surrounding urban landmarks. The current Tower City Station has constructed, elevated walkways that allow pedestrians easy access into the Quicken Loans Cavaliers Arena to the east and the Federal Courthouse to the west. However the current method of connection between the three buildings is haphazard and offers a band-aid solution to the problem. The proposed hyperloop station instead incorporates these circulation pathways within the building, stretching out horizontally towards the Quicken Loans Arena and the Federal Courthouse Building. In the opposite direction, the site instead pulls the Tower City Center in towards the building, creating a connection perpendicular to that of the east-west flows. Mirroring the pulling of the Tower City Center, the building also pulls the water of the Cuyahoga River towards it, creating a docking area for river freight and a recreational waterfront area accessible to the public. This strategic move to manufacture a new edgeline for the shore line attempts to re-establish the Cuyahoga River as a central element in the public sphere of Clevelandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s downtown. The initial proposed site plan indicates locations that plan for increased public activity along the waterfront. It also shows how Canal Street has been re-routed to be encompassed by the proposed building and offer direct vehicular access points into the vehicular loading zones and parking areas.

SITE INTEGRATION

The proposed hyperloop station incorporates the horizontal flows into the Quicken Loans Arena to the east and the Federal Courthouse to the west. It pulls the Tower City Center station towards the building to create a single mixed-use development.

SITE PLAN

New outdoor public spaces at all elevational levels make the waterfront of the Cuyahoga River a new public destination within downtown.

QUICKEN LOANS ARENA (Stretch)

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE (Stretch)

HYPERLOOP LINE The topographic change between Huron Road and the waterfront creates an opportunity for the hyerploop to emerge from underground, allowing views of the system from downtown, and giving passengers a strategic initial view of the city. In this way the building acts as a gateway into Cleveland. The green horizontal lines indicated in the site plan show the proposed route of the hyperloop as it becomes visible above ground, and demonstrate the relationship to the building. TOWER CITY CENTER (Pull)

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

0’

800’

1600’

UNION STATION, CHICAGO 0’

0’

800’

1600’

PENN STATION, NEW YORK CITY 800’

0’

1600’

UNION STATION, LOS ANGELES

500’

1000’

TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO 0’

800’

1600’

HYPERLOOP TRANSIT STATION, CLEVELAND

CENTRAL HUB COMPARISON

This comparison by location of wellknown transit hubs offers a sense of scale, and shows that the proposed Hyperloop Transit Station follows the Central Hub model, like the other examples, but uses a unique formal strategy more fully integrates into the surrounding site.

CLASSIFICATION OF TRANSIT CENTERS BY LOCATION: 1. The Suburban Station: located in city outskirts, - rarely visited by those not traveling or dropping off/picking up. These stations contribute little to the urban fabric of the city.

2. The Downtown Dropoff: located centrally, but does not contain other program. Though not a central hub, these stations bring increased activity to the surrounding site. 3. The Central Hub: located centrally, mixed use program in addition to transit traffic creates a central hub of activity at the site.

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB

INTERIOR TERMINAL COMPARISON

NYC PENN STATION PROPOSAL

UNION STATION, CHICAGO

H3 PENN STATION PROPOSAL

SHOP ARCHITECTS, PENN STATION

UN STUDIO LA TRANSIT HUB

HYPERLOOP TRANSIT STATION, CLEVELAND

The comparison of interior spaces of other transit hub proposals compared with the proposed Hyperloop Transit hub show a clear distinction in the classification of the interior space.

BY DESIGN: 1. The Central Terminal: a large open atrium space allows viewing of the incoming and outgoing transit traffic. Specific exits and entrances feed in and out of the central space, creating a bottle-neck effect as crowds are pushed through.

2. The Urban Gateway: people are quickly ushered out of the building along directed routes into the surrounding urban district. 3. The Anchored Entrance: multiple entry and exit points each offer a unique urban experience and more fully integrate the building within its context.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

PASSENGER LOADING

CARS HYPERLOOP VEHICULAR LOADING

PEOPLE 50 ft

HYPERLOOP PASSENGER LOADING

HYPERLOOP

AIRLOCK

CENTRAL TRACK (WES

HYPERLOOP

AIRLOCK

CENTRAL TRACK (EAS HYPERLOOP VEHICULAR LOADING

HYPERLOOP PASSENGER LOADING

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB

VEHICLE & FREIGHT LOADING

FREIGHT HYPERLOOP FREIGHT LOADING

MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE BAY

50 ft

ST BOUND)

AIRLOCK

HYPERLOOP

ST BOUND)

AIRLOCK

HYPERLOOP

HYPERLOOP FREIGHT LOADING

MAINTENANCE BAY

SITE PLAN: GROUND SITE PLAN: GROUND SITE PLAN: GROUND

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

INTERIOR PUBLIC PLAZA INTERIOR PUBLIC PLAZA INTERIOR PUBLIC PLAZA

RETAIL

OFFICE

RETAIL

OFFICE

RETAIL

OFFICE

RETAIL

OFFICE

OPEN TO HYPERLOOP LOADING LEVEL

RETAIL

OPEN TO HYPERLOOP LOADING LEVEL

RETAIL

OPEN TO HYPERLOOP LOADING LEVEL

A A A

FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -1 FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -1 FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -1

TO TOWER CITY CENTER

TO CINEMA

TO TOWER CITY CENTER TO TOWER CITY CENTER

WALKWAY TO FEDERAL COURTHOUSE WALKWAY TO FEDERAL COURTHOUSE

INTERIOR PUBLIC PLAZA

WALKWAY TO FEDERAL COURTHOUSE

INTERIOR PUBLIC PLAZA INTERIOR PUBLIC PLAZA

A A

AIRLOCK

TO CINEMA

INFORMATION

RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL

HYPERLOOP VEHICULAR LOADING

DOWN TO METRO DOWN TO METRO DOWN TO METRO

HYPERLOOP VEHICULAR LOADING

AIRLOCK

TO CINEMA

DOWN TO METRO DOWN TO METRO DOWN TO METRO

TICKETINGINFORMATION & PASSENGER SERVICES TICKETING INFORMATION & PASSENGER SERVICES

SECURITY TICKETING & PASSENGER SERVICES HYPERLOOPSECURITY PASSENGER LOADING

RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL

HYPERLOOPSECURITY PASSENGER LOADING

HYPERLOOP VEHICULAR LOADING

DOWN TO METRO

HYPERLOOP VEHICULAR LOADING

DOWN TO

HYPERLOOP PASSENGER LOADING

DOWN TO METRO

HYPERLOOP PASSENGER LOADING

DOWN TO

DOWN TO METRO

HYPERLOOP PASSENGER LOADING

HYPERLOOP VEHICULAR LOADING

FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -2 (HYPERLOOP LOADING LEVEL) FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -2 (HYPERLOOP LOADING LEVEL) FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -2 (HYPERLOOP LOADING LEVEL) TOWER CITY RTA STATION TOWER CITY RTA STATION TOWER CITY RTA STATION

