City October 10, 2010 10:45 PM

Heritage Trolley Line Proposed

Heritage Trolley Line Proposed

One of the more interesting components of the Heritage Discovery Center is a proposal to construct a trolley line between the site and downtown.   The heritage trolley line would connect the Lee Street property to downtown utilizing an abandoned 1.6 mile railroad right-of-way currently owned by the NFTA.   The DL&W corridor, which the NFTA was recently trying to sell but later pulled off the market after howls of protest, stretches between the Buffalo River and Moore Street through The Valley and Old First Ward neighborhoods.

The Western New York Railway Historical Society says the trolley line doesn't need to end there.  It could be extended north and south.  One would circle through the Cobblestone District to the Erie Canal Harbor providing a transfer point with the NFTA light rail line.  A second could go through the Old First Ward to stop at the Riverfest Park.

The Railway Historical Society and Citizens for Regional Transit are commissioning a $30,000 study to provide cost estimates and an operating plan. 

HeritageTrolleyRoute.png"We've talked to the NFTA which owns the old DL&W right-of-way," says Joseph Kocsis, President of the 400-member Western New York Railway Historical Society.  "They're interested but want to see how feasible it is both financially and from an engineering standpoint."

Stone Consulting of Warren, PA will start the study in November that is expected to take 90 days to complete.

"There are nineteen or twenty heritage streetcar lines throughout the country such as in Memphis, Charlotte, New Orleans, Seattle and Tampa," says Kocsis.  "They are a tourist attraction in their own right but can also spur development along the route."

OF-100407-D005.jpgKocsis says he believes the full system could be built for under $15 million.  "It's not an expensive proposition." 

A portion of the right-of-way was elevated years ago so trains could reach DL&W Terminal's second floor platforms.  Bridges at the cross streets were removed instead of maintained however.  The embankments would be kept in place and the trolleys have the ability to descend from the embankments to street level and then up the embankment on the other side.  Trolley stops would be at street crossings where brick platforms could be built.  The group is also working with the UB School of Architecture on the proposal.  A multi-use, bike and pedestrian trail could be built within the right-of-way as well.

The operating plan would determine whether the line would just run for special events, on weekends, or daily. 

While the Railway Historical Society envisions operating the line, Kocsis says another option is for the NFTA to construct and operate the system.  The NFTA could access highly-competitive US Department of Transportation funding to help pay for the project.  Transit agencies or non-profits run the lines in other cities.  If the Society runs the trolley line, it would lease or buy the corridor from the NFTA.

The Railway Historical Society has 50 pieces of equipment but no trolleys.  Kocsis says trolleys can be reproduced using the IRC design as a model.  Gomaco Trolley Company has built many of the trolleys for other systems.

Eventually, Kocsis says his group would look to acquire several trolleys from other cities to restore.  "Unfortunately we have not found any historical Buffalo trolleys," he says.  "I believe they all have either been scrapped or burned."

Kocsis says his group has talked to neighborhood groups and elected officials about the plan.  "Everyone has been supportive.  Most just want to know the dollars and cents of it."
OF-100407-D018.jpg

OF-069502-12.jpg

Images by Gomaco Trolley Company

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

This certainly would address the concerns of accessibility.

A connection to the 2nd floor of DL&W would be very unique. Another reason to come down to canal side and connect to this proposed group of museums.


It is really a shame that no trolleys can be dug up... Hopefully one can be found even if it can't be used.

Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Great idea!

Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Would be soo AWESOME!!!! I hope this happens.

Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'd rather see some kind of loop to connect this with the Larkin district to make it a useful daily transportation link instead of a single destination tourist attraction. Maybe even a bigger loop over to the Erie Basin Marina to connect the waterfront areas together.

Score: 7 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I took a ride on the ones in New Orleans and thought they would be great in Buffalo. We got on a train at Cafe Du Monde and made stops at a Marketplace, a Jazzfest at a park, a place to eat etouffee, then dropped us in the City. Was a great afternoon and we got to see a bunch of the City we most likely wouldn't have seen any other way.

I can see this having similar results if these plans go through.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

would love to see this happen.

one stupid question, though: what's the difference between a "heritage" trolley line and the usual kind?

Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Grad -

Thats a good question.

Heritage or "Heritage Style" lines use refurbished equipment (generally, pre-WWII) or reproductions thereof. Generally, they cost lest to construct than Light Lail or even modern streetcars due to their lighter weights and slower running speed.

Some drawbacks *can* include lighter passenger capacity, slower boarding, and difficulty retrofitting equipment to meet modern ADA standards.

