Buffalo Central Station under Amtrak (Past, Present, Future)

Saco, Maine and Dover, New Hampshire are probably the two best counter examples out there. Enormous mills converted to mixed residential and commercial use now almost 100% occupied. Right now Biddeford & Saco can't build converted space fast enough to meet demand.

Market conditions aren't the same everywhere but I trust the locals (several of whom have significant real estate experience) to know if the time is right.

Add Lawrence and Haverhill, MA to the mill conversion list. And right across from the railroad, as well.

What is driving those conversions and move-ins? I can't see people moving to Saco without a job nearby and an upper middle class job isn't as easy to come by in Buffalo as it is in the Boston - Portland corridor.

We're off topic, but the conversions in MA are obviously commuter apartments/condos. Walk out your front door, and cross the street to get commuter rail. Save a lot on gas and parking I'd say.

The Erie County unemployment rate (I'm assuming U-3) was below 5% in December of 2016. That's not necessarily the seasonally adjusted number but regardless they are doing well. This is not a "dying city" by any means.

We are definitely on the verge of seeing BCT renovated and potentially returned to service as a passenger train station served by Amtrak. I think that's pretty astounding. If this project moves forward I fully expect to see it held up in Detroit as an example of what could be done with Michigan Central Station.

I'll be happy for Buffalo if they can pull off a successful BCT renovation and development despite the challenges - the Rust Belt does seem to be regaining some shine.

(This is a local issue, not a system Amtrak issue which is why I placed this here.)

From the Buffalo News By Mark Sommer Mon, Mar 20, 2017;

Supporters of a new train station at the Central Terminal show the most passion.
They see returning train service to the art deco structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a last chance to restore the endangered building and breathe life into the surrounding neighborhood that hasn't seen significant investment in decades.
"If we can follow through and restore this great historic structure, and give it back to the people of Buffalo and to future generations, we will have done a great public service," said Rep. Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo.

Backers of a downtown train station point to logic.
Two sites believed to be in the running – one on the other side of the tracks from the current station, the other where Memorial Auditorium once stood – are close to Metro Rail, bus service, hotels and other amenities. They say downtown would be a gateway for passengers arriving in Buffalo.
"When you invest in the future, the action is always going to be downtown, adjacent to Canalside and the transit system," said Robert Boardman president of the New York and Lake Erie Railroad.

On Tuesday, engineers will weigh in on the pros and cons so far of the various sites. The engineers will present their findings from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in a public meeting at the Buffalo Museum of Science. Next month, a 17-member committee established by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and chaired by Mayor Byron W. Brown will decide the location for Buffalo's new train station.
Most signs point to the station being located either at the Central Terminal, where passenger trains ran for 50 years until 1979, or near the present downtown Exchange Street station, a short distance from Canalside. Or, both could be chosen, with one designated as the main station and the other as a secondary stop.
The opinions of Amtrak and of CSX, the freight railroad that owns most of the track Amtrak rides on, will also likely influence the final decision.
The desire to combine a new train station with city bus service – and possibly bus service between cities – could be a factor, too.

Here are the pros and cons for each location, based on proponents and detractors for each site:

The case for Central Terminal:
*The Central Terminal is best able to service trains going east or west, which is why it was put there in 1929. Amtrak trains continue to travel past the station.
*The site has infrastructure that can handle trains, buses, taxis and has over 1,000 parking spaces.
*Returning train service would be a catalyst for new investment into the Broadway-Fillmore area.
*A station-within-a-station, proposed for the Central Terminal, is found in many refurbished train stations including Kansas City, Cincinnati, Erie and Utica. It was the case here before, when only the eastern end of the Central Terminal was used from 1964 to 1979.
*Buffalonians have a deep connection with the station, dating to the Second World War when those in the service said goodbye to their families to join the war effort.
*Bringing trains back would help return the art deco marvel into one of the nation's most majestic train stations.
"The infrastructure was invested in a century ago, and we just need to build on it," said Assemblyman Sean Ryan, D-Buffalo. "It goes part and parcel with the new Buffalo we are trying to promote based on historic adaptive reuse. We cannot have the new Buffalo we want with this building empty."

Higgins said the successful development of Larkinville, a mile from downtown, has expanded the boundaries – and the possibilities – for downtown Buffalo.
"You will see development all along Broadway that could not occur unless there is this kind of commitment to this facility," Higgins said.

