Share, , , Google Plus, Reddit, Pinterest, StumbleUpon

Print

Posted in:

Tielman continues to advocate Buffalo Nexus as preferred Amtrak location

Proposal on short list for new train station location to be announced Thursday, April 20th.

The Campaign for Greater Buffalo History, Architecture & Culture is preparing to showcase its plans for a new downtown train station, in an effort to demonstrate that the area that comprises Canal District and lower Main Street is the best bet at this juncture. Campaign executive director Tim Tielman has branded the site as Buffalo Nexus. The presentation on Monday, April 17 (12:30pm) will be held at the auditorium lobby inside One Seneca Tower, which overlooks the proposed site. 

Tielman feels that this is still the best site for the transportation-oriented development, despite a recent uptick in political and community support for the Central Terminal as the preferred location. Tielman and Campaign members worked on the Nexus project for two years, to show that the station would be an ideal fit for Buffalo’s “Golden Triangle” – a part of the city that was a big economic driver over the last century. Tielman and his supporters feel that this area is already primed for the project, which would enhance all of the other recent developments that have occurred around the site as of late. The Buffalo Nexus is considered to be an ideal hub that would service a growing urban population, while helping to enhance a more vibrant downtown.

“The train station question is, first and foremost, how do we support public transit users and train users, and thereby support Amtrak? What spot in Buffalo can do that best?” says Tielman.  “How can we leverage that to support our other public investments?”

Written by Buffalo Rising

Buffalo Rising

Sometimes the authors at Buffalo Rising work on collaborative efforts in order to cover various events and stories. These posts can not be attributed to one single author, as it is a combined effort. Often times a formation of a post gets started by one writer and passed along to one or more writers before completion. At times there are author attributions at the end of one of these posts. Other times, “Buffalo Rising” is simply offered up as the creator of the article. In either case, the writing is original to Buffalo Rising.

View All Articles by Buffalo Rising
Hide Comments
Show Comments
  • Bruce Baker

    This looks like a very sterilized piece of concrete. No design appeal what so ever. Might as well bump the project. Oh remember CENTRAL TERMINAL ? Buffalo could have one of the most unique and historical stations in the country but some one is paying some one to build a crappy train station DOWNTOWN ?

    • Travis Carlson

      Buffalo did have a unique and beautiful terminal. Then no one used it. It was abandoned. Then even less people took trains in the US. A shoddy DT station was built to allow efficient access.

      Bear in mind the rise of the east side was prior to CT construction and it’s decline happened during and after CT was in full swing.

  • Bruce Baker

    Spread the wealth , use the CENTRAL TERMINAL.

    • Johnny Pizza

      “Spread the wealth”
      Communism has been tried and failed enough times to call foul on your request.

      • No_Illusions

        Odd, didn’t fail restoring landmarks like the Richardson Olmsted Complex or Darwin Martin House

        • lexwood

          you need to consider the neighborhoods they are in.

          • No_Illusions

            Sure, but if we want to improve Broadway Fillmore (which didn’t have any difficulty attracting people to the Broadway Market this year) then it has to start somewhere.

        • Travis Carlson

          Thanks Tim! …and CT Restoration Corp, and Larkinville, and Hamlin Park, and Canalside, and Cobblestone District and the other projects he’s been involved in and given more personal energy in defending than potentially anyone else in the community.

      • Mr. B

        “Communism has been tried and failed enough times to call foul on your request.”

        Guess somebody forgot to tell that to the world’s second largest economy and most populous nation . . .

        .

        • Johnny Pizza

          You realize that China is starting to falter right? All that growth fueled by government spending is unsustainable, just like it was for Russia. But instead of nukes and guns its literally entire cities built that have fewer residents than East Aurora. Another important thing to note is that China’s growth to the 2nd largest has come slowly as they have become a bigger player in the capitalist, free market, which is the opposite of communism. Look at Russia’s economy as another example.

  • Daniel Zielinski

    This man should not get an entire article for his frugal ideas.

    • Mr. B

      “This man should not get an entire article for his frugal ideas.”

      I have that same thought every time I read one of Matt Ricchiazzi’s screeds . . .

      .

    • Michael DiPasquale

      You’re wrong. What is the basis for saying such a thing?

      • Davvid

        You give him way too much credit. His ideas are not great. He’s just good at getting attention.