Heritage equipment can operate on modern systems, provided the overhead power is of compatible voltage, etc.

replied to grad94
Score: 4 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

thanx, al, that helps.

replied to al labruna
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This could be a significant catalyst for revitalization along the northern shore of the Buffalo River.

Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Your joking about this right? The only kind of trooly that would make any sense here is the bus converted to look like a trolly type. If there is not enough potential ridership to justify a metro extension to wither UB North or the airport how on earth do you expect there to be enough traffic to justify a trolly to museums that will attract less than fifty thousand customers per year.

Score: -1 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Sally: Generally I would agree. But the point of this line would be to use existing infrastructure, so you're not talking about a $200m project. It would also be a natural extension of the existing light rail. I wonder even if the catenary lines of the existing system could just be extended, therefore avoiding the construction of a new power source for the system.

Also, the Buffalo River is the only substantial piece of water/river front property in the city that isn't completely lined with superhighways. I really feel that it has the most potential for real waterfront neighborhood redevelopment of anywhere in the city. This could be a spark plug for that area's revitalization.

replied to Sally
Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I was kinda shocked to see "Stone Consulting of Warren PA" - from my town when i read this article.

Hope this trolley deal happens!

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Though it sounds very interesting, heritage systems are generally more successful when used as part of a public transportation system.

Dead ending before reaching a significant population center in South Buffalo reduces the operational value of such a line. Granted, a bridge is likely to be expensive - particularly if the maintaining navigability to the river is a prerequisite. However, extending to line down South Park to the city line would create a true mass transit line, that new high capacity ADA compatible streetcars and heritage streetcars could both use.

Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I was thinking the same thing about the line being too short. I like your idea of running a line into S Buffalo, Lackawanna, and beyond.

A relatively cheap way to do that would be to put a line over that remnant of the Buffalo River bridge, through the Republic site and other brownfields, and possibly ending in the S Park-OLV area. That would open up access to the vast brownfield network as well as link up with the Buffalo-Pittsburgh row that goes into the heart of the southtowns.

For some reason I believe that section of the Buffalo River has to be kept navigable so It may be easier to run the line down S Park instead.

replied to al labruna
Score: -2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I couldn't imagine that this would be used with the frequency that would be needed for mass transit. I don't think there is enough people to make it viable either.

This would be strictly for fun...

Ticket to the museum $10 ticket plus train ride $15.

replied to al labruna
Score: 5 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Chris,

Its really not an either/or kind of thing. Portland and other cities operate heritage streetcars over their lightrail/modern streetcar routes.

If a route was extended to an area where there was a feasible ridership demand for a new streetcar line as part of the Metro system, why not take the opportunity to do so? Heritage vehicles could potentially operate over part or all of the line, while modern streetcars could provide public transportation.

Additionally, generally, if there is enough demand, streetcars (or other rail vehicles) cost less to operate than their rubber wheeled counterparts.

replied to Chris
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree with Chris that realistically it would have no use other than that, but $15M sounds like too much to spend for something like this.

Say it runs only Saturdays, and after the novelty wears off suppose long term over each year it averages 100 adult riders a week.
5,200 riders x $5 (price Chris suggests) is $26,000 a year. That wouldn't even come close to operating costs (workers, maintenance, insurance, overhead, snow clearing, etc.), never mind trying to pay off $15M to build it.

There's many smarter uses for that much public money across Buffalo.

The museum itself sounds unlikely. Aren't they saying at least $25M would be needed to build that? Where would it come from? Diverted from other cultural organizations? If people want to donate for the museum or trolley - great. But unless they've already found a lot of private donors, it's difficult to believe enough will be raised for those price tags.

replied to Chris
Score: 2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

whatever -

i understand what youre getting at - what value is gained from the investment? (if i can put words in your mouth).

while i think numbers would likely be much higher than that (most rail museums are pretty decent economic generators for their communities), increasing the utility of the heritage system beyond a connector to the museum and integrating a public transit component would strengthen the proposal. although, admittedly, the number would need to be evaluated to verify sufficient demand.

i would point out that much smaller cities and comparably sized ones are utilizing heritage streetcars successfully (Kenosha, Little Rock, Tampa, etc)

one note on operating costs: many heritage streetcars operate entirely on volunteer labor, some operate hybrid systems with volunteers and paid employees, and some are all employee operations - and some of those are transit agency employees and others are employed by nonprofits. obviously, each case has different cost implications.

of course, none of this proves anything one way or another. just some items to consider before evaluating all the alternatives.

replied to whatever
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

al, as others noted, integrating into public transit a trolley parallel to the existing South Park bus line doesn't sound cost effective for the ridership level.

