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

Otto Vondrak wrote:That said, whatever new station is built should not be designed for status quo, it should be designed for growth. My only comments against a downtown station is that it only serves the Empire Corridor trains. On top of that, "Canalside" is a downtown developer's dream, and most of the proposals are being pushed by developers, NOT transit planners. Guess who stands to benefit if another new project is built in Canalside?

That's why I'd advocate for a Larkinville location. It's still close to downtown, while also able to serve the LSL.

The decision doesn't have to be an either-or between Canalside and BCT.

That's why I'd advocate for a Larkinville location. It's still close to downtown, while also able to serve the LSL.

Which is why I originally wanted the site east of Seneca St., but the committee states there isn't enough room for parking, the platforms wouldn't be long enough (1200') and too close to homes (new builds). See post 5%

The initial public hearing in the Common Council chambers in City Hall, nothing was presented other than mentioning "Larkinville" but no diagrams, or maps were presented, I didn't know exactly where they meant by Larkinville at the time.
The three from N. Collins wanted to have the station in the triangle consisting of the Compromise, Niagara Branch & the Avenue (which was presented, but never considered) which I knew would of never flown mostly due to the xing itself & the curve of the Compromise.

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

I've just been looking at google satellite imagery and focused on Larkenville. Where would the station be? How big will it be compared to the current downtown station? Looking at it from Google Satellite imagery, how about where Exchange, Carol and Smith st all come together along the abandoned ex-Erie ROW. New track would have to be laid but both ends of the row would connect back to the mainline thus eliminating the reverse. Or:

Why not either convert or replace the NYC freighthouse on Exchange at Michigan St overpass. Plenty of parking on the west side of Michigan. Extend the current structure[or replacement] to provide a covered walkway under the Michigan overpass. You would still have to reverse out of this location but it is about the same distance that Amtrak had to do in Niagara Falls.

Is there a rule that requires a platform to be equal in length to a train that stops there? The reason I ask is that when Amtrak stops at Depew, rarely does the whole length get used. There maybe 12 cars but only 3 are being used to get on and off the train. Can Larkenville handle a 12 car train plus locomotive? I think a long train is going to block a street or two no matter where you put it.

If a new station is built, will Depew be closed?

SST wrote:I've just been looking at google satellite imagery and focused on Larkenville. Where would the station be? How big will it be compared to the current downtown station? Looking at it from Google Satellite imagery, how about where Exchange, Carol and Smith st all come together along the abandoned ex-Erie ROW. New track would have to be laid but both ends of the row would connect back to the mainline thus eliminating the reverse.

I came to a similar conclusion regarding Larkinville. It is a better neighborhood than BCT and avoids the lengthy reverse move that Canalside would require. However, a good look at Bing maps indicated the blocks are pretty small, so westbound trains would almost certainly block a crossing or two at Larkinville.

IMO, the former Erie/EL ROW at Exchange/Carol makes sense. The ROW is still intact (albeit without track) between the current CSX main and the former NYC belt line, so it could tie into the current rail network rather easily.

Amtrak has a relatively modest budget in comparison to many other gov't projects, and is also smaller than the cost for alot of corporate subsidies we taxpayers fund. Thus I have no objection to funding a new station for Buffalo, provided the location is well-chosen.

Matt Langworthy wrote: I came to a similar conclusion regarding Larkinville. It is a better neighborhood than BCT and avoids the lengthy reverse move that Canalside would require. However, a good look at Bing maps indicated the blocks are pretty small, so westbound trains would almost certainly block a crossing or two at Larkinville.

All of the crossings at Larkinville are grade-separated except for Exchange Street.

Put a platform extending northeast from the Seneca St overhead bridge, and problem solved.

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

All deference to a long-standing member, it's an overarching issue as to where to put an Amtrak station, which may be BCT... or not. However, it's still at this point an Amtrak issue. Now, if they end up not using BCT for Amtrak, or they convert BCT to other forms of transit, i.e. multi-modal, then it may be a NYS issue for the multiple uses. However, at this point, we're still on Amtrak.

Further note: please, let's all take a breath and not flame each other; people can honestly disagree on how they want their tax dollars spent.

Having first learned about BCT over 20 years ago as a teenager from the NYC area I find it incredible how far things have come since I first read about this great old terminal which was then still actively being destroyed by nature and vandals. In the early 2000s I saw it for the first time from the windows of the westbound Lake Shore Limited, the clocks on the top of the tower lit up in the middle of the night. An eerie but beautiful sight to say the least! Then this past summer I took a trip out to Buffalo by train just to see BCT and it was worth it. I walked away from it thinking how great it would be if it is used as a train station again. Not a month later this whole discussion began.

I know both sides have been hashed out on this thread, but these are my observations. For one thing, regarding the whole argument about the station being in the wrong location from the first place... is this exactly true based on the situation the New York Central faced back in 1929? Just look at how much a factor the issue is today regarding the Lake Shore Limited not being able to use a downtown station, or having to do a reverse move. The NYC was faced with this same problem but multiplied several times just with Chicago trains alone. Then you throw in the trains to Cincinnati and St. Louis, and in an era when the railroad was still the dominant means of intercity and long distance transportation. Central, no, but in a world where automobiles had become commonplace for local travel a station on the edge of town given this circumstance probably wasn't such a far fetched idea. I have also heard that the NYC could not acquire all of the land that they would have needed for a new station downtown.

