Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think most areas in this country do not desire intercity rail beyond the northeast corridor where train travel times are as good or better than getting a flight from NYC to DC. Some regional examples exist and do work for commuters but transport to the ultimate destination can becomes an issue. Business travelers are not going to take a city bus, car rentals do not exist and depending on the distance cab rides can be cost prohibitive as they try to get to their meetings.
Station location can be a mute point in cities like NYC, Boston, DC, travelers can arrive on the train and get on the subway, other cities don't offer that. True high speed rail will require a dedicated line with electrification and putting that in is cost prohibitive.
It doesn't have to be high speed rail, but just regular Amtrak service in this case.
For Buffalo, location may be important, if they can capitalize on the revitalization of the Central Terminal and potentially the revitalization of the surrounding area. In that case, the revitalization would have to be both and simultaneously in order to work. There may have to be a tie in with bus service via a specific shuttle(i.e.-Syracuse's Connective Corridor line) or Bus Rapid Transit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit to destination within the city/metro from the Terminal.
It doesn't have to be high speed rail, but just regular Amtrak service in this case.
For Buffalo, location may be important, if they can capitalize on the revitalization of the Central Terminal and potentially the revitalization of the surrounding area. In that case, the revitalization would have to be both and simultaneously in order to work. There may have to be a tie in with bus service via a specific shuttle(i.e.-Syracuse's Connective Corridor line) or Bus Rapid Transit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit to destination within the city/metro from the Terminal.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but honestly what can rail do better, cheaper or faster than either your own car or flying?
Where do people realistically take Amtrak from in buffalo?
To NYC? Well flying is way faster and relatively not much more $.
Are they going to Syracuse on Amtrak where they pay more and it takes longer than just driving which is more convenient, faster and cheaper?
I Just don't understand the concept.
The only pax rail in America that makes sense is high speed rail in very dense urban corridors. Buffalo is not part of that.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but honestly what can rail do better, cheaper or faster than either your own car or flying?
Where do people realistically take Amtrak from in buffalo?
To NYC? Well flying is way faster and relatively not much more $.
Are they going to Syracuse on Amtrak where they pay more and it takes longer than just driving which is more convenient, faster and cheaper?
I Just don't understand the concept.
The only pax rail in America that makes sense is high speed rail in very dense urban corridors. Buffalo is not part of that.
Agreed. There is plently of room left on our roads for more cars, traffic isnt a huge issus. Spend this money on infill development or something useful
It doesn't have to be high speed rail, but just regular Amtrak service in this case.
For Buffalo, location may be important, if they can capitalize on the revitalization of the Central Terminal and potentially the revitalization of the surrounding area. In that case, the revitalization would have to be both and simultaneously in order to work. There may have to be a tie in with bus service via a specific shuttle(i.e.-Syracuse's Connective Corridor line) or Bus Rapid Transit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit to destination within the city/metro from the Terminal.
Who will be using it? Even in cities like Portland which is the poster child for urban rail/trollies ridership is often low and loses money and Amtrak is a money loser except for its two high speed urban runs on the coasts. Regular Amtrak will always be the secondary priority if they are using freight rails the way they do south of DC and are often speed restricted because the route is not dedicated. We have our own turf war going on with the Amtrak station and the proposal to extend high speed rail to Richmond and ultimately on to Raleigh.
This is assuming that people want to use their car.
I was thinking of college students and those that don't want to or can't drive.
I will say that if they don't reuse the Central Terminal for rail use, then they could or should look to infill in that area anyway.
College kids maybe but that is a small number there really is not a sizable group that could use the service regularly. Readapting a building of this size would be a good use for it but when you look at the surrounding area with on-line street views you better cast a very wide net for rehabilitation because it is not very attractive.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but 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!
Architects side with Central Terminal for new train station
From the Buffalo News
By Mark Sommer Mar 27, 2017
Quote:
Twenty-five architects have signed a letter backing the Central Terminal as the site for a new Buffalo train station.
At a time when other cities go to great lengths to create a sense of "authenticity," Buffalo has the real thing with the Central Terminal and ought to capitalize on it, the architects said in their letter to the Buffalo train station site selection committee.
"The profound sense of possibility, the profound awe one experiences when emerging from the relatively narrow entryway into the main concourse for the first time is the same awe and sense of possibility the experience inspired 80 years ago, and is a deliberate product of choices the building's architects made standing at their drafting tables in the 1920's," the letter stated.
"That experience specifically, that building generally and the stories of the thousands of Buffalo families who have a relationship with that place could not be replicated for any sum. That place belongs to us as Buffalonians, and no one else."
Among the Western New York architects signing the letter were Robert Stark, Peter Flynn, Kevin Connors, Jake Schneider, Steven Carmina and Ann Dufchick.
Stark joined Rep. Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, at a Monday press conference to announce the architects' support for the art deco landmark.
Architect Robert Stark joined Rep. Brian Higgins in announcing a letter of support from 25 architects for a train station at Central Terminal.