MAINTENANCE

RETAIL / DINING

UP TO HYPERLOOP

RETAIL / DINING

UP TO HYPERLOOP

RETA

MAINTENANCE PRESSURE VENT

RETAIL / DINING

UP TO HYPERLOOP

RETAIL / DINING

UP TO HYPERLOOP

RETA

RETAIL / DINING

UP TO HYPERLOOP

RETAIL / DINING SITTING AREA

UP TO HYPERLOOP

RETA

MAINTENANCE PRESSURE VENT PRESSURE VENT

VEHICLE LOADING SHAFT

SITTING AREA

VEHICLE LOADING SHAFT VEHICLE LOADING SHAFT VEHICLE LOADING SHAFT

UP TO HYPERLOOP

SITTING AREA

UP TO HYPL

VEHICLE LOADING SITTING AREASHAFT

UP TO HYPERLOOP

SITTING AREA

UP TO HYPL

SITTING AREASHAFT VEHICLE LOADING

UP TO

SITTING AREA

UP TO HYPL

FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -3 (METRO LEVEL) FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -3 (METRO LEVEL) FLOOR PLAN: GROUND -3 (METRO LEVEL) MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE PRESSURE VENT MAINTENANCE PRESSURE VENT PRESSURE VENT

LONG-TERM PARKING AREA: 95,000 SQUARE FEET

LONG-TERM PARKING (ABOUT 350 PARKING SPACES) AREA: 95,000 SQUARE FEET (ABOUT 350 PARKING SPACES) LONG-TERM PARKING AREA: 95,000 SQUARE FEET

PARKIN

AREA: 175,000 SQUA (ABOUT 650 PARKING PARKIN

AREA: 175,000 SQUA (ABOUT 650 PARKING

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB

85 N

50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

N 50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL

CLEVELAND CLINIC

OUTDOOR PLAZA

CLEVELAND CLINIC

OUTDOOR PLAZA

CLEVELAND CLINIC

OUTDOOR PLAZA

N 50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

N 50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

WALKWAY TO QUICKEN LOANS ARENA WALKWAY TO QUICKEN LOANS ARENA

RETAIL

WALKWAY TO QUICKEN LOANS ARENA

RETAIL

CLEVELAND CLINIC

RETAIL

MAINTENANCE BAY CLEVELAND CLINIC MAINTENANCE BAY

HYPERLOOP FREIGHT LOADING HYPERLOOP FREIGHT LOADING HYPERLOOP FREIGHT LOADING HYPERLOOP FREIGHT LOADING

HYPERLOOP FREIGHT LOADING

MAINTENANCE BAY MAINTENANCE BAY

AIRLOCK

MAINTENANCE BAY

AIRLOCK

MAINTENANCE BAY

AIRLOCK

N 50 ft

100 ft

N 50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

AIL / DINING

FREIGHT STORAGE

AIL / DINING

FREIGHT STORAGE

FREIGHT LOADING SHAFT

FREIGHT STORAGE

FREIGHT LOADING SHAFT

FREIGHT STORAGE

AIL / DINING

FREIGHT LOADING LOADING SHAFT SHAFT FREIGHT FREIGHT LOADING SHAFT FREIGHT LOADING SHAFT

SITTING AREA SITTING AREA SITTING AREA

N 50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

N 50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

50 ft

100 ft

200 ft

ARE FEET G SPACES) NG

TRUCK LOADING

ARE FEET

FREIGHT STORAGE TRUCK LOADING

G SPACES) NG

ARE FEET G SPACES)

200 ft

FREIGHT LOADING SHAFT

FREIGHT STORAGE TRUCK LOADING

PLAN DEVELOPMENT These mid-review schematic plans are an initial attempt at locating the various programs of the hyperloop hub within the project volume. The division of program follows the spatial organization diagrammed on the previous page - divided into areas meant for people, vehicle loading, and freight storage and loading. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 1. Passenger loading / unloading 2. Vehicular loading / unloading 3. Security 4. Rapid arrival / departure system 5. Connection to alternative transit routes 6. Parking, Park & Ride Facilities 7. Passenger facilities / Dining 8. Maintenance areas 9. Offices / Administration 10. Urban connectivity 11. Cargo storage 12. Cargo loading / unloading / delivery 13. New downtown Cleveland Clinic facility 14. Retail / Shopping 15. Waiting areas 16. Urban mixed-use development 17. Information Center 18. Storage Lockers 19. Sporting facilities & amenities for fans MOVING FORWARD The next steps involve finalizing the design of the building and accurately representing the structure, program, material, circulation, and public space in both plan and section. A structural system that emphasizes the linear nature of the hyperloop infrastructure is in progress, and will help determine the location of the necessary programmatic elements. The pneumatic tubes of the hyperloop infrastructure are also going to be more clearly called out within the building, creating an iconic emblem to downtown Cleveland of progress, innovation, and national connectivity.

INTERIOR SPACE

Process renderings of the interior conditions created by the ramping of the floor plates. A vertical chamber has been created for the hyperloop infrastructure, calling it out within the interior of the building.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

INTERIOR CIRCULATION Quick interior renderings and light studies throughout the development of a digital model begin to demonstrate the areas where natural light are being brought into the interior of the space and show how the ramping of the floor plates direct circulation through the interior volumes.