        • Michael DiPasquale

          Really? Larkinville, Canalside and the renovation of the Richardson Complex (all projects envisioned by Tielman) aren’t good ideas?

          • MD

            *crickets* 😂

          • Chris Ostrander

            Tielman is a leech who will do all he can to stop a project until he can get his name attached to it. For years he fought against building out the parcels on Canalside crying about what the market dictates and a bunch of other nonsense and now all of a sudden he has a project which does exactly that.

            Tim Tielman is a joke

            http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2012/11/01/the-curiousness-of-selective-preservationist-outrage/

          • jonny99

            Didn’t Tielman suggest building a shantytown on top of of a parking deck with ice rinks exposed to the elements on the rooftop? I am sure that would have attracted a lot of hockey tourneys.

          • Davvid

            You think it was his idea to reuse the Richardson Complex and develop the waterfront? You can’t be serious.

  • The design of the station isn’t doing it for me, sorry. It not hideous, but it just doesn’t look right here. Take a look at the Airport for great infrastructure architecture.

    Now his Canalside plan is the way to go, or at least a step in the right direction, but we’re probably not getting anything close to that.

    • Chris Ostrander

      Tielman’s canalside plan isn’t much different from the 08 master plan or any previously revised master plans for the various parcels on the Aud Block or across Marine Dr. It’s actually fairly similar to plans he railed against going back to 08, 09, 10 when The Aud had just come down and plans were coming together to develop and then market the built out space.

      The foundation is the same and what ECHDC absolutely needs to follow though. Establish new builds within the design standards set forth for Canalside using the historic look/feel of the Canal era in an effort to mimic what was once there. Push that available space to retailers, restaurants etc and fill the space.

      • They need to follow through on that (and it’ll take them another 10 years just to put up a few more buildings).

        But what I think I’m getting at is that whatever is built there should be dense as it was 100 years ago. Not as dense, but density should be a guiding principle with form and style

        • Chris Ostrander

          I agree. In fact that what makes Tielman’s “idea” make so much sense, it’s the common sense solution for the space. I have no issue with the idea or that you endorse it, I take issue with Tielman being so outspoken against so many iterations of Canalside only to release his own which is basically the same exact thing

  • Mr. B

    Cool graphics.

    Central Terminal, please . . .

    .

  • Michael DiPasquale

    Don’t get hung up on what the new station will look like. Think about location. From Canalside and the outer harbor to the Richardson complex, Tielman’s vision has been ahead of the pack, and always right. I trust his recommendation for a downtown train station.

  • Jake S

    I am all for saving and renovating CT, but I have to agree here. I don’t see how putting a train station here, which will be used predominantly outside of business hours for most routes, would suddenly infuse all kinds of economic impact into this building and surrounding neighborhood. Further, there is no direct access at CT for additional connections via light rail, bus, and no direct access to amenities.

    • Davvid

      Nobody is claiming that this alone will turn around the neighborhood. It will contribute to momentum and changing perception of this area. It will invest in preserving an extremely important building. It will put pressure on the city to invest in the local infrastructure and in public safety. We need to stop consolidating investment in only a few select neighborhoods.

      There can easily be direct connections via shuttle to the metro line and to the bus terminal. Lets remember that this is a train station for the region, not just for the neighborhoods directly adjacent to the Metro line.

  • David Pastor

    nothing like dropping a bomb the last minute

    • Travis Carlson

      ha.

  • David Pastor

    There should have been a submittal process and a deadline. Not adding new options at the eleventh hour. And Tim Tielman calls himself a preservationists.

    • Ra Cha Cha

      He has had this proposal out for months now.

    • townline

      You’ve apparently been taking a LOOONG nap.

  • David Pastor

    Just the fact it’s built under the thruway makes it a stupid idea.

    • No_Illusions

      Why? This is dead space. I can’t think of a better use of space than building the station underneath the Thruway.

      Ideally they would remove the 190 downtown, but that’s not going to happen any time soon.

      • CS Hunters

        Can’t wait until a 40-50lb slab of concrete come crashing through the roof.

        • No_Illusions

          Pretty sure there’s been no crushed trains or parked cars in the history of the 190.

          With proper maintenance this is a non-issue.

          • CS Hunters

            Proper maintenance…. like the roof of the Exchange St. Station that started this journey?

          • No_Illusions

            Amtrak isn’t maintaining the 190, NYSDOT is.