"This is about a lot more than where to put a train platform," said Stark, president of the American Institute of Architects, New York State, and a partner with CJS Architects in Larkinville.
"All of these architects are professionals," said Higgins, a staunch supporter of the Central Terminal. "All have been leaders of historic preservation in Buffalo, and believe we should be doing the Central Terminal. Why are we even having this discussion?"
Higgins said reviving the train station would help revitalize that part of Buffalo's East Side by bringing new investment. The Central Terminal would eventually be a more inviting environment for trains, he said. "I think the Central Terminal within five years will be a very different place," Higgins said.
Higgins said the train station committee needs to show vision, rather than doing what he said was expedient.
"Every architectural landmark in Buffalo was almost overcome by small-mindedness. In the end, the better Buffalo responded," Higgins said. "This is one of those times. This decision has taken on issues beyond just siting a train station. It's really about small-minded thinking versus a larger vision."
Recent cost estimates put forward by an engineering consultant for the train station committee found returning passenger rail to the Central Terminal would cost significantly more than locating a station downtown.
But Higgins took exception to those numbers. "I don't think those numbers are valid," he said.
"Wherever the new Amtrak station will go, it will have life of 50 to 75 years. Why in doing their cost analysis was that not taken into consideration, and the future private investment that will follow from the public investment? That's a very real and serious consideration," Higgins said. "Why weren't the current operational and capital costs of the Depew Amtrak station taken into consideration? Because it all favors the Central Terminal, that's why. My assessment of this review is that it was not objective," he said.
"Someone is pushing the Canalside site for reasons I just don't understand, when we have a historic and architecturally significant place that once welcomed 200 passenger trains a day, and is now being undermined," he said.
Higgins also held out hope that bolstering high-speed rail will be part of President Trump's expected infrastructure plan. At the same time, he said the elimination of long-distance trains, including the Lake Shore Limited, which runs west from Buffalo to Chicago, is unlikely to stand in Trump's budget blueprint.
Several architects push for downtown train station site
From the Buffalo News
By Jerry Zremski Apr 8, 2017
Quote:
Several prominent Buffalo architects strongly resist the notion of returning train service to Central Terminal, despite the fact that Rep. Brian Higgins touted a letter from 25 local architects who support the idea.
The Buffalo News obtained the same email list of more that 250 design professionals that was used to collect signatures for a letter supporting returning trains to Central Terminal. The News then sent the people on that list an email asking them whether they supported a new train station downtown or at the East Side landmark that Amtrak abandoned in 1979.
Of the 18 architects who replied, eight favored a downtown site. Four supported the Central Terminal. Four didn't express a preference, and two proposed other options.
Among the architects who sharply criticized the proposal to return trains to Central Terminal, two are employed at firms that have worked to restore the facility in years past. In other words, the letter that Higgins highlighted told only part of the story.
Missing were the thoughts of local architects such as Robert T. Coles, a Buffalo architect since the 1960s. "A great piece of architecture such as a train station downtown would do much to stimulate downtown growth and would be connected to the mass transit system as well as the inner and intra-city systems," Coles said in an email.
Local historic preservation architect Clinton Brown agreed.
"We must continually restore the core intermodal network," Brown said. "A downtown station will do this best for the train-using visitors and travelers that we need to grow WNY."
And architect Duncan Black suggested a downtown train station would likely prove to be a better long-term investment.
"Long range maybe we should consider a location that could support special train travel here for sporting events including potential for a new football stadium within walking distance," Black said.
Some back Central Terminal
Those arguments run counter to the one architects made in the letter that Higgins touts, which focuses on Central Terminal's historic importance.
"Buffalo doesn't need to build a rail station for 'anywhere USA'," said the letter, which went on to criticize one of the new station's proposed downtown locations. "Interpretation has its place, but in this instance, there is no need for it, as Buffalo already has a rail station more inspiring and more a part of the story of this community than any interpretation under a Thruway viaduct could ever be. It is Central Terminal."
Higgins said that between the architects who signed the Central Terminal letter and those who told the News they backed the historic site – including some who signed the letter – at least 60 percent of architects who commented backed the idea of returning trains to the historic East Side station.
Moreover, he noted that several of the architects who signed his letter are among the area's specialists in historic preservation. Robert Stark, who spearheaded the letter, worked on the Graycliff estate in Derby and Larkinville, while Peter Flynn worked on the Guaranty Building and the H.H. Richardson complex.
"I like the architects who signed the letter because they have taken on the most significant restoration projects in Buffalo," said Higgins, D-Buffalo.
Potential problems cited
But several other prominent architects told The News that restoring train service to Central Terminal could be fraught with problems. "The Central Terminal was strategically poorly situated when it was built 90 years ago, and would cause both locals and visitors to have to drive through the crumbling East Side simply to access it," said Adam Sokol, whose firm, ASAP, proposed a Larkinville location for the new station. "Amtrak could not maintain the Central Terminal when it served it in the 1970s, and with a similar level of traffic, there is no reason to assume a better outcome today."
Sokol noted that the Central Terminal is larger than New York's Penn Station, which serves more than 1,200 trains a day. In contrast, only eight trains a day now serve Buffalo.