The above view shows the descending ramp from the public platfor at street level at Huron Road, which extends directly to the hyperloop loading platform. Upon the descent, pedestrians are immediately presented with a view of the hyperloop infrastructure. The below view looks up towards the exit from the platform.

SCALE 3: A NEW TRANSIT HUB

EXTERIOR FORM

Process renderings of the exterior form as it is being developed for the final scheme. The top view shows the overall massing, while the bottom image shows the metro access beneath the building to the Tower City RTA station and the relationship to the Cuyahoga River.

EXTERIOR FORM DEVELOPMENT These process renderings show how the design for the transit hub has been altered since Mid-Review. Though a similar system of ramping is being used to connect downtown at street level to the waterfront below and the linear nature of the building has been retained, the entrances at street

level have been lowered, instead offering a public platform from which pedestrians descend into the building. The floor plates have been thickened to support the structural load and the waterfront condition has been altered to allow the Cuyahoga River to extend into the interior of the building, further activating the waterfront.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

CONCLUSION: LOOKING FORWARD

CONCLUSION:

LOOKING FORWARD The background research, process material, and preliminary design work summarized in this publication provide the initial framework for the final thesis proposal. The proposal establishes an initial design intent for hyperloop station design, proposing ways the hyperloop can become fully integrated into existing infrastructural systems and flow networks and create a new sense of urbanism and city-making within an established downtown district. The interest in three distinct scales that are defined and articulated throughout the research provide a sense of direction to the project as it operates in unique ways at each of the three scales, from the

national, to the urban, to the architectural. It is my hope that the issues that are called out in this publication - in terms of how the construction and development of a hyperloop infrastructure affect each of these scales - may be brought into light. These issues - surrounding potential changes in urban development patterns, social and economic consequences, and site-specific urban benefits - show how a new hyperloop network has the potential to positively affect Cleveland, injecting new urban life into a city that, despite a world-renowned healthcare system, downtown amenities and urabn attractions is still suffering the consequences of de-industrialization.

APPENDIX

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

THE HYPERLOOP: A NEW RAPID TRANSIT

THE HYPERLOOP:

A NEW RAPID TRANSIT In 2013 Elon Musk first published his “Hyperloop Alpha” paper - a 58 page document describing his idea for the Hyperloop. He sought to provide an initial study into the feasibility of the system, cost, issues, benefits, and potential design of the infrastructural system. Since the publication of this document, multiple physicists, engineers, designers, and architects have weighed in their thoughts on the idea. Startup Hyperloop Transportation Technologies is currently working towards constructing the first hyperloop track in California and Elon Musk has announced the construction of a test track in Texas for testing capsule designs.

The following pages seek to explain the initial concept, physics, studies, and precedents of the hyperloop, as well as the current development of the system . I have included excerpts from Musk’s initial document, as well as editorial comments on the feasibility of the hyperloop. This collection of information, diagrams, and images has aided in my understanding of the hyperloop’s potential, and has helped shape the final design of the proposed hyperloop transit hub, as I attempted to create a feasible design solution for a hyperloop station that accommodates the necessary structural, technical, and physical requirements of the system.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

WHAT IS THE HYPERLOOP? On August 12, 2013 Elon Musk published a document explaining his idea for what he called “the fifth mode of transportation” - the Hyperloop.1 Musk’s proposal was meant to address several major problems in currently existing modes of transportation (planes, trains, boats, cars): 1. Safety 2. Speed 3. Cost 4. Convenience 5. Susceptibility to weather 6. Sustainability of power source 7. Earthquake resistance 8. Disruption to those along the route Musk’s system would consist of a lowpressure tube in which pressurized capsules are transported at speeds reaching 760 miles per hour. The capsules, containing passengers and vehicular or freight cargo,

Inlet

Compressor fan

would be supported by a cushion of air — like pucks on an air-hockey table. A “magnetic linear accelerator” affixed at stations along the tube would power rotors on each capsule. Onboard solar arrays would power the high-efficiency system, while allowing the capsules to coast between pulses. Suspended on pylons erected in the median of the I-5 freeway, the Hyperloop tube would carry passengers in pods that look a little like narrow tank cars. “Short of figuring out real teleportation, which would of course be awesome (someone please do this), the only option for superfast travel is to build a tube over or under the ground that contains a special environment,” Musk wrote in an alpha-design white paper detailing his plan.1 Musk’s proposal has been met with both skepticism and enthusiasm. Many researchers, scientists and engineers

Compressor motor Firewall/ sound bulkhead Air storage

Batteries Seating (2 x 14)

Suspension

Above: Hyperloop passenger capsule subsystem notional locations (not to scale).

FOOTNOTE 1

Futch, David. LA Weekly, “Can Hyperloop Actually Be Built? - A think tank in L.A. finds out.” Published January 2, 2014.

THE HYPERLOOP: A NEW RAPID TRANSIT

have taken on the task of determining the project’s feasibility. UCLA Architecture and Urban Design professor, Craig Hodgetts is working with students in an interdisciplinary team to work on the idea. Hodgetts, who oversaw the acoustical redesign of the Hollywood Bowl, insists Musk’s plan is doable. When it comes to the Hyperloop, Hodgetts is all about the future. “The hyperloop will be transformative”, he says, like the war between internal combustion engines and steam engines. Within 100 years, Hodgetts predicts, we’ll see the demise of oil-based engines and a fierce battle between electric and hydrogen propulsion. HYPERLOOP CAPSULE Two versions of the Hyperloop capsules are being considered: a passenger only version and a passenger plus vehicle version. Hyperloop Passenger Capsule Assuming an average departure time of 2 minutes between capsules, a minimum of 28 passengers per capsule are required to meet 840 passengers per hour. It is possible to further increase the Hyperloop capacity by reducing the time between departures. The current baseline requires up to 40 capsules in activity during rush hour, 6 of which are at the terminals for loading and unloading of the passengers in Passenger Plus Vehicle Capsule The passenger plus vehicle version of the Hyperloop will depart as often as the passenger only version, but will accommodate 3 vehicles in addition to the passengers. All subsystems discussed in the following sections are featured on both capsules. approximately 5 minutes.

