City November 27, 2009 9:07 AM

Metro Rail: Now is the Time to Plan for the Future

By Gladys Gifford, Citizens Regional Transit Corporation President

The NFTA and the Federal government are currently engaged in planning processes that will directly impact the future of transportation in WNY, both now and for years to come. The NFTA has contracted with Transportation Management & Design (TMD) to conduct a complete strategic assessment for its Erie County operations. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the NFTA' s current system and develop a plan for the future, in light of economic realities. At its Board of Commissioners meeting this week (11-23-09), the NFTA announced that the draft assessment from TMD will be ready in January, 2010. Stakeholders and the public will be enlisted for their comments in February, with expected completion in March.

Already, the TMD analysis shows that Metro Rail is the most heavily used line in the whole NFTA transit system. On average, Metro Rail carries 21,000 passengers daily; the next highest is Metro Bus #3, with less than 7,000 passengers daily. Put another way, the average passenger load per hour is 300 for Metro Rail, and the next highest is 65 for Metro Bus #26.

The U.S. Congress has mandated regional transportation planning entities for the metropolitan regions, in the six-year Transportation Act. GBNRTC is that entity for Erie and Niagara counties. The current Transportation Act expired on September 30, 2009; Congress passed an extension in order to continue transportation funding through December. New transportation legislation was introduced in March (in the Senate) and in June (in the House). The Obama administration seeks additional extensions of the current bill until late in 2010. All indicators show that the new transportation bill will not simply continue the fiscal policies of the past, but will establish a national transportation policy which will require clear goals and mandate compliance in order to receive funds. Distinct goals include: reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and a clear understanding that transportation choices must not enable urban sprawl.

Implications for WNY include: greater funding opportunities for public transit capital improvements, such as Metro Rail extensions; Federal funding available for operations and maintenance of transit systems; requirement that the municipalities of the two counties agree on a regional vision for transportation in order to qualify for all transportation funding. Metro Rail is a proven success, carrying a large percentage of all transit riders. Metro Rail is also the most "green" form of transportation available in WNY, since part of its electrical energy is hydropower from Niagara Falls. Therefore, the capital expenditure to extend Metro Rail ful- fills the transportation goals of the new Federal transportation act. Will WNY leadership support extension of Metro Rail?

The track record of WNY leadership for bold ventures in transportation is rather poor. We should be grateful for the vision of Lewis G. Harriman, Joseph Radder, and Gordon Thompson who contributed leadership for the planning and construction of Buffalo's light rail line, Metro Rail, back in the 1970s. However, after the inauguration of the Main Street line in 1984, there has been no serious effort to extend Metro Rail into the suburbs. We remain hobbled with a short light rail line, not a light rail network.

By contrast, every other municipality that started a light rail system in the United States has been expanded! The list includes: Charlotte, NC; Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; Los Angeles, CA; Min- neapolis, MN; Hoboken, NJ; Pittsburgh, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; Sacra- mento, CA; St. Louis, MO; Salt Lake City, UT; San Francisco, CA. For a complete discussion of light rail transit expansions in the United States by Dr. Seth C. Triggs, see this article.

The release of the TMD study by the NFTA plus the next Federal transportation bill plus the next set of data from the national census all taken together point to a pivotal moment. Buffalo-Niagara is poised to either build on the assets of its existing light rail line within densely-populated urban areas, or to follow the lead of transit-blind developers whose 20th-century mindset requires automobile parking at every destination.

Now is the moment. Let's craft a regional vision for all transportation modes.

View image

Comments

20 Comments Leave a comment

23BEASTMODE23

November 27, 2009 9:36 AM

WE NEED TO EXPAND METRO RAIL NOW!!!!!