The idea of the NFTA spending several million on this trolley wouldn't seem an effectively use of $ compared to ways they could improve bus service. An evaluation should take that into account too.

al>"while i think numbers would likely be much higher than that..."

Much higher? How many would you predict long term for museum visitors and trolley riders?

As a comparison the Albright-Knox, a globally-known attraction with a long history, draws about 128,000 yearly visitors says it's annual report.
For a new industrial museum to reach even Sally's 50,000 upper estimate sounds too optimistic. Then to think 10% of those would also ride the trolley (my earlier example of 5,000) sounds on the hopey-ish side too.

About other cities, I'd assume the number that don't have heritage trolleys far exceeds those that do. Some cities might have better sites than others for it.

replied to al labruna
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever,

You might be very surprised how many people visit RR museums.

While most rail museums do not publish their visitation, most are much higher than your estimates. For example: the California State RR museum exceeds half a million visits a year; the Colorado RR museum has 75000; NC Transportation Museum is in the 120000 range; St Louis RR museum in about 160000, etc, etc.

Of course, there are many many smaller ones. But the number you suggest is really in line with only the very smallest institutions that lack any operating equipment in very remote locations.

As far as sufficient numbers for a south Buffalo extension goes, its not really possible to evaluate the route's feasibility without knowing many factors - of which current ridership levels is only one. Please enjoy the link: http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_9063.html#IC_The_Evaluation_Process

Further, you would be surprised what ridership levels make projects like these feasible. I think most people are only exposed to mass transit in cities like NY, Toronto, or Chicago and therefore assume that all systems need to carry 300 passengers with trains every 4 minutes. Its simply not the case.

Keep in mind, many moderately sized cities use rail transit - Norfolk, Tacoma, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Portland, NO, et al. Its not just the megalopolises.


replied to whatever
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

al, Buffalo also uses rail transit too - for better or worse. So the question isn't whether cities this size ever use it (Tacoma, etc.), but looking at each idea on its merits for whether it's the best use of $ to help meet transportation needs for the greatest number of real people.

On that dot.gov website you linked, major factors they show under Project Justification Rating include -
mobility improvements, operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness

Would any of those be rated positively for adding a trolley parallel to the current South Park bus route? (considering factors like ADA laws, snow removal, and the NFTA's unionized labor costs, etc.)

About rail museums, according to this the U.S. has 77 of them but they don't list attendance there.
http://www.railsusa.com/links/Railroad_Museums
I wonder if maybe average among them is closer to (or even below) Sally's generous-sounding guesstimate of 50,000 than it is to the numbers you mention. Or would Buffalo's probably be in the top few for some reason?

replied to al labruna
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever -

I was assuming it was supplanting the SP bus, not in addition to it. Sry about that.

To your point, all those questions are very valid. I would join anyone who also insists in honest evaluation of all transportation alternatives. I know I do not have definitive answers, but casual observations of bus patronage is certainly not a good metric.

Im not sure Im clearly stating my case. Its all about selecting an appropriate vehicle for the application. On some routes buses are the most cost effective means to provide transportation, on others its streetcars, sometimes its lightrail, yet still others its commuter rail. Sure there is some overlap between the modes, and other variables must be considered.

you said:
"On that dot.gov website you linked, major factors they show under Project Justification Rating include -
mobility improvements, operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness. Would any of those be rated positively for adding a trolley parallel to the current South Park bus route?"

I wouldnt be able to definitively answer that - but I would be inclined to say it would be, dependent on a range of factors.


As far as the rail museum goes, there are a lot of them out there ranging in size from a couple of small pieces of equipment rusting away on a siding to big restored collections under operation. My feel for this proposal seems to be on the bigger side of a middle sized museum - and depending on how its developed, it could be getting into the smaller end of the large museums.

Visitation can be driven by an number of factors including excursions, types of equipment, visiting equipment, quality of restoration, programming, conventions, etc. If I had to make an unscientific guess of a future range: anywhere 40 - 130k a year wouldnt surprise me.

replied to whatever
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

al, If a trolley on the right-of-way shown in the aerial photo were to supplant (classy word for replace) the NFTA bus route on S Park as you're suggesting, wouldn't that cause big problems?
Instead of bus stops directly on a major street S Park, there'd be trolley stops 500 ft or more away? Won't that cause complaints about impacts to senior citizens or the disabled?

Even though a few of the rail museums attract those big numbers, it's difficult to believe this rail-industrial museum here would attract 100K annual visitors year after year. I didn't see anything in reports about the museum proposal that even hint it's envisioned to draw that many (if the $25M to build it is ever found).

replied to al labruna
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

WCP>" The Railway Historical Society and Citizens for Regional Transit are commissioning a $30,000 study to provide cost estimates and an operating plan.
.....
"While the Railway Historical Society envisions operating the line..."
.....
"If the Society runs the trolley line, it would lease or buy the corridor from the NFTA."