PROPOSED HYPERLOOP ROUTE

Overview of Hyperloop route from Los Angeles to San Francisco. In order to avoid bend radii that would lead to uncomfortable passenger itertial accelerations and hence limit speed, it is necessary to optimize the route. THis can be achieved by deviating from the current highway system, earth removal, construction oylons to achieve elevation change or tunneling. Musk, Elon. “Hyperloop Alpha.” SpaceX, 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 1 California High-Speed Rail Authority, CA.gov.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

The initial proposed route of Musk’s hyperloop system connects Los Angeles and San Francisco. The journey is predicted to last no more than 30 minutes - for a trip that lasts approximately 6 hours by car, depending on traffic. This proposed route is in response to the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s proposal to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles in under three hours along 800 miles of track, reaching speeds of over 200

miles per hour. The system is imagined to eventually extend to Sacramento and San Diego, and is estimated to be completed by 2029. The project was approved by California voters in 2008.1 Elon Musk has criticized the proposed project as too expensive and resulting in a train that is too slow. His claim in his Hyperloop Alpha proposal was that the hyperloop would cost a tenth of the rail proposal and travel over three times as fast.

THE HYPERLOOP: A NEW RAPID TRANSIT

MINNEAPOLIS

NATIONAL HYPERLOOP ROUTES

Students at UCLA and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) are working to develop a potential crosscountry network for the hyperloop. However many issues arise when discussing coast-to-coast routes, given the political struggles facing high-speed infrastructural approval, problems of land acquisition, and topographical challenges. It is likely the hyperloop will instead offer shorter, regional routes. Davies, Alex. “These Dreamers Are Actually Making Progress Building Elon’s Hyperloop.” Wired. 18 Dec. 2014. Web.

The above proposed national hyperloop system was developed by Hyperloop Transportation Technologies and suggests a potential national connectivity of hyperloop systems. However, importantly it does not include Cleveland as a potential stop. Within Ohio, it includes Cincinnati and Columbus, but Cleveland has been ignored, despite its centrally located site at the perfect intersection point of the midwestern and eastern routes. Cleveland not only should be included in the national hyperloop system, as a city with a large population, major exports and industry, and popular attractions, but also because of its central location along Lake Erie. Adjacency to the lake allows easy access across the lake (either below in

tunnels or above in raised tubes) to Detroit, Toronto, Chicago, Milwaukee, and other nearby cities. Though crossing the lake brings about political issues of obtaining permission, funding, and support, issues of right-of-way, turning radii, and landuse are minimized. This is too powerful an opportunity to overlook the potential. For this reason, this project proposes Cleveland as an ideal hub location for the national hyperloop system. Another issue with the above proposal by HTT is the existence of gaps and dead-ends in the system. No city should be a dead-end destination, but rather increase connectivity to other national cities, decreasing the number of large gaps with no hyperloop access. A phasing strategy would prioritize certain routes in the order of construction.

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

THE HYPERLOOP: A NEW RAPID TRANSIT

ROUTE OPTIMIZATION Musk’s proposed route between LA and San Francisco considers the use of 20, 50, and 100 ft pylon heights to raise and lower the hyperloop tube over geological obstacles. A tunnel (15.2 miles) is proposed where the local graduents preclude the use of pylons.

BOTTOM LEFT

Los Angeles/Grapevine South Section of proposed Hyperloop route. The image shows the preliminary route with the bend radii. The porposed route follows I-5 through Santa Clarita and Castaic. Significant deviation from I-5 is needed in order to increase bend radius and develop straight sections.

BOTTOM RIGHT

I-5 section of proposed Hyperloop route. The hyperloop infrastructure follows I-5 (the main north-south Interstate Highway on the West Coast) to minimize land/right of way purchase costs.

TOP

I-580/San Francisco Bay section of the proposed hyperloop route. The route follows I-580 to minimize land/right of way purchase costs. Deviation from the highway is needed in order to develop straight sections. Hyperloop velocities are reduced within the city limits. Musk, Elon. “Hyperloop Alpha.” SpaceX, 12 Aug. 2013. Web.

VELOCITY STUDIES Outside city boundaries, where the hyperloop routes can be more or less straight, high velocities of 760 miles per hour can be reached (airplanes typically travel at 480 mph at their maximum speed.) However, as the maps to the left demonstrate, certain routes are subject to smaller turning radii at specific points along the system. These maps were developed for Elon Musk’s original report analyzing the feasibility of a hyperloop system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. The tables to the right show how, along the route, different velocities must be achieved according to these turning radii. Estimated travel times can then be calculated using these speed estimations. This data was used to generate the proposed routes in and out of Cleveland and to estimate travel times to each destination, as described in Scale 2: Flows of Cleveland,

100

PNEUMATIC FUTURES Just this past January, 2015, it was announced that Elon Musk, with Tesla Motors and SpaceX, was planning to construct a Hyperloop test track somewhere in Texas. In the announcement, Musk envisions the test track as an openly shared facility where engineers, structural designers, and student teams can test their design ideas for Hyperloop capsules and methods of achieving the desired high speeds without any negative effects to passengers or - predicted problems with the system. Like the Formula SAE competition for student engineers testing self-made cars, Musk envisions a similar student engineering competition that tests Hyperloop designs and solutions. The exciting thing about this announcement is that with the construction of a test track, the idea of the Hyperloop is officially moving forward. The UCLA School of Architecture + Urban Design is also working towards making the Hyperloop a reality. Led by Craig Hodgetts, interdisciplinary teams in conjunction with Los Angeles-based Hyperloop Technologies, are working to design the hyperloop system infrastructure, and the passenger capsules. The images to the left show the process and final design of the hyperloop capsule as envisioned by the UCLA team.1 The UCLA team is not alone in investigating and working towards a finalized design of the hyperloop network. The start-up called Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, mentioned in the previous pages, announced on February 26, 2015 a plan to begin construction for the San Francisco-Los Angeles route, beginning in Quay Valley, California - a small town located along the proposed hyperloop route. Planning to break ground in 2016, the track would be about five miles long, most likely in a straight line, and will transport capsules at speeds lower than the final intended velocities. However, the construction of this track is a huge stepping stone towards the realization of the hyperloop, and initiates the development of Quay Valley - a planned green mini-city of about 15,000 homes.2

THE HYPERLOOP: A NEW RAPID TRANSIT

HYPERLOOP SUPRASTUDIO

A team of UCLA graduate students in Playa Vista is investigating the feasibility and design strategies for the hyperloop infrastructure and passenger capsules. 1 England-Nelson, Jordan. Daily Breeze. Hyperloop: UCLA graduate sutdents explore feasibility of highspeed tube transportation system. 2 Upbin, Bruce. Forbes. Hyperloop Gets Its First Commercial Contract For Short Track In California. February 26, 2015.