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

November 27, 2009 10:03 AM

I'd like to see the Metro go into the Southtowns and ABSOLUTELY into Amherst.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

MRodgers

November 27, 2009 10:06 AM

MetroRail must be expanded. Not only North to UB, but east to the airport and to the Southtowns, as well.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

buffalofalling

November 27, 2009 10:20 AM

This entire idea, argument and report are fraught with myopia and a total disregard for reality.
1. Let’s start with the data. Comparing a fixed line’s average daily ridership (Metro) with a single bus line to justify something is highly problematic. First off, how many people transfer from a bus to the Metro? If X number of Metro riders are bus transfers, the there should be a discussion of that because it signifies the complexities and usefulness of the entire system. You can’t pit one form versus another and some justification for further development.
2. This entire argument is based on one major assumption: it will reduce car ridership (as well as the above issue/argument being made on the assumption that all riders of the metro are driving to metro stops). It won’t reduce car ridership for a simple reason… WNY continue to have major demographic shifts, particularly in migration (net out migration) of younger people and an increased in the average age of the population (related to out migration). Therefore, one would expect less and less drivers as the populace gets older and smaller. In theory, car ridership will decline in WNY over time due to demographics.
3. Furthering the demographic argument against expansion, the reason why the light rail hasn’t been expanded, unlike in the examples listed (with the exception of Pittsburgh) is that those places are growing in population and economic activity (see: jobs). Therefore, to decrease road congestion and increase transportation opportunities for all, transportation expansion is necessary. It’s not necessary here. It’s is a good idea? Maybe. Is it necessary? No.
4. People really fail to recognize human nature and economic utility. When you have a region with minimal congestion and you can get from Clarence to downtown in 30 minutes, who really expects people to forego driving to work downtown and adding time to their commute to take the light rail? Light rail commutes will be longer than a car here and knowing that people maximize their time first, there won’t be this utopian transformation to a light rail dominated region.
5. Where will it go? Clarence? Lancaster? Orchard Park? How will it get there? I believe NFTA has sold portions of its right of way and therefore has no route in waiting. So from a cost standpoint, this represents a major expenditure and potential taking of property for something still not necessary.
6. Lastly, and this is my biggest complaint about this ongoing concept, this state and region have spent extensive money to build an auto-based transportation infrastructure that partially fueled suburban sprawl (think about the 33, 198, 990, 190) and now we want to exacerbate that and re-subsidize suburban residents transportation infrastructure? So as we’ve concentrated poverty and minorities in the inner city, we want to expand light rail for the suburbs so suburban residents can get to work more easily. Sure, it’s a great idea from an environmental standpoint, but from an equity standpoint (social and economic), it represents another happenstance and destined-to-be-regrettable idea. So like the 33 is a widely agreed upon folly, I would argue a light rail extension would be the same.
If we had population growth and an expanding economic base, then this discussion would have merit. But the concept only masks the underlying problems we have in WNY and allows people to turn focus away from truly meaningful change to something they want because somehow it would make the region relevant or hip or cool.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

RLC

November 27, 2009 10:38 AM

I think 'buffalofalling' has a great point. I worked in downtown Buffalo for 5 years and lived near the kenmore/n.B-lo border with a train station 3 blocks away. With Buffalo commute being an easy one (lack of congestion) unless ther ewas an accident on 33, there was usually no need to take the train. Actually, the only reason the train was used (for me) was to go to the HSBC arena for games/events. I think if Metro-rail is expanded to UB north or the airport, the usage would increase substantially! THESE ar ethe people you want to market to for metro-rail (those in college that want to come downtown and leave the car on campus AND those arriving at the airport who are staying downtown at one of the hotels). Also, while we are at it...connect the thing to Niagara Falls! Maybe, just maybe, some of the hundreds of thousands of tourists will take a trip to Buffalo if all they have to do is get on the train. Again...marketing this is key. There is a lot of potential, but the right 'motivated' people need to be hired to tap into it.

[ Reply ]

replied to buffalofalling

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

iluvpitbulls

November 27, 2009 11:01 AM

Good points. The only thing I would take significant issue with is point 6 in that LRT will not exacerbate outward migration.

The regional highway system you mentioned disperses development to newer land along off-ramps and other interchanges. That has resulted in the separation of the middle class, affluent and later jobs and retail to far flung places that require automobiles to access. That has had more of impact on concentrating poor and minorities in the inner city than rail could. Meanwhile, the portions of these roads that run through older parts of the city have diminished property values in the neighborhoods that they "serve" as well as diminished the role of downtown as an employment and retail sector. These roads promote sprawling development and diminish the value of the central city.

Historically, a centralized, widespread transit system increaces access, and economic utility of the central business district. Improving the role of downtown by increasing access by alternative transportation would make it more attractive for residential, retail and light industrial development. Downtown, with rail bus lines reaching in all directions would be easier to access for people who do not own cars than an office park off I990. That means focusing development in the CBD by way of mass transit would improve opportunities for poor residents who are now cut off from employment centers. A downtown based system would undo a lot of the social and economic disparity not enhance it.