Higgins and other supporters of returning train service to the Central Terminal argue that doing so will spur development that will fill the vast building, which features a tower with 65,200 square feet of space as well as two vast concourses with 71,400 square feet of space.
The proposed return of train service to the station would take up no more than 6,200 square feet in the smaller of those two concourses, according to the consultant who is drawing up train station proposals both for Central Terminal and downtown.
That means passengers would be arriving to a desolate Central Terminal in Buffalo unless several other amenities are added to the facility at the same time as train service returns, several architects noted.
"If there are minimal riders routinely, then the place will appear mostly unoccupied, unless there are other legitimate daily uses to create activity making it feel safe and welcoming," said Matthew W. Meier, a partner in HHL Architects, who did not note a preference for a particular train station site. Meier's firm has worked on historic restorations in Buffalo for nearly 50 years and spent more than a decade working on Central Terminal repair and restoration efforts starting in the 1990s.
The walk from the platforms to the front door in Central Terminal is more than 360 feet, noted Paul L. Battaglia, who directed and authored a "Buffalo Central Terminal Engineering Feasibility Study" 20 years ago.
"That is simply inconvenient for a traveler," said Battaglia, who favors a downtown train station.
Other architects noted additional concerns. Local architect Mark G. Rampado questioned the maintenance costs of operating such a small train station within such a vast facility.
Daniel J. Keefe, an architect with Buffalo City Schools, noted that in its 50 years of operation,, Central Terminal never spurred any notable development nearby and would be unlikely to do so now.
And local architect Andrew Petrinec echoed Mayor Byron W. Brown's concern that support for Central Terminal may be driven more by nostalgia than modern-day facts.
"I feel it is extremely frivolous for us to talk about putting the station back into use when train ridership continues to decline in the country," said Petrinec, who did not specify his preference for a train station location.
Arguments for Central Terminal
Those who argued in support of Central Terminal said there are both historic and economic reasons to return trains there.
"In my view, there is no reason not to restore the Central Terminal as the primary train station because of its interconnectivity to points east and west, and because its restoration will both bring back a Buffalo landmark, and help create another central point for redevelopment of the City," said Frank Burkhart, president of Advanced Architecture and Planning of Grand Island.
Local architect Thaddeus J. Fyda noted that the Central Terminal has more room for development of an intermodal transportation center, more room for train platforms and more parking. In addition, it is directly connected to Amtrak's westbound route to Chicago, whereas a downtown station would require westbound trains to back up for a mile to reconnect with the main westward route.
Historic tax credits could be used to finance the Central Terminal project, which also could accommodate a railway museum, restaurant and possibly even a relocated Broadway Market, Fyda said.
Such possibilities are missing from the cost estimates developed by WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, the consulting firm preparing a report on possible train station locations for a committee that will decide the site in late April. And some backers of Central Terminal are angry about that fact.
"The estimate report is personally disturbing because it is placing emphasis that cost is THE deciding factor, without considering the many positive affects the Central Terminal location would have to Buffalo, WNY and the immediate surrounding East side area, beyond the building itself," said local architect Hector P. Garrido.
Concerns about politics
Higgins has been making similar arguments, but several architects who wrote to The News – while not mentioning the congressman by name – appeared frustrated by the fact that politicians are raising their voices before the consultant's train station study is completed. A committee of local officials will decide on the train station location later this month after that consultant's report is completed.
"I believe first and foremost that the process should be allowed to play out without the politicians getting involved and trying to sway the decision based on their political interest," said Rampado, who favors a downtown train station. "They have hired a well-qualified professional consultant and the facts and recommendations of their report and analysis should be the guideline for making a decision. Too many politicians right now are making erroneous comments and the process needs to keep their emotions in check."
For his part, Higgins noted that his involvement in the train station is not unlike the pressure he put on the New York Power Authority a decade ago to set aside tens of millions for Buffalo's waterfront in a hydropower relicensing agreement.
The result of that effort, he noted, is Canalside. And Higgins sees that as proof that politicians thinking boldly can produce unexpected change for the better.
"I will always challenge the limits of our city's possibilities," Higgins said. "That's why I'm here."
Under the pathetic department, a few of these so called "architects" need to take their head out of the sand or wherever they have it. Specially these two:
Quote:
"The Central Terminal was strategically poorly situated when it was built 90 years ago, and would cause both locals and visitors to have to drive through the crumbling East Side simply to access it," said Adam Sokol, whose firm, ASAP, proposed a Larkinville location for the new station. "Amtrak could not maintain the Central Terminal when it served it in the 1970s, and with a similar level of traffic, there is no reason to assume a better outcome today."
Quote:
Daniel J. Keefe, an architect with Buffalo City Schools, noted that in its 50 years of operation,, Central Terminal never spurred any notable development nearby and would be unlikely to do so now.
Things change. What happened or didn't happen 40 years ago, has nothing to do with today. Open your eyes, there are plenty of examples of changes that no one thought would ever happen!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.