          • CS Hunters

            Exactly. Does it matter who owns the slab that falls off? Nope. The point being is you put a building under a roadbed – stuff happens. “I can’t think of a better use of space than building the station underneath the Thruway.”

            http://kfor.com/2015/09/17/overpass-crumbles-concrete-falls-on-passing-cars/

          • No_Illusions

            Uh there’s already tracks and parking under there…

          • CS Hunters

            I think you’re having a difficult time understanding the basic premise. If you put a building under a road as in: “I can’t think of a better use of space than building the station underneath the Thruway.”

            Then any chunks of concrete that fall will come crashing through the station “underneath the Thruway.”

          • Johnny Pizza

            If you had even a single instance of “chunks of concrete” falling off any elevated Buffalo highway then maybe you’d have a leg to stand on. As it stands you’re assuming that something that has never happened, will happen, with certainty. Now that’s not to say it couldn’t happen, but I don’t personally make decisions on things that have a .00000000000000001% chance of happening. Heck I don’t even bank on things that have a 10% chance of happening.

          • CS Hunters
          • BuffaloGals

            You’ve shared one example in Buffalo from 2014 and one example from Salt Lake City in 2015. Again, explain how building a train station under an overpass is anymore dangerous that building roads and sidewalks under the thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands of underpasses all around the country that don’t crush cars or pedestrians every day.

          • CS Hunters

            Really? You really asked this question….. Why is it different?

            Probability. A block of concrete falling over a road or sidewalk damages whatever is under it. So what is the probability of a moving car or person being hit – low. A roadway over a static building is a 100% hit.

          • BuffaloGals

            Haha ok. Well I hope we don’t ever build anything with a roof/ceiling then. By we I mean the human race.

        • Travis Carlson

          This is sensational and unfounded. The station and pedestrians and vehicles currently function under the this thruway, other thruways and inside concrete buildings every moment of every day. You know that.

          This is some of the reason why rehabbing or even heating CT is literally not included in the proposals, safety, cost and code. Why the proposals have CT passengers not entering the building, but exiting adjacent.

          The proposal seeks to redress the visual and audio pollutant cutting through downtown with another functioning, light-filled space. And one with rail tracks, routes and other amenities.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ab120b3fcd6ed672f097f968224d079503355c9be8f9fba544b06932a042dfe2.png

          • CS Hunters

            That is one of three options for the Terminal. Of course they are going to include a direct link and bypass the Terminal as an option but that’s not what the community wants.

            I know you may say it is: “sensational and unfounded”, but it isn’t. Not understanding or taking into account the envelope of safety or risk mitigation is foolhardy.

            http://wivb.com/2014/01/23/i-290-bridge-joint-damages-16-vehicles/

    • JayDBuffalo

      Care to back that up with any reasoning?
      This is space that would NEVER get utilized. I think it’s a pretty great idea. Doesnt take away a useful plot of land.

      • BuffaloGals

        Agree, while I 100% think CT should be the location, I thought the use of the underpass was the best part of this.

        • CS Hunters

          If you put a building under a road as in: “I can’t think of a better use of space than building the station underneath the Thruway.”

          Then any chunks of concrete that fall will come crashing through the station “underneath the Thruway.”

          • JayDBuffalo

            Wow we get it. You think chunks of concrete are constantly falling at such excessive speed they will obliterate anything underneath.
            probably shouldnt build it in the open either because of all the meteors that will hit it!

          • CS Hunters

            Don’t be ridiculous. Point of fact is that the State as well as the city (see Exchange Station roof that started this) do not keep roads/bridges as well maintained as it should. Placement under a working bridge is problematic for the station and for bridge/road maintenance.

          • JayDBuffalo

            Pretty sure only of us is being ridiculous…

          • CS Hunters
          • BuffaloGals

            We’re worried about chunks of concrete falling through the train station? That seems like it’d be a problem regardless of whether there is a train station under there, seeing as pedestrians and cars pass under the 190 at numerous locations. I imagine the solution to that would be to maintain the 190 so that deadly chunks of concrete don’t fall, as I imagine its already maintained.

          • CS Hunters
          • BuffaloGals

            OK, different highway, but if that’s a concern, its a concern regardless of whether the trainstation is there. How many highway overpasses are there in New York that pedestrians and cars travel under? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? What does this have to do with a train station?

          • BuffaloGals

            Also, article is 3 and half years old. Is that the only example?