[ Reply ]

replied to buffalofalling

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

iluvpitbulls

November 27, 2009 11:19 AM

One more thing to add to point #4.

The ease of commute by auto is a valid point under normal circumstances where gas is priced reasonably. That all goes out the window when fuel costs shoot through the roof like they did last summer. Back then, carpooling, and metro ridership increased significantly and can be expected to happen again as the cost of gas rises. Those type of fuel shortages are rare but it is reasonable to assume that they will occour more frequently as the finite global supply is consumed.

If it becomes more practical to take the bus or train then we can start talking about removing older sections of the local highway system (33-198) and returning the land to more productive uses. That would go a long way towards justifying the cost of installing rail lines.

Also, adding transportation options that take advantage of local hydropower is a no brainer. As long as the NFTA can get access to the cut rate power for rail or bus (busses can e tethered to overhead power lines too), we should develop our transportation system in a way that encourages people to use electric powered transit. In fact, that may be a good way to pay for expantion of the metro rail: surplus power proceeds form the NYPA.

[ Reply ]

replied to buffalofalling

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

grad94

November 27, 2009 5:40 PM

you're assuming that gas will always be a couple bucks a gallon. when it gets to $5 or $10, demand for light rail will shoot through the roof.

[ Reply ]

replied to buffalofalling

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

al labruna

November 27, 2009 11:01 AM

ive begun to think the easiest expansion route is a branch off the LaSalle Station along the DLW ROW north to Tonawanda.

it seems a bit boring, but it has the ability to really expand the commuter base for the Main St line with a relatively low investment and little to no ROW acquisition costs

a station at Kenmore could really add some potential for Transit Oriented Development. stations @ Taunton, Lincoln Park and near Brighton & Colvin would make great walkable access to the surrounding neighborhoods. Sheridan and the 290 are easy places for Park n Rides that would be a supplement to the cramped UB lot.

it would be more versatile if it managed to get into NT, but im not sure the bridge over Ellicott Creek is serviceable - potentially adding a 10 or tens of millions to the cost.

in any case, clearly some action is needed - and has been for years.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

iluvpitbulls

November 27, 2009 7:10 PM

AL>"it would be more versatile if it managed to get into NT, but im not sure the bridge over Ellicott Creek is serviceable - potentially adding a 10 or tens of millions to the cost"

I think that line would be underused if it didnt go up to NT. That Erie remnant over Ellicott ck may not be usable but there is an active CSX line nearby that goes over both that creek as well as the canal. There is an old Lehigh Valley line that connects these bridges with UB North too. Once in NT you can continue the line up to the falls along more vacant rail rows. That would make Gateway Harbor an attraction accessible by rail from Buffalo, Amherst and Niagara Falls.

[ Reply ]

replied to al labruna

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Lego1981

November 27, 2009 11:09 AM

The train is so quick and easy. Ride from University Station approx 15 min. to Theatre Station, vs. 20-30 drive straight down Main Street during rush hour? Living in the Long Island and NYC area for many years, I never had to own a car. Long Island Rail Road and Subways all the time. Just think for a moment that NFTA expanded it's Metro Line to the Airport? UB North? Niagara Falls? Bills Stadium? OH MY! Who would need a car? That would take care of the parking issues we currently have downtown. So sick of every new housing and office development knocking buildings down for parking when we should be keeping what we have and build over the remaining surface lots. We will not be a vibrant region with a surface lot next to every other building in this city.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

mjd1001

November 27, 2009 11:48 AM

I'm all for an expansion of the metro rail, but i don't think it has to be the same 'subway' cars we currently have. I'd take it, but how about light rail? The main place I would like to see it and I think it woudl work well would be to Niagara Falls.

We live just north of Niagara Falls. There are a LOT of people here that would take a light rail into Buffalo (Sabres games, theatre, eating out) if it was available. Niagara Falls has about 50-60,000 people...if you add the village and town of Lewiston and Youngstown, its another 15,000 - 20,000 people? That seems like a lot of potential riders.