Sounds like they are planning on operating this line with a significant portion of private dollars. I would have thought using private money for public transportation infrastructure would be up your alley. Is it the rail component that bothers you?

replied to whatever
Score: -1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

pit>"I would have thought using private money for public transportation infrastructure would be up your alley. Is it the rail component that bothers you?"

In my first comment above I already pre-answered that question for you before you asked (as I figure you might, and you did anyway)
whatever>"If people want to donate for the museum or trolley - great."

As I plainly wrote, voluntary funding of the museum and trolley sounds great if anybody wants to.

By the way - apparently they're considering trying to get some taxpayer $ for both.
WCP's article says Mr. Kocsis mentioned the possibility of NYS-owned NFTA constructing or operating the trolley. Reports about the proposed museum mentioned that some state and federal public funds are being sought for that too.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with rail when it's the best choice for something - as sometimes it is.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I see. So a 15 million public-private initiative to diversify the community's transportation options= bad while a 115 million, 100% government financed expressway = good.

I just wanted to make sure your beef was with the mode of transportation and the people who tend to use it and not with the issue of taxpayer responsibility.

replied to whatever
Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

pit, that's some nice bureaucratese to spin this trolley idea as "diversifying a community's transportation options".

Former Sen. Ted "Bridge-to-Nowhere" Stevens, RIP, would be impressed!

But let's unravel it. First, decisions of how much to spend on public transit vs. streets/highways are separate from how best to spend within each.

Within the amount spent on public transportation here, there must be far better uses of several million public $ compared to having a new trolley a few hundred feet from and parallel to an existing bus route. I doubt Higgy will be able to earmark $ for this. If he tries it will get a lot of ridicule.

Maybe if we get Gov. Status Cuomo in Albany on Jan 1, he might love an idea like this to help um - revitalize Upstate or something. So who knows, with proper lobbying maybe you guys can have the last laugh and get state funds for both of these.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The streetcar system in Little Rock specifically runs between existing attractions and bridges the Arkansas River. This has connected the Convention Center and Market District with the Clinton Library and other attractions that used to be separated. This is very different from what is being proposed for Buffalo.

The system in Tampa connects the Cruise terminals with Ybor City, a huge tourist destination.

Denver operates a system similar to what is being proposed here. It is 1.5 miles long and is run by a local non-profit group of rail enthusiasts. It provides a scenic trip along the Platte river and connects a few low traffic museums. The system is run almost entirely on grants and government funding.

An interesting study for Buffalo would be the now abandoned lines in Detroit. This was one of the earliest Heritage trolley systems, started in 1976, with the hope of spurring economic development throughout the city. Despite years of trying and hundreds of millions of dollars in spending, development didn't materialize. The Detroit line was shuttered in 2003/4.

replied to al labruna
Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I don't know if there is enough demand for mass transit from South Buffalo to downtown that would really support an extension even over the Buffalo River. The 16 South Park and 14 Abbott buses aren't ever at full capacity, even during peak commuting hours. Compare this to lines like the 25 Delaware route, 11 Colvin, or the 20 Elmwood routes, and you can see that dollars and political capital on new mass transit would best spent elsewhere within the NFTA.

replied to al labruna
Score: 1 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Buffalo has cheap parking and no traffic which makes it difficult to make mass transit work. Unless you can provide frequent reliable service. People walk 10 mins to the train station, wait 15 to 30 mins for the train to leave. Get in their car for a 5 min car ride home. That turns a 15 min drive to 45 mins-Hour.

Fun, Unique, Builds on our history as a city and it connects directly to canal side.

It could be really cool and different.

The path is great because it already exists. It would be impossible to build otherwise. Homeowners purchased their houses knowing that there is a train track there.

replied to ke$ha
Score: 3 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment


50/50 on the idea. The idea for a trolley is great. The actual path is horrible.

Just look at the path. It goes through backyards and industrial sites and does not connect anything that actually exists today.

Score: 3 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes something connecting this to south buffalo would be awesome. It would be a great way for people from south buffalo to commute to downtown/beyond and for people to get downtown for events without worrying about having to drive/park etc

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This does not connect South Buffalo. It connects the 1st ward but no South Buffalo.

If it were to go over the river...that would be a whole new ballgame.

replied to caseysmigelski
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

This should run on elmwood from buff state, around the front of city hall, intersect the metro rail near canalside, and then continue through to south buffalo, going through cobblestone and the first ward.