101

102

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

THE HYPERLOOP: A NEW RAPID TRANSIT

103

104

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

PRECEDENT STATION DESIGN ARRIVAL / DEPARTURE PLATFORM Existing station design proposals envision only the arrival and departure platform as a logistical problem that requires a design solution. No efforts have been made as of yet to determine how this new infrastrucutral system could efficiently and effectively tie into existing public transit systems within a city, or more fully integrate into the existing urban fabric. The architectural project of this thesis proposal seeks to address just that: the methods in which the hyperloop system can be more fully integrated into the urban fabric and coexist wand facilitate existing infrastructural networks. This passenger loading platform, as envisioned by French industrial designer and mechanical engineer Serge Roux, replaces the rotating turntable originally proposed by Elon Musk in favor of a cynlindrical structure that envelops the tracks, accommodating three passenger campsules at a time. Roux admits his station design slightly increases the estimated passenger loading times, from the 2.5 minutes Musk proposed to 3 minutes. However, Roux argues that this almost negligible time increase would be gained back during peak-hours, achieving faster passenger flows by getting 3x more people on board simultaneously.1 As these renderings show - very little consideration has been given to the surrounding context, and the proposed structure fails to dedicate area to additional uses which may be required at a hyperloop passenger station. However, using these preliminary spatial studies as a jumping off point, it is my goal to take the station design to the next level - considering the surrounding urban conditions and additional program requirements to create a more effective design strategy.

THE HYPERLOOP: A NEW RAPID TRANSIT

HYPERLOOP STATION DESIGN Early conceptual station design for a hyperloop arrival and departure platform. Images courtesy of Serge Roux. 1 Lavrinc, Damon. Wired. Elon Muskâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hyperloop Needs This Gorgeous Passenger Station. September 10, 2013.

105

106

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

THE HYPERLOOP: A NEW RAPID TRANSIT

107

HYPERLOOP IN THE U.S.

As part of its campaigning for funds and spreading awareness about the hyperloop, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies developed a series of images showing what the hyperloop might look like in respective cities. These images show the hyperloop in Washington DC, Philadelphia, and Houston. Courtesy of HTT.

HYPERLOOP IN OHIO

In the style of the Hyperloop Transportation Technologies advertising, this promotional ad shows the selected site for the Hyperloop Transit Hub. The hyperloop has the potential to become an iconic emblem of advancement, new technologies, growth, rebirth, and importance within Cleveland. The designation of Cleveland as a hyperloop hub can help the city with its brand - creating an image of a new urban metropolis, worth visiting, and increasing the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s connectivity within the nation.

108

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

THESIS PREP: CLEVELAND ECOLOGIES

109

THESIS PREP:

CLEVELAND ECOLOGIES with Bri DuRoss and Brianne Papendick CUYAHOGA (RE)DRAWN Over the course of the 2014 Fall semester, we collectively conducted an initial research into Cleveland within the focused topic of Ecology. Through assigned course readings, a site visit to Cleveland, and directed investigation, we defined â&#x20AC;&#x153;ecologyâ&#x20AC;? as it related to our collective interests. Looking at the Cuyahoga River and its role within the ecologies of Cleveland we then developed a series of drawings to create the narrative for the final film. The end goal of the thesis prep semester was to produce a final video, approximately 15 minutes long, that summarized the

research we conducted and provided a shared jumping-off point for our individual thesis proposals. Our film discussed the role the Cuyahoga River Valley has played in the ecologies of Cleveland both historically, and presently. The following drawings and manipualted images were produced for the film, the data then influencing the direction of our individual research at the start of the 2015 Winter semester. The text that supports the drawings is taken from the voiceover which accompanied the drawings and diagrams, which were animated using After Effects, in the final film.

110

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

INTRODUCTION The Cuyahoga river valley has played a central role in developing the historical narrative of Cleveland. Natural, social, and individual ecological systems have had both positive and negative implications to the patterns of urbanization along the river. In the early twentieth century industrial growth along the river was beneficial to the city and facilitated urban growth. However, over time hazardous pollution, de-industrialization and depopulation have left conditions of vacancy and decay in the territory directly adjacent to the river. As a result, many sites that were once active and accessible to the public, have become disengaged and fragmented from the urban fabric, polluting any positive memories associated with the river. Newly constructed barriers that limit access to the waterfront have further restricted the riverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s area of influence. Instead of acting as a generator of urban development, the river now acts as a dividing boundary within the city.

CLEVELAND ECOLOGIES

Our group explored many aspects of the assigned topic of Ecology. We looked at elements of the urban ecology, natural ecology, social ecology, and mental ecology in the production of our final film.

METHOD & DATA COLLECTION Having identified the river as a physical barrier within the city of Cleveland, we wanted to thoroughly explore the ecological factors that contribute to its role as a boundary. By looking more closely at different layers of information within the Flats region, the edge condition generated by the river could be reexamined and redefined. For each layer of data we zoomed in to the territory immediately adjacent to the river. In order to methodically track the data for each layer, the shape of the river was reduced to a single line, which was then unfolded to clearly identify the area of influence of each layer. Data was mapped along this unfolded line of the river.

THESIS PREP: CLEVELAND ECOLOGIES

MANIPULATED IMAGERY

Left: The culmination of the research and data collection regarding the ecological systems of Cleveland was a series of images that were visually manipulated to represent moments of positive, negative, enhanced, and reduced memory within the urban ecology of Cleveland.