I can tell you this for sure, we visit downtown Buffalo probably 3-4 times a year. If there was a light rail line (even if it wasn't right from where we live, but maybe in Downtown Niagara Falls), our trips to Buffalo would go up from 3-4 times a year, to probably 15-20 times a year.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

al labruna

November 27, 2009 12:27 PM

mjd1001,

actually the vehicles ARE light rail, not subway. they are sadly bottled up underground with no longer distances in which to stretch their legs.

----

on another note, i find it curious whenever metro rail expansion is mentioned there are always naysayers who state its unaffordable and unnecessary, but there is odd silences whenever highway projects are proposed.

as far as roads have gone, were stuck in the 50's, more lanes and more roads - nevermind its actual value or need. goodness forbid a transit line might compete for those drivers.

[ Reply ]

replied to mjd1001

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

RLC

November 27, 2009 12:39 PM

great point! In fact, I lived in Buffalo and only visited the Falls about 3-4 times per year with out of town family or friends who wanted to see them. If the rail extended and connected both cities, I think Buffalo residents would also increase their trips to NF. What is the overall attitude of those in NF about rail extension? What about NF Government officials? In addition, the fight to bring the eventual high speed rail connecting WNY to NYC and in bewteen would most likely NEED the NF as the main attraction in WNY. The light rail then connecting to Buffalo would allow Buffalo to connect to thousands of potential visitors! Canal Side anyone?

[ Reply ]

replied to mjd1001

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

BuffJD

November 27, 2009 12:21 PM

Why can't we have a trolley system like in Toronto where cars and Trolleys operate in the same lanes?

If they extend the rail, bring it to the Buffalo Airport and the Galleria Mall.. but have police officers on every train.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

al labruna

November 27, 2009 3:29 PM

i do second that.

there are a lot of really good adaptable options for streetcars that could be implemented in Buffalo. Hertel or Delaware are both wide enough to easily handle streetcars. some downtown streets could also handle a beltway style loop.

check out:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-02a.htm

id like to point out there are some cities that utilize PPP or even standalone nonprofits to build and/or operate "heritage" style operations.

now, who wouldnt like to ride a dewitt style streetcar to the North Park Theatre?

[ Reply ]

replied to BuffJD

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

MrGreenJeans

November 27, 2009 3:38 PM

I'd be pleased to have more bus service in areas where it might get used and will do the most good, meaning the West Side , Elmwood , the N.Buffalo shopping areas, etc. Cutting fares back to $1.50 and eliminating the idiotic transfer charges would also help.

The focus on long distance lines out to the 'burbs puzzles me. They'd basically be commuter lines, with riders in the morning and evening but running empty all other times. The airport is never going to have a rail connection, certainly not while the NFTA makes big $$ on long-term parking.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

Christine

November 27, 2009 7:24 PM

oh boy...such a spectrum...where shall I begin...

First...Buffalo could not and was not allowed to expand its light rail for a couple reasons. The republicans kept heavy pressure on Amtrack to be profitable, didnt want mass transit because they didnt want to expand mass transit labor unions which vote democratic and held significant power under Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2. Obama is from the Rail and mass transit capital of the nation: Chicago (and Chicago is also the rail bottleneck of the nation). McCain was nearly fanatical about the demise of rail and amtrack so the restrictions on all rail and mass transit were enough to keep many shrinking and even stable midsize cities unable to qualify.

Second...under the old application process, no application for capital funds to start a new or extend an existing line could be submitted without proof that it could sustain operating costs. Erie County repeatedly refused to share the gas tax even though it would have meant hundreds of millions of dollars of federal and state funds coming into Buffalo.

Third...the airport line is most definitely the NFTA priority. The Buffalo Niagara Airport has surpassed so quickly its initial targets when it was rebuilt that the surrounding land was purchased for hotels and other office/commercial purposes. The NFTA has said many times that it cannot expand airport operations except on its existing parking lots! Therefore, future expansion of the airport is going to involve both a light rail extension and relocating short therm and longterm parking farther away.

Fourth...although downtown parking remains cheap in comparison to other cities...it is expensive compared to FREE parking in the suburbs. THERE ARE MANY MANY PEOPLE THAT WOULD RATHER RIDE METRO RAIL AND GET A MONTHLY PASS THAN PAY EVER INCREASING RATES TO DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGES AND BE REPEATEDLY EXPOSED TO THE CITIES ATTEMPT TO GAIN REVENUE THROUGH THEIR INCREASINGLY VIGILANT CAMERAS AND PARKING TICKETS.