North-south intercity transportation would thrive. That line would be used just as much as the metro rail.

Bet the cost would be 100+ million but ridership would be 20-25x what the original route would be and the cost would not even be close to what underground city rail would cost.

Score: 2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Why not just have frequent reliable bus service where you purchase your ticket before you board. Give the bus the ability to extend traffic lights as they approach.

It doesn't look as cool, but it is way cheaper to maintain and does the same exact thing.

If ridership warrents you can alway tear up elmwood and put in a trolly/light rail system.

replied to Urban Cowboy
Score: 0 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree that a bus system would be cheaper and maybe even more efficient, but I feel that elmwood has and is becoming something unique to Buffalo and we should accentuate it. The Albright-knox and Buf state should be enough to warrant trolleys. Combine that with the unique elmwood strip and connect that life to Canalside and you create something special for a relatively low cost.

If Buffalo is going to "rise" up, we have to stop thinking about what is logical and most efficient because we are trying to spur new growth, development, and interest, not just suffice what is existing.

Plus I feel that with a proper budget, this type of trolley system could be finished in about one year. In addition, considering most of the traffic on elmwood is residential, I don't think construction would have a large impact on business in the short term.

replied to Chris
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Cowboy -

Everything depends on selecting the right vehicle for the need. Railed vehicles generally move more people more efficiently, and have much lower long term maintenance costs - as long as the passenger load and other factors warrant the initial expenditure. Elmwood seems like a potential candidate.

That said, the narrow street from Forest to Allen would be an operational challenge. Not impossible to deal with, but a consideration, nonetheless.

Streetcar routes *can* be constructed relatively rapidly. Portland used a shallow slab construction on parts of its system, completing 3-6 block sections in 2 to 3 weeks. Whether or not that kind of application would be feasible here - who knows?

replied to Urban Cowboy
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

While I do think that is a great way for the existing line to be put to good use I feel that in the long run the expenses associated with the product as little as they may be would surpass profits. I see the use of a Heritage trolley connecting to the Heritage Discovery Center more of an amusement park ride for train enthusiasts rather than a form of mass transit. While some may argue that this form of historical entertainment would spur development along the route I would have to argue otherwise.

Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There only seam to be 2 Buffalo Trolleys in existence. a 1930's PCC style originally from Cleveland that was supposed to be part of the NFTA expansion, and a Buffalo / Lockport / Rochester inter urban trolley from 1908.

The PCC is in Brooklyn as part of their Heritage Trolley plan. Originally part of a group of 12 PCC trolleys that came from Cleveland together and went to Brooklyn together, but 11 were illegally removed from their storage yard and disposed of in some fashion by the owner of the property who refuses to explain his actions or even admit that he knows anything about it.

Score: -1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I'm trying to figure out where the C.T.R.C. is in all of this. The board was reconfigured and new people were brought on, I suppose accessibility is not a concern. Also, another reason for concern is that the Central Terminal was not selected for the rail museum. I can't seem to figure out why organizations are just ignoring the Central Terminal building as a viable option and why the Central Terminal board are not pushing for these options. (At lease you don't hear that the Central Terminal building was considered.) Oh, and the reason, "people will not drive there is bogus." People will drive to the Central Terminal - they already are.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think part of the issue with the Central Terminal is that the CTRC has no idea what they are doing with it. It could be a rail museum, expo center, housing, retail, an office building, and/or a train station. No one seems to know what is happening with the building beyond cleaning it up after years of neglect.

I was hopeful that the new board would clarify the future direction of the building. They are definitely doing a lot and getting a lot done and I commend them for that. I just wish we knew what their end game is beyond "rebuild it and they will come".

replied to Joshua
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree 100%. I spent a couple of years helping cleaning up the building. I tried helping the CTRC look for grants, but since one group doesn't know what the other group is doing (inside the CTRC), this caused a lot of problems finding out how much to ask for in the grant. This all should have been ironed out with the new board members, but it was not.

replied to sho'nuff
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I, unfortunately, also agree and have had difficulty getting information for grant applications and see that there is not a lot of direction for the group. I feel they need to put a stake in the ground of a macro purpose for the building, inform the community and let us help them. Unfortunately, none of that seems to currently exist.

replied to Joshua
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think they explained that the Central Terminal didn't have the tracks that they needed because many are still in use.

replied to Travelrrr
Score: 3 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Oh ye lacking creativity’s faith . . .

Suggestion - have a contest to pick a distinctive “Buffalo” bell sound (ala San Francisco’s) for the trolley. That could start immediately.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

A year later and I was wondering if there is any updates on this?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment

Buffalo Rising Poll