The case against Central Terminal:
*The neighborhood is not inviting. Abandoned and vacant housing pockmark nearby streets, sidewalks often go unshoveled in winter and, with the Broadway Market a mile away, there are no places to eat nearby.
*With major bus routes originating downtown, relocating to the Central Terminal would wreak havoc with and prolong many routes, requiring time-consuming transfers.
*Reusing the Central Terminal would not result in future spinoff that benefits the Broadway-Fillmore area. In its heyday, the Central Terminal was self-contained, with travelers having little connection to the commercial district.
*Restoring the building does not depend on reintroducing passenger rail.
*It's too big a space for eight train rides daily, unlike when there were once 200 trains a day traveling in and out of the Central Terminal.
"The train station is not the silver bullet for the East Side," said Paul Battaglia, a former principal architect with HHL. "Amtrak is not big enough, or have enough ridership."

The case for downtown:
*Amtrak passengers can walk or take Metro Rail to nearby hotels, amenities and attractions.
*The station can capitalize on an existing nearby transportation network of buses, metro rail, trains and cars.
*A downtown station would put travelers a short distance from KeyBank Center and possibly a new downtown Buffalo Bills stadium in the future.
*An Amtrak study in 2003 concluded trains could potentially go west from downtown. That would involve having to back up in order to head west, and would need the approval of Amtrak and possibly CSX, the freight company that owns much of the track Amtrak rides over
"The center of Buffalo's transportation network has been, is and always will be downtown Buffalo, within a couple blocks of Main Street," said Tim Tielman, executive director of Campaign for Greater Buffalo.
His group proposed a train and bus facility on the other side of the tracks from the current station.
"Our population, commercial and business density, and transit efficiencies all adhere to those geographic facts," he said.

Tielman continues to push for the Central Terminal to be restored, but called the train issue a distraction from "the dire need" to restore the building itself.
"Everything we're doing around transportation is striving to connect different forms of transportation, and downtown has the ability to connect to light rail and the bus hub," said Dan Leonard, senior director for economic development with the Buffalo Niagara Partnership. A new downtown station would also bring added impetus toward integrating Niagara Falls and southern Ontario with downtown Buffalo, he said.

Larkinville is no longer under consideration, but a location off Exchange Street, between Larkin and Hamburg streets, is believed to be. It's just under a mile from the current station.
"It's the best location from two perspectives," said Timothy Allan, a retired history professor from SUNY Fredonia and one of three former railroad workers who proposed the plan. "It offers rail transportation in every direction, and it's close to downtown."

The case against downtown:
*A train station could interfere with the goal of creating a neighborhood of multi-story residential buildings with commercial storefronts.
*There are not enough train travelers to justify using valuable downtown real estate for a new station.
*The train station is not part of Canalside's master plan.
*A new station should be part of an economic development plan, which is not needed at Canalside.

"The community has high hopes for private development at Canalside," Ryan said. "I believe that's what Erie Canal Harbor Development has been building up to. It seems like we're poised to have private development take off, so it's puzzling why we would want to take this valuable land out of the private development mix."
A number of other variables could also come into play as the train committee continues to weigh each station location's pros and cons.
Logistical or engineering obstacles could emerge. Criteria set by the federal government for where to locate stations could be a factor in obtaining critical federal dollars. High-speed rail planning could also impose other requirements.

On Tuesday, the public will get to hear from WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the engineering consultant hired by New York State. Their findings should help nudge the process further down the track.

Standing room only at the Museum of Science Tuesday 3/21 for a follow up meeting so the finding of the committee could be presented. Around 200 present and most of the media.

The vast majority favored the Depot over Canalside (no surprise).
The Mayor spoke first, then the committee heads that provided suggestions of different solutions.

There are/were eight separate sub locations. Two were eliminated. Four are along Exchange St. Three of those are crammed either partway into the tunnels and/or under the 190 overpasses. Only one is 'out in the open' south/east of Michigan St. where the 190 sits back a distance (sky overhead).

The last two are the Depot itself and what appears to be a separate building next to the structure with a catwalk out to a separate structure that drops down to the platforms. Which is REALLY ridiculous. (It's cheaper ).

Now, points I wasn't sure previously that are 'musts':
1. High level platforms like NF & Syracuse now have and Rochester will have.
2. Platform length to accommodate the trains 540' for the 'local service and 1200' for the long distance service (the Lake Shore). I already commented on train length previously.
3. Numerous other preferences, too numerous to list here, not necessary "musts".

The plans, drawings, charts that were displayed on easel's and the slide show last night is available below"
Buffalo Train Station Site Selection Process. It's a 32 page pdf document (slow loading)
https://ftp.pbworld.com/GetFile.aspx?fn=2089696688.zip

The full site itself is here;
http://www.city-buffalo.com/Home/City_D ... on_Process

.