As to why Amtrak moved out in the first place, I would have to guess Conrail was planning on closing the terminal as I believe they moved out by 1981. Perhaps Amtrak would have stayed if Conrail had stayed. Also, moves like this were common for Amtrak back then, looking at Minneapolis/St. Paul, Richmond, VA, Jacksonville, FL, Miami, and I am sure there are others. What has changed since then is the private-sector redevelopment project involving the terminal and the supposed need for a new station. Now I'll say that while I'm an ardent supporter of bringing Amtrak back into BCT I do have to wonder why exactly the Exchange St. cannot just be repaired. But since this evidently isn't on the table, they might as well bring BCT back. There will be room to expand if it is needed down the road and Amtrak can consolidate their operations into one station. If the Metro-Rail gets extended through it and to the airport, it will be even better. As for the neighborhood, many railroad stations aren't in the "greatest" parts of their respective towns or cities. I wasn't about to go on a walking tour of the neighborhood, but I have seen a lot worse than the neighborhood around BCT. Someone commented on how they don't take the train to Buffalo now...I'm not sure how a new station at Canalside will change that as Exchange St. isn't far from there right now.

Lastly, while I know this argument will draw plenty of criticism, I have to say as a New York Central fan, it's hard to see an opportunity get passed up to bring such a huge, visible piece of the old NYC back from the dead by at least using part of it as a train station. The old stations at Albany and Syracuse will obviously, sadly, never see trains again, Schenectady and Rochester disappeared decades ago, and next year makes half a century since the NYC "merged" into oblivion. It's not like these opportunities appear every day, so why pass one up like this, especially when it has so much public and political support? Money is obviously going to be spent no matter which proposal gets approved, so in my opinion they might as well bring a Buffalo landmark and a piece of the New York Central back to life. Oh well, maybe that argument will go over better on the NYC forum...just my opinion here.

PC1100 wrote:As for the neighborhood, many railroad stations aren't in the "greatest" parts of their respective towns or cities. I wasn't about to go on a walking tour of the neighborhood, but I have seen a lot worse than the neighborhood around BCT. Someone commented on how they don't take the train to Buffalo now...I'm not sure how a new station at Canalside will change that as Exchange St. isn't far from there right now.

Between it's population peak in 1950 and the latest census in 2010, the population of Buffalo dropped from 573k to 261k: a 55% drop. Just judging from the aerial views the neighborhood around BCT isn't so much bad as half-empty. The Google satellite-view shots look like Detroit- blocks with maybe 40 house lots, with 30 of them vacant. You can make the case that it's far from anything, for sure. But you can also make the case that the empty neighborhood means plenty of room for parking and plenty of opportunity for new development.

Just my two cents as someone without a dog in this fight at all. I work with a couple guys from Buffalo but I've never gotten off the highway or the train there.

Yes, the zombie houses got torn down... but the neighborhood is still dangerous. As mentioned in other posts, I was directly threatened there nearly 2 years ago. My friends who live in the Buffalo area do not venture into the BCT neighborhood. Barring a major urban renewal project (which will cost alot of money), it's fool-hardy to choose BCT as the new Amtrak station for the city of Buffalo.

BTW, I do stand corrected on Larkinville's crossings. Even so, Exchange/Carol would be a better idea because it avoids a sharp curve on the Compromise line.

PC1100 wrote:Someone commented on how they don't take the train to Buffalo now...I'm not sure how a new station at Canalside will change that as Exchange St. isn't far from there right now.

I commented on that, and my anecdote was in support of a station at Larkinville - somewhere close to downtown but accessible by both Empire Service and the LSL.

How a new station would change that is since I live in Boston, Exchange St didn't help me on the LSL, and there is no easy way to get downtown from Depew. I was advocating for not making that mistake again with BCT. Building a station at Larkinville would allow LSL passengers to have a station easily accessible to downtown.

Since reconnecting the concourse back to the building is a lost cause,has there been anything done to see if the
Baggage tunnel is even useable, or not? IF it can be used,then Amtrak using BCT might be possible AFTER
turning the Baggage tunnel into a "concourse" of sorts

Reconnect thing the concourse is not a lost cause by any means. Nothing that glass, steel and an elevator can't fix.

Gok,You are dealing with CSX,with EHH in charge,reconnecting the concourse WILL NOT happen.
It is a Double Stack route into Canada,and a "HIGH/WIDE clearance route to boot

As long as the bridge is high enough to clear a double-stack and CSX isn't paying for it, why would they object? If anything restoring the platform trackage at BCT would reduce passenger train interference with CSX operations.

Yep - CSX can get some money by leasing air rights to either Amtrak or the BCT operators for a pedestrian bridge, set at a certain level over the tracks, with the option to revoke or modify the terms of the lease at its (CSXT's) sole discretion.

Or the baggage tunnel works too.