THE CUYAHOGA RIVER

Top Right: In primary area of investigation during the preparatory semester of thesis was the Flats region of Cleveland, located along the northern portion of the Cuyahoga River at the mouth to Lake Erie. The shape of the river was reduced to a single line and unfolded to a straight line, allowing various data to be mapped along the length. (Bottom Right)

111

112

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

LAND USE Along the unfolded line of the river, land use data was collected at equal intervals, and represented as colored vertical bars that correspond to each land use type. The height of these vertical bars shows the distance from the river and begins to show the varying parcel size depending on program and location. The extent of these vertical bars establishes the area of influence of the land use parcels. Horizontal bars along the unfolded line of the river then more clearly show the land use typologies along the waterfront. The land use data demonstrates the dominance of industry along the river. This industry has created brownfield land areas, pollution points, and hazardous waste sites. PUBLIC SPACE The next layer of analysis sought to determine the areas on either side of the river that are immediately accessible to the public. Recreational areas, green space, commercial program, and vacant land were all included in the designated public realm - representative of the areas physically accessible to pedestrians. The results show that much of the land on either side of the river is blocked off or private property. POPULATION DENSITY Also important is the demographic data within the region. This data shows to what extent on either side of the river is depopulated, with a population density of less than 200 people per block. Especially to the southern border of the site, where industry is most prevalent, a large area of land on either side of the river is below this population density.

LAYER 04 - POPULATION DENSITY [by block] AREA WITH 0-200 POPULATION BLOCKS

THESIS PREP: CLEVELAND ECOLOGIES

113

EXISTING RIVER

HYPERLOOP TRANSIT HUB

OLD RIVER CHANNEL

TOWER CITY CENTER

OLD RIVER CHANNEL

114

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS Existing social institutions in the adjacent territory were then mapped according to their program. The data includes both sites that are historically significant and those which are currently active social nodes. The collected information analyzes the role of the Cuyahoga River within Cleveland by defining the various areas of influence, as determined by each individual layer of data. RIVER ACCESS The next layer mapped specific access points along the river. Road access, pedestrian and bike paths, and railroads, both proposed and realized, were identified. CLEVELAND MEMORIES The layers were overlaid to identify areas of interest. Selected moments of intersection then served as the basis point for the remainder of the research â&#x20AC;&#x201C; looking to the memories evoked, created, destroyed, and influenced by the Cuyahoga River. These memories were divided into four general categories: positive memories, negative memories, moments lacking in memory, which are referred to as memory blind spots, and areas where there is a potential for projective futures. At each moment of intersection, an image from the Cuyahoga River Valley was manipulated to graphically suggest its role in the collective memory A NEW RIVER BOUNDARY The overlay of these lines then defined a new edge condition at the outer boundary of the combined layers, determining a new area of influence of the Cuyahoga River. Within this newly identified area of influence, the river acts as a central spine. Instead of being a barrier within the city, the river catalyzes new provocations, blurs the dividing line, and acts as a generator of a new urban ecology.

HYPERLOOP TRANSIT HUB

TOWER CITY CENTER

THESIS PREP: CLEVELAND ECOLOGIES 115

116

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

BETON HALA WATERFRONT COMPETITION EGA (Erik Giudice Architects) Belgrade, Serbia The subject of the architectural competition is the preparation of the Preliminary Architectural Design for the new building: Beton Hala Waterfront Center and the surrounding area near the Sava Port.1

BETON HALA WATERFRONT

Images from EGA_Erik Giudice Architects 1 Beton Hala Waterfront Center, www. betonhala.com/2011/competition-brief/ 2 “Beton Hala Waterfront Competition, Belgrade.” e-architect, 2011.

Lessons Learned: This project, similar to my thesis proposal, seeks to concentrate program along a linear strip, emphasizing the linearity of the site. The design uses ramping to create a vertical public space of open-air ramps that culminate in a top viewing platform.2

PENN STATION PROPOSAL Diller Scofidio + Renfro New York City, NY The Municipal Art Society invited four high-profile architecture firms (SHoP Architects, SOM, H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture, and Diller Scofidio + Renfro) to come up with plans for a new Penn Station now that Madison Square Garden’s permit to operate is expiring.3 Lessons Learned: PENN STATION

Images from Diller Scofidio + Renfro 3 ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/29 “New Plans for a New Penn Station Without MSG.

Idea of creating a city within a city and combining multiple uses into one multilayered porous space. TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects (PCPA) San Francisco, CA The Transbay Transit Center Project is a visionary transportation and housing project that transforms downtown San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area’s regional transportation system by creating a “Grand Central Station of the West” in the heart of a new transit-friendly neighborhood.4 Lessons Learned:

TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER

Images courtest of Transbay Transit Center (TJPA) 4 Transit Transit Center. The Program. Retrieved 2.10.2015.

Multiple transportation infrastructures converge at the location of the station, directing passengers easily between modes of transit.

PRECEDENT LIBRARY

117

VISION FOR MASTER PLAN UNION STATION UNStudio Los Angeles, CA The vision for the master plan of Los Angelesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union Station is envisioned as a multi-nodal transit hub with a mix of uses, new development and outdoor spaces

LOS ANGELES UNION STATION

Images courtesy of UNStudio. 5 UNStudio, Projects, Vision for Master Plan Union Station 2050.

Lessons Learned: Like my thesis proposal, this project integrates the transit experience with new outdoor public spaces, creating a much-needed amenity in downtown LA. Like the selected site in Cleveland, this proposal attaches to an existing transit center, seeking to provide an expansion without compromising the existing center.5

YORK UNIVERSITY STATION Foster + Partners with Arup Canada Toronto, Canada This station will serve Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s third-largest University when the line extension opens in 2016. Designed with sustainability as a focus, the project incorporates extensive natural lighting, a solarreflecting roof structure, extensive bike storage, and green roofs.6

YORK UNIVERSITY STATION

Images courtesy of Foster + Partners 6 UrbanToronto.ca. York University Station. Retrieved 2.10.15.

Lessons Learned: The sustainable features of the project suggest ways in which transportation centers can incorporate green space, water managements systems, and outdoor public space in the design.

PENN STATION PROPOSAL Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) New York City, NY

PENN STATION

Images courtesy of SOM 7 SOM. SOM Reveals Vision for New Penn Station. 5.29.13.