Below is a text summary of the pdf file available on the City of Buffalo site;


3/21/2017

Buffalo Train-Intermodal Station Location Study

Buffalo Rail
Room 203 City Hall
65 Niagara Square
Buffalo, New York 14202
or
BuffaloRail@City‐Buffalo.com

A new Amtrak Station will replace the existing Exchange Street Station with a modern intermodal station that will:
» Prepare Buffalo for the future of passenger train transportation;
» Provide for intermodal transportation opportunities;
» Offer an enhanced experience for passengers;
» Encourage increased use of mass transit options by the general public;
» Provide a highly visible, accessible, and attractive station for Buffalo;
» Act as a driver for the station’s surrounding community; and
» Act as a stimulus for encouraging people to use efficient, low polluting rail and transit.

Guiding Principles for a New Buffalo Station
» Act as a replacement of the Exchange Street Station and be the new
Buffalo Amtrak Station.
» Promote Amtrak’s philosophy of the “Seamless Journey” and associated performance metrics.
» Follow the Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines, Amtrak Engineering Stations Standard Design Practices, as well as other applicable standards and guidelines.
» Conform to host railroad (CSX) operating standards and requirements.
» Either alone, or in combination with a second station, must be able to handle all trains in and out of Buffalo.
» Prepare Buffalo for enhanced passenger train service, including potential Empire Corridor high‐speed rail (HSR) service and possibly Auto‐Train service.
» Offer improved passenger comfort, convenience, and safety and provide an enhanced passenger experience not otherwise available at the existing Exchange Street Station.
» Be as intermodal as possible and be able to accommodate passenger trains, intercity buses, regional public transportation, taxis, bicycles, pedestrians, and future ridesharing.
» Provide suitable connectivity to regional activity centers and transportation assets, including Metro Rail and the Buffalo Niagara International Airport, and be able to adequately serve the Region.
» Have minimal construction impacts to existing passenger and freight train operations.
» Provide improved operating performance and increased efficiency for Amtrak trains.
» Highlight and incorporate the Region’s cultural, industrial, and transportation legacy.
» Be integrated into the neighborhood fabric in a manner that allows the station to both perform as a transportation hub with minimal impact on the neighborhood and also act as a driver for the station’s surrounding community.
» Help to reconnect economically disenfranchised and underserved populations to the overall Region.
» Be optimized to best serve the traveling public that would be utilizing it and be located in an area that would rely on the traveling public to support it as an economic engine for that location.
» Avoid or minimize the acquisition of privately owned lands.

Types of Service
State Corridor A route of less than 750 miles, providing intercity, short haul service, with one to 16 weekday trains in each direction. Passengers are usually frequent travelers who arrive at the station closer to their departure time, with fewer or no checked bags, and park for the day.
Long Distance A route of greater than 750 miles, and generally consists of one train per day in each direction. These routes pass through anywhere from 3 to 12 states, and use freight rail tracks for 95 percent of their route mileage. Sleeper service is provided as well as check baggage (at select stations). Long Distance trains are Amtrak’s longest, with anywhere from 7 to 14 cars comprising trains up to 1,200 feet in length.

Location A Downtown
Range of Probable Cost: $34.2M to $86.2M

Key Opportunities
» Makes use of existing track infrastructure
» No impacts to freight rail operations
» Improved gateway and arrival experience into Downtown
» Makes use of public and railroad owned lands
» Can be sited to provide access to multiple Downtown sites
» Within walking distance to downtown activity centers
» Connectivity to existing multimodal options
» Convenient regional highway access

Key Challenges
» Station infrastructure in tunnel, below grade and under a highway viaduct
» Existing track modifications required due to high‐level platform
» Temporary station during construction
» Requires operational changes by Amtrak for Long Distance service
» Perception Downtown parking is in short supply; potential lack of free parking
» Tunnel ventilation may be required


Location B Larkinville
Dropped from Further Consideration

Stakeholder Committee Considerations
» Private property acquisition
» Adjacency to residential neighborhoods
» Passenger experience
» Neighborhood parking
» Difficulty accommodating intercity bus
» Limited connectivity to existing multimodal options

Location C Central Terminal
Range of Probable Cost: $68.6M to $149.4M

Key Opportunities
» Highly visible station location
» Accommodates Long Distance service
» Amtrak‐owned land for construction of future platform and tracks
» Reuses a portion of National Register listed resource
» Minimal impact to existing Amtrak services during construction