Fifth...yes...elmwood and hertel could easily sustain a trolley service.

Sixth...the airport corridor was the most profitable route in the last 2 previous reviews. However the previous reviews did not include the rapid growth along Transit Road, rapid growth at the airport, rapid growth at the Galleria, regeneration of activity at the Central Terminal, rapid growth at the Larkin District and the current growth of the ECC downtown campus....all of which easily put the airport corridor at the top of the list.

For all you downtown supporters...look at the good things proposed for downtown Buffalo and under closer scrutiny about 75% include some sort of hotel component. NOW HOW EXACTLY ARE ALL THESE HOTEL ROOMS GOING TO REMAIN VIABLE IF THERE ISNT A NEW 450K SQFT CONFERENCE AND CONVENTION CENTER PROPOSED AND A LIGHT RAIL EXTENSION TO THE AIRPORT? YOU HAVE ANOTHER WAY TO GET $100 A NIGHT PATRONS DOWNTOWN?

-Niagara Line is a long way off...before it gets the urban density and tourism to support it. Also, dont look for major support for the Niagara Line until the Buffalo Creek Casino gets built...then there will be a major monied power player that will want Great Lakes Cruise Ships docking at the DL&W and an immediate and direct link between their Casino's which the Niagara Line would provide.
-UB is political but the next priority. As the #1 growth engine in Buffalo and our region...it is absolutely critical for the business and technology campus to be connected to the other campus's. Further, our Life Sciences Research Campus will not be the only off campus research center UB creates...and no other research centers would consider moving off campus unless it was light rail connected.
-the southtowns corridor at most would get a short extension either to Hamburg or Katherine or at the farthest South Park Botanical Gardens.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

gqcarrick

November 30, 2009 12:36 PM

I wish the Metro would expand. It would be nice to take it to other parts of the city and the suburbs. Also if it expands it won't be such a joke to people who come from out of town and see our metro to nowhere. I take it to Sabres games all the time and I would love to see it expanded more and put completely underground if the government is going to cough up some cash. I agree with everyone else though, the airport has to be a HUGE priority along with the southtowns. If it gets popular enough and Amtrak ridership keeps going up like it has been over the last few years, you can even move everything to the Central Terminal and use that as the main rail hub.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

MULE 2009

December 25, 2009 9:59 PM

This is a local issue. The areas leaders long ago decided suburban sprawl was the way to go. The "home rule" on development insures the continued development of outer ring suburbs at the expense of the City and older suburbs. The existing Main St subway and transit mall has only attracted a fraction of the development as anticipated. Cleveland upgraded it's busiest bus route Euclid avenue at a cost of $200 million and it generated over $3 billion in new construction. Given this communities track record it is doubtful we can make the Main St line into a system. This is a local issue to finance the capital cost of the system through bonds. It is even more important for the area to end "the home rule" to stop urban sprawl. All significant development must reinforce existing infrastructure. With the area having lost 10% of its population in 10 years and no political will to focus the developers on Main Street instead of the I-990 or Transit Road these last 20 years, it's obvious why the City and county are broke. This is a local issue and we need to end the downward spiral. SUNY Amherst and the Galleria Airport extensions would be nice but smart development policies are needed now and the people will come. I also would suggest a line (pipe dream) Lasalle station via NFTA r/w to BUFF STATE via the old ERIE RR INT'L Branch and NYC crosscut branch with stations at Starin, Colvin,Delaware(Consumer SQ),Elmwood (Tops/Home Depot),Hertel, Amherst(Wegmans)and Buff State at Grant Street (or Elmwood and Forest). Could possibly run all the way down the Niagara Branch past Rich Products HQ at W. Ferry, past the Peace Bridge, Lasalle Park and Waterfront village and reconnect with the Main St or Airport line or both downtown. No transit system makes a profit and operating expenses must be subsidized regardless if it's bus or rail. Rail should be considered only if the community will concentrate the areas limited new development near the stations. It is really late in the game to consider rail as an option when all new development is only highway accessible. Interesting to note after following transit development in Buffalo since the 1960's the Main St (Amherst Corridor) has atleast held it's own while South and Eastside bus routes have lost half their ridership in the same time period.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )