The state of New York recently gave a 17-member panel $1 million to study a location for a new Buffalo train station in six months. One of the three sites under consideration is Buffalo Central Terminal, a dilapidated architectural gem which is gradually being restored by dedicated volunteers, and two other locations.
State ignores existing station at Depew to focus on one new station
Today, Amtrak passengers arrive via a small downtown Exchange St station with a recently collapsed roof or via a suburban Depew station built quickly by Amtrak. Neither station is ideal, Depew being too small and lacking development opportunities while Exchange St is literally under Interstate 190. Even so, Depew has been completely ignored by the study as only Exchange St, Central Terminal and Larkinville are under consideration and people have interpreted that they can make only one choice among the three. This is a false choice. Rather, Buffalo should revert to its 1962 configuration when trains bound for Niagara Falls served both Central Terminal and Exchange St station.
Buffalo Central Terminal
I propose replacing Depew with Buffalo Central Terminal because it has the most development potential which could help pay for some of the station restoration costs. A Canadian developer is interested in the site and wants trains there too. While the state has promised to provide $25 million for a new station, the Central Terminal Restoration Corporation has estimated renovations to cost as much as $60 million.
Yet, considering the scope of the project, restoration could be cheaper than new construction. For example, the existing parking lot would simply have to be painted, fenced and add security cameras. To connect riders downtown, the city could run an express bus for the Lakeshore Limited, the only one of four trains which does not stop at Exchange St. The building needs a new heating system regardless of whether Amtrak moves there or not. The larger costs would be restoring the walkway to the platform, the platform itself, and tracks, switches and crossovers to and from the station.
Platforms
However, while the old platforms remain, the pedestrian walkway linking them to the station does not and a new one would need to be built. The old walkway was removed to allow for taller freight trains. As a result, the new walkway would have to be built higher. Alternatively, the railway tracks could be lowered to allow the walkway to be replaced at its old height. Keeping it at its old height could reduce the cost of modifying the station at each end of the walk. The walkway would also have to be at least 150’ long.
For the platforms, there are seven to choose from. I would suggest restoring the 840’ long platform, the 3rd platform in from the station. While the walkway has a ramp to the platforms, it is unclear it complies with ADA’s required 4.8°, but if they are, it would save the cost of an elevator. Fortunately, these platforms are low level platforms which means they would need to be raised about 40 inches to comply with new ADA and Federal Railroad Administration rules. In order to reduce the cost of restoring the platforms and maintain the historic canopy above them, I suggest lowering the track and installing drainage. Alternatively, the platform and canopy could be completely rebuild on top of a taller platform.
Tracks
This location requires some new track which requires some analysis of freight train traffic. This station was closed in 1979 in part because freight train congestion in Frontier Yard slowed or delayed passenger trains. Today, it takes 13-21 minutes for trains to go just 5.5 miles from Depew to Exchange St, averaging 15-25mph, because of Frontier Yard.
The easiest option would be a 1600’ track between the Belt Line’s western and eastern tracks. The Buffalo Belt Line has relatively light freight traffic, 6-7 trains per day, and has two tracks so it can probably accommodate a 4 daily passenger trains at its southern end without costly upgrades. A crossover would be needed west of the station to connect trains from the terminal directly to the tracks leading downtown, allowing passenger trains to avoid the busy main line and reduce delays. However, this option would require Amtrak trains to run through Frontier Yard at 25mph or less and be susceptible to delays from freight trains. This would also require two new switches to move trains into the Terminal.
Reducing travel time and delays through Frontier Yard would ultimately require a bypass track. Virginia is constructing a similar one around Acca Yard in Richmond to reduce the time it takes their trains to go a mere 7 miles from 25 minutes to substantially less. Frontier Yard has a lot of capacity as CSX has reduced the number of freight cars through it and it might be possible to pay CSX, Frontier Yard’s owner, to upgrade the southern track, 6.6 miles long, to a freight yard bypass track, allowing trains to go faster through the yard. This would still require at least two crossovers to allow trains to switch from the southern track to the Central Terminal track, crossing CSX’s busy main line. This would be more costly, $10-25 million and require substantial cooperation from CSX as passenger trains would be essentially taking a track away from freight trains. But if there are benefits for CSX such as getting passenger trains out of its way more quickly and monetary ones, they may be persuadable. Given the $25 million budget though, this project may have to come later.
Yellow is new track, white is restored platform, dark gray is walkway to platform and light gray is the station's immense parking lot.
Buffalo Exchange St Station
I also propose retaining the Exchange St Station but moving the platform a block west to provide a direct connection to Metrorail from the platform. This would require moving the track over to position the new platform south of it. Some of the station functions could move the Donovan Building’s parking garage and some station amenities could piggyback off of that building’s offerings (train pod anyone?). This parking could be replaced by some of the 820 spaces within the ex-HSBC building or a large garage next to the Bison’s field.
Larkinville
The last site, Larkinville, is probably the least exciting option. It would require a clean sheet design for a station and a new platform. It would not provide the downtown connections Exchange St already does. Development is well underway in Larkinville without a train station.
Conclusion
The choice between Central Terminal, Exchange St, and Larkinville is a false one. The best option would be to convert Central Terminal into a modern train station for a reasonable amount of money while redeveloping the property and surrounding neighborhood. Keeping Exchange St would also maintain an important downtown connection.
No comments:
Post a Comment