Key Challenges
» Tracks, switches, signals and connection between terminal and platforms have been removed
» Impacts to freight rail operations during construction and operation
» Requires land owner commitments and joint development partner
» Development timeline
» ADA compliance (concourse, platforms, etc.)
» Existing multimodal connectivity
» Proximity to activity centers

Draft Evaluation Criteria
» Location in Relation to Population, Employment, Entertainment, and Activity Centers
» Operational Efficiency
» Multi‐Modal Connectivity/Connectivity for Individuals without Automobiles
» Environmental Factors (NEPA considerations)
» Readiness to Decide/Timing
» Construction Costs
» Station, Track, Platform Planning Requirements
» Conformance with Adopted Plans/Policies
» Land Ownership
» Overall Constructability
» Station Area Context and Neighborhood Character

Attached are the enlarged drawings (hard to see in the .pdf) of artists conceptions of the two basic locations. Note there were eight separate, specif locations, 4 downtown, two at Larkinville and two at the Depot.

These are 3 or the four specific location all basically under the NYS I-190 and/or in the tunnels. The 4th location is east (south) of Michagan St that is out in the open, not under the 190, but no drawings were provided.

I favored "Larkenville" since it was close to Canalside. but would serve 48 & 49 that Exchange St can not (without a 20+ minute reverse move which we all know is dumb).

Below are my photos & Google earth's aerial view of the site they was eliminated. 48 & 49 would be serviced, along with the six 'locals'. The reason they gave were lack of parking, lack of platform length and the need to acquire private land (houses). Many of the houses in this are are NEW!

They came up with two separate ideas.
Reportedly one was from an individual that they liked. I thinks it's utter ridiculous. The idea was to build a completely separate structure, catwalk and mini concourse (if you can call it that) right next to the existing 'Tower'. I didn't include those drawings here, they are in the .pdf I provided the link for. The only positive (if you call it that) is 'it's cheap' for all tide wad, cheapskate, nay sayers.

Now, the important difference between option 1 & 3 for the terminal itself. The problem is what to do with the EE of the trackage to get passenger trains across 4 & 4 yard lead? One plan is two x-overs (3 to 4, then, 4 to main 1) somehow extending 437 east and shorting those yard leads (the study calls them "storage tracks" which they are not. I can't see that working for numerous reasons. Might as well put Tower 48 back in service.

The other plan (shown here) is to swing 3 & 4 north towards the loop lead and the belt Line where Main tk 4 was before Conrail changed everything. That would eliminate those two x-overs, preserve the lead length of 4 & 4 and eliminate interference between freight & passenger.

Of course all of this makes this the most expensive proposals and there is the other problem: CSX. But, considering what is being done in Rochester, maybe not.

Anticipating all of the negativity (even here) from these certain individuals that only are concerned about money, their money, that can't see the big picture, the following quotes are from elsewhere (no reference will be given and is not needed ) what also could be typical comments from the uneducated American public and my responses. So many of these are just plain comical:

honestly what can rail do better,

1. An alternate to other modes that aren't crowded and usually more dangerous,
2. Ability to get up and walk around, not be restricted to your seat,
3. Chance to meet and actually talk to others (other than who is sandwiched in on the row you sit),
4. Ability to actually see the countryside up close,
5. Not everyone wants to fly or can fly (fearful of airplanes etc.),
6. Most stations are in or near the actual downtown area instead of being 10, maybe 15 miles away,
7. Food or at least snacks & drink is usually available (depending on type of train service)
8. Everyone isn't in a hurry!

Until they FIX the railroad lines and congestion and get the trains running on a regular basis - maybe even reaching the thruway speed limit, it's a waste of time and money.

The American public has no clue about railroad operations and that comment is a prime example. Amtrak operates up to 79 MPH within most of the state. 110MPH in an area east of Schenectady.
The tracks (for the most part) don't need "fixing" as you and others put it. Most track is FRA class 4. Within terminals (cities) it's Class 3, in limited areas it may be Class 2 (from Wikipedia):

Track:..... Freight: ... Passenger:
Excepted <10 mph . not allowed
Class 1.. 10 mph ... 15 mph
Class 2.. 25 mph.....30 mph
Class 3.. 40 mph ....60 mph
Class 4.. 60 mph ... 80 mph
Class 5 ..80 mph ....90 mph
Class 6.. 110 mph
Class 7 . 125 mph
Class 8 ..160 mph
Class 9 ..220 mph

The problem passenger trains can't operate properly is when the 'host' railroad operates freights on the same tracks, especially when they are THREE miles ,long. CSX among others got a bug up their ass thinking three mile, 300 plus car trains are ok. They aren't. Unfortunately due to little FRA regulation there is no limit. Not all trains are that long. Two miles and less is more the norm.