Lessons Learned: This second design proposal for a re-envisioned Penn Station expands the transit capacity to create a capstone to every major piece of transportation infrastructure servince NYC. Two blocks are added to accommodate expanded high-speed rail lines, with an emphasis on pedestrian connections to the surrounding city. Retail lines the circulation spaces, integrating the station into the surrounding streetscape. The project creates a central hall that becomes an iconic gateway into the city.7

118

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

ALL ABOARD FLORIDA MIAMI STATION Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) Miami, FL All Aboard Florida creates a 235-mile network of rail lines that connect South Florida to Orlando using both existing rail infrastructure and newly constructed tracks. SOM has designed 3 stations for the system.

ALL ABOARD FLORIDA MIAMI

Image courtesy of SOM 1 SOM. SOMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Design for All Aboard Florida Miami Station Unveiled Today. 5.28.14.

Lessons Learned: The stations become key portals within the rail system, envisioned not only as gateways to their respective cities but also as iconic destinations of mixed-use program. The rail tracks have been raised 50 feet, with layers of program beneath.1

BERLIN HAUPTBAHNHOF Gerkan, Marg and Partners Berlin, Germany This high-capacity train station serves over 1,500 daily trains and features large central spaces within the station for the public. Mixed use program includes offices, restaurants, and retail.3

BERLIN HAUPTBAHNHOF

Lessons Learned: The scale of the project is emphasized by two curved structures, each almost 50 feet high, that cut through the central spaces. This method could be implemented with the hyperloop infrastructure passing through.2

2 Baker, Jo. architectureweek.com. Berlin Central Station.

HARAMAIN RAIL STATION Foster + Partners and Buro Happold Saudi Arabia The proposal for several rail stations along a new high-speed rail corridor connecting major cities in Saudi Arabia. Of the four stations, two are designed as terminus stations, while the remaining two are based on the principles of the through station. Each station contains additional passenger program, and have been linked to local transportation infrastructure.3

HARAMAIN RAIL STATIONS 3 Saudi Railways Organization.

Haramain High Speed Rail Project.

Lessons Learned: Each station creates its own unique identity within the regional network, while creating a shared formal language.

PRECEDENT LIBRARY

119

WORLD TRADE CENTER TRANSIT HUB Santiago Calatrava New York City, NY This project is a replacement of the PATH train station at the World Trade Center site following the 9/11 attacks. The project has received extensive criticism for going over budget and taking too long to realize since the proposal in 2004.1

PATH STATION AT GROUND ZERO

Image courtesy of Santiago Calatrava 4 ny.curbed.com. World Trade Center Transportation Hub.

Lessons Learned: The project utilizes a large central space and an abstract form to create a symbolic gateway into the city. Multiple transportation systems converge, creating an intraconnected infrastructural network.4

FLINDERS STREET STATION Herzog + de Meuron and HASSELL Melbourne, Australia This project is the result of a design competition intended to create an updated station design for one of the highest-traffic public transit stations in the city.5

FLINDERS STREET STATION

Image courtest of HASSELL & Herzog + de Meuron. 5 Furoto, Alison. Archdaily.com. The Flinders Street Station Winning Proposal / HASSELL + Herzog & de Meuron. 8.8.2013.

Lessons Learned: The winning proposal inegrates the station with the surrounding urban context - which has evolved and changed significantly since the building was designed 100 years ago. Current pedestrian bottlenecks are resolved and a direct connection to the river is created.

KING ABDULLAH FINANCIAL DISTRICT METRO STATION Zaha Hadid Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia The King Abdullah Financial District (KAFD) Metro Station will serve as the key interchange on the new Riyadh Metro network. With six platforms over four public floors, the KAFD Station is a multimodal transport center that will be integrated within the urban context of the financial district.6

RIYADH METRO STATION

Image courtest of Zaha Hadid Architects. 6 Zaha Hadid Architects. King Abdullah District Metro Station.

Lessons Learned: The project integrates multiple transportation modes within an urban context, and creates striplike programmatic volumes.

120

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SOURCES: TEXTUAL REFERENCES

121

SOURCES:

TEXTUAL REFERENCES TRANSPORTATION China Highlights, Important High-Speed Railway Lines in China. US High Speed Rail Association: 21st Century Transportation for America. US High speed Rail Network Map. Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati High-Speed Rail Study, Final Report. Ohio Rail Development Commission. (2001) Simes, Randy A. UrbanCincy, The Best and Workst States in America for Transit Funding. February 7, 2014. (34) 1 “High-speed rail benefits Ohio: Wali Ahmed Shariff” Published December 23, 2013 on Cleveland. com. (34) 2 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. Economic Impacts of the Midwest Regional Rail System: A Transportation Network for the 21st Century. (60) 1 Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati HighSpeed Rail Study, Final Report. Ohio Rail Development Commission. (2001) HYPERLOOP (94) Futch, David. LA Weekly, “Can Hyperloop Actually Be Built? - A think tank in L.A. finds out.” Published January 2, 2014. (96) 1 Musk, Elon. “Hyperloop Alpha.” SpaceX, 12 Aug. 2013. Web. (96) 2 California High-Speed Rail Authority, CA.gov. (97) Davies, Alex. “These Dreamers Are Actually Making Progress Building Elon’s Hyperloop.” Wired. 18 Dec. 2014. Web. (101) 1 England-Nelson, Jordan. Daily Breeze. Hyperloop: UCLA graduate sutdents explore feasibility of high-speed tube transportation system. (101) 2 Upbin, Bruce. Forbes. Hyperloop Gets Its First Commercial Contract For Short Track In California. February 26, 2015. (105) 1 Lavrinc, Damon. Wired. Elon Musk’s Hyperloop Needs This Gorgeous Passenger Station.

September 10, 2013. CLEVELAND 1. Cleveland May Be Better Off Without Its United Airlines Hub. The Motley Fool. 10.4.14. 2. Simmons, Ed. Ohio Exports 2013. Origin of Movement Series, April 2014.