Passenger trains get stuck behind some of these often, due to numerous reasons. This is nothing new, but worse now than it was when there were dedicated passenger and freight tracks. What is truly needed is a 3rd track for passenger, with no freight interference. That is well known for the longest time with the DOT, but expensive and numerous factors would have to be considered.

I think it's an over priced boondoggle of political pork throwing tax payer money around like drunken sailors on a service that 100 people will use a day. Its a vastly ineffective use of resources. No one travels by rail.
We will NEVER get our invested money back from the station. The rail age is over. (rail is great for freight, not so much pax)

A. Blanket statements based on 'everything has to make a profit' or break even is narrow minded.
B. Does the Interstate break even or make a profit? How many billions has been poured into that and continues to need more mostly because it is overbuilt and can't be maintained.
C. Rail transportation is one, if not the most efficient way to move freight and people.
D. Statements like "No one travels by rail" and "The rail age is over" couldn't be further from the truth. Just because YOU don't, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

I didn't know that people were clamoring for rail travel in WNY?
I'd be clamoring for some more discount airlines to serve the BUF airport so that people can take nice vacations without spending too much.
I say bulldoze it, if someone wants to travel not by air, they can take Megabus

.
1. There is plenty that you aren't aware of based on your post that I responded to in the old thread that had the outside interference that I flagged claiming the Depot is surrounded by "projects" which and never was true (among other things).
2. Airlines fares are way too cheap since air travel is already heavily subsidized by the federal gov't. and always has been.
3. The "buldoze" statement only reflects a 'head in the sand' narrow minded, backwards mentality. This isn't the 60's.
4. Comparing rail travel with a bus is like comparing riding in a truck vs a car both that ride a heavily subsidized Interstate Highway System that is another bottomless pit.

No one in my age group (in his 30's) takes trains anywhere. I have never been on an Amtrak train.

Awful wide, blanket inaccurate statement to make. As the the 2nd point; that's your loss. Remarks that one would expect hearing from a typical SUV loving suburbanite that has been blindly brought up around the automobile being the only way around.

I don't think that many people from the suburbs want anything to do with the area around Central Terminal. Has nothing to do with race, its that people don't want to be in a high crime area surrounded by projects.

Clearly the problem. Why did it get that way? Answer; from the 'white flight' of the 50's courtesy of all the expressways that were built making some neighborhoods less desirable to live in. As to your 2nd point, there are are no "projects" around the Depot.
Statements that show little, if any actual factual knowledge.

Previously the NF area was served by a sub 1000 sq foot train station that was proper for the amount of traffic it got.

The previous station was a freight only building that was turned into a makeshift station. Hard to find and nothing to look at in a less than ideal location.

Buffalo should be more focused on getting some ride sharing apps to come to town, like Uber, Lyft, or Fasten

.
Completely irreverent statement. What does that have to do with passenger train travel?? Nothing! Ride sharing to NYC??

.

There is no complete solution. They all have issues. My biggest peeve with (what I call) Exchange St, (which is where Canalside station would still be) is two fold:

1. It doesn't serve the two most important trains in WNY, the lake Shore Limited cutting off travel west of Buffalo extending the need for a 2nd unnecessary and poorly placed suburban station. Trying to use a 'reverse move", even from CP1 vs the longer move from CP 437 is too time consuming, Amtrak, I doubt would even go for it.

2. It doesn't "spread the wealth". What I mean here is, simply, there is ample development around downtown at the expanse of other parts of the city, in this case the East Side. A historical landmark that has gone unattended for far too long. Then add, the amount of available space in the building itself for amenities (the sky is the limit) and the acreage around the station much of which is still owned by Amtrak (no idea why).

The "tear it down" and "bulldoze it" mentality belongs back in the 50's & 60's when so many of the past mistakes were made starting with Interstate Highway System, the great bottomless money-pit as bad & the "Military Industrial Complex".
It's not that I don't see the advantages on Exchange St, especially with the LRRT, but that only turns a blind eye on the Depot. It was factored in, but only slightly is the current developer from Toronto makes a catalyst for the Depot. Moving the Broadway Market (which has been suggested, but not in the study) into the station would make sense. Add moving that ugly downtown bus station into one facility of course makes the most sense.

.
Over 100 views and no one has any opinion?
.