PRECEDENT PROJECTS (116) 1 Beton Hala Waterfront Center, www.betonhala. com/2011/competition-brief/ 2 “Beton Hala Waterfront Competition, Belgrade.” e-architect, 2011. 3 ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/29 “New Plans for a New Penn Station Without MSG. 4 Transit Transit Center. The Program. Retrieved 2.10.2015. (117) 5 UNStudio, Projects, Vision for Master Plan Union Station 2050. 6 UrbanToronto.ca. York University Station. Retrieved 2.10.15. 7 SOM. SOM Reveals Vision for New Penn Station. 5.29.13. (118) 1 SOM. SOM’s Design for All Aboard Florida Miami Station Unveiled Today. 5.28.14. 2 Baker, Jo. architectureweek.com. Berlin Central Station. 3 Saudi Railways Organization. Haramain High Speed Rail Project. (119) 4 ny.curbed.com. World Trade Center Transportation Hub. 5 Furoto, Alison. Archdaily.com. The Flinders Street Station Winning Proposal / HASSELL + Herzog & de Meuron. 8.8.2013. 6 Zaha Hadid Architects. King Abdullah District Metro Station.

122

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

SOURCES: IMAGES & GRAPHICS

123

SOURCES:

IMAGES & GRAPHICS (60) Image Credits (top-down) 1 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, E-Line Trolley. 2 Craig Sanders. Lee-Van Aken Rapid Station, RTA Blue Line. 3 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Bus Route 14. 4 Joshua Gunter, The Plain Dealer. Cleveland Health Line. 5 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Red Line. Photobucket, joZephC. (69) Images courtesy of Forest City Development / HNTB / KA. (116) Images from EGA_Erik Giudice Architects (116) Images from Diller Scofidio + Renfro (116) Images courtest of Transbay Transit Center (TJPA) (117) Images courtesy of UNStudio. (117) Images courtesy of Foster + Partners (117) Images courtesy of SOM (118) Image courtesy of SOM (118) Baker, Jo. architectureweek.com. Berlin Central Station. (118) Saudi Railways Organization. Haramain High Speed Rail Project. (119) Image courtesy of Santiago Calatrava (119) Image courtest of HASSELL & Herzog + de Meuron. (119) Image courtest of Zaha Hadid Architects. (116) 1 Beton Hala Waterfront Center, www.betonhala. com/2011/competition-brief/ 2 “Beton Hala Waterfront Competition, Belgrade.” e-architect, 2011. 3 ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/29 “New Plans for a New Penn Station Without MSG. 4 Transit Transit Center. The Program. Retrieved 2.10.2015. (117) 5 UNStudio, Projects, Vision for Master Plan Union Station 2050. 6 UrbanToronto.ca. York University Station. Retrieved 2.10.15.

7 SOM. SOM Reveals Vision for New Penn Station. 5.29.13. (118) 1 SOM. SOM’s Design for All Aboard Florida Miami Station Unveiled Today. 5.28.14. 2 Baker, Jo. architectureweek.com. Berlin Central Station. 3 Saudi Railways Organization. Haramain High Speed Rail Project. (119) 4 ny.curbed.com. World Trade Center Transportation Hub. 5 Furoto, Alison. Archdaily.com. The Flinders Street Station Winning Proposal / HASSELL + Herzog & de Meuron. 8.8.2013. 6 Zaha Hadid Architects. King Abdullah District Metro Station. Simes, Randy A. UrbanCincy, The Best and Workst States in America for Transit Funding. February 7, 2014. (34) 1 “High-speed rail benefits Ohio: Wali Ahmed Shariff” Published December 23, 2013 on Cleveland. com. (34) 2 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. Economic Impacts of the Midwest Regional Rail System: A Transportation Network for the 21st Century. (60) 1 Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati HighSpeed Rail Study, Final Report. Ohio Rail Development Commission. (2001)

124

PNEUMATIC FUTURES

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / DESIGNER

125

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / DESIGNER ROBYN WOLOCHOW Robyn Wolochow is in her final, thesis year of the Master of Architecture program at the University of Michigan, graduating in May of 2015. Her current research interests include the development of a sustainable social realm that utilizes the urban condition and a well-developed infrastructural network to connect unique urban moments within a greater connective fabric. An optimist through and through, she hopes to improve future society through architectural design and improved city planning. Robyn Wolochow is originally from Portland, Oregon, where she attended Oregon Episcopal School for grades K-12, spending her 11th grade in Zaragoza, Spain with the School Year Abroad program. In 2012 she graduated magna cum laude from Washington University in St. Louis

with Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degrees in Architecture and Environmental Studies. In her final year she spent a semester studying abroad with Danish Institute for Study Abroad in Copenhagen, Denmark. Robyn has work experience in Chicago (Burns + Beyerl Architects), San Francisco (Department of Public Works, Bureau of Architecture), and Toronto (Quadrangle Architects) working at a variety of scales - from the single-family home, to the civic and infrastructural city project, to multifamily living and mixed-use developments in office settings ranging from 15 people to 125 employees. Her hobbies include music (singing, piano, guitar), trivia, exploring the outdoors, traveling, foreign languages, movies, and reading.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are several people I would like to acknowledge in the research, development, design, and publication of the presented thesis work. First, I would like to thank my thesis advisors McLain Clutter and Maria Arquero, who helped direct my proposal and advise in the final production of the work. Second, I would like to acknowledge Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning for its supportive studio environment, faculty, and reviewers for their contributions to my project. REVIEWERS: Pin-Up: February 13, 2015 Craig Borum, Assistant Professor, Taubman College Mid-Review: March 13, 2015 Mireille Roddier, Associate Prof., Taubman College Michael Piper, Assistant Professor, U. of Toronto

I would also like to thank my friends and family for their support, love, friendship, mentorship, advice, and wellwishes throughout the thesis process. Lastly I would like to dedicate this work to my parents and to my sister without whom I could not have completed my graduate degree. Their endless support, advice, cheer-up phone calls, packages of cookies and surprise gifts, and late-night video sessions helped me pull through seven years of architecture school with a smile on my face. Thank you for that. And to my readers: thank you for reading this publication and for considering the future possibility of a new national transportation system and the new urban condition it could create. The proposal presented in this publication is utopian in many ways - imagining a future in which public transportation, urban development, and sustainable social interractions are prioritized across the country. This is the future I hope for, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with others until this dream can become a reality.