  • Andy Wulf

    In any sensible city, “HarborCenter will block the view of the sunset down Perry Street” would have been the end of anyone putting any stock into anything Tielman says.

    • Chris Ostrander

      This gets all the upvotes

  • CS Hunters

    Shiny graphics are great to look at but then again – look at what Solar City was touted to look like – space age and modern turned into a giant warehouse. So don’t get fooled by the eye candy.

    The question is – should we be developing a single use building owned by the city, on prime real estate, that will not add one penny to the tax rolls?

    This train station project should be viewed as not a replacement station but an economic development project that is a train station. While some may say…. What is he talking about? It’s the way the project should be looked as well as all public investment.

    The question should always be asked: What is the highest use of public funding for the task at hand?

    I would argue that public investment in Buffalo’s Central Terminal is the higher use because it would foster private investment. The complex has a “designated developer” agreement with the owners of the Terminal which is a great starting point. Development of a “station-within-a-station” would drive more people to the location on a daily basis which would allow for small shops to open within the concourse. These could be all co-developed with the development of the Concourse by the developer. At the end of the day public investment would drive private investment and allow the Central Terminal to return to the tax rolls for the benefit of the City and County.

    If the Terminal is a bad investment because it’s not in the core of DT Buffalo, then the same could have been said for the Richardson Complex. And how is that turning out?

    • No_Illusions

      To be fair, those renderings were from when the project was just Silveo and Soraa.

      Nobody foresaw Silveo being bought out and having to dramatically expand the project.

      • CS Hunters

        But what is typical is that the community is hoodwinked with idyllic looking building plans and ideas to enhance the landscape that turn out to be fairytale or a pale image of what was rendered. Solar City, Bass Pro, $800 million Magical Lands of Oz theme park in Wheatfield, etc…. let’s see how the new Ciminelli TOPS Market will end up.

        An expanded Solar City project could have carried on a similar look if they so desired.

        • No_Illusions

          Personally I’m glad they went with speed than wasting time and money for some ostentatious design.

          Last thing we need is another Canalside debacle where arguments over design elements has slowed down the project significantly.

        • grovercleveland

          Its a factory. No one ever cared what it looked like.

          • CS Hunters

            But it goes to the fact that the community is shown their really nice buildings to get our buy-in only to have the switch-a-roo later on. Why can’t a factory look nice? It occupies our landscape which is no different than any other type of building or structure.

          • grovercleveland

            No, the community was shown advanced manufacturing jobs in a zip code famous for old manufacturing jobs. The chance to be ahead of the curve in a growing industry mattered, not what a freaking factory looked like.

          • CS Hunters

            I agree but aesthetics of a place hold court when trying to get eyes and agreement on a project.

    • Johnny Pizza

      “then the same could have been said for the Richardson Complex. And how is that turning out?”

      Um well its not open yet so if you have a time machine and know the future please tell me all about how it turns out.

      • CS Hunters

        Sure it is. Friends booked a pre-opening weekend there this past week. Plus you can get inside and tour to see all the development. Plus, the Buffalo Architecture Center is taking shape there. So you can see how public development has fostered private development. https://buffaloarchitecturecenter.wordpress.com/ https://www.hotelhenry.com/

        • Johnny Pizza

          “If the Terminal is a bad investment because it’s not in the core of DT Buffalo, then the same could have been said for the Richardson Complex.”
          You’ve missed my point. You’re basically saying the Richardson Complex was a good investment. I’m saying you really can’t say whether an investment is good or bad before its even fully operational. Tours don’t qualify.
          And can you clear me up on the private investment? I think the entire project was paid for with lawsuit proceeds from taxpayers.

          • CS Hunters

            The State owned the Richardson Complex and the “Blue Blood” Buffalo Families shamed Pataki into funding its stabilization and some redevelopment. I believe The Mansion of Delaware made investments in the location. If the State still owns the complex who can it be in the hotel business?

            From a Stepping out Article (DECEMBER 14, 2015): “It just so happens that the creators of Buffalo’s award winning Mansion on Delaware will be the ones operating Hotel Henry and bringing their world class style along for the ride. The Group is committed to – and clearly experienced in – restoring unproductive and tattered historical structures into gorgeous, grade A venues you casually hint to everyone you know to take you to. Hotel Henry will feature 88 guest rooms and suites with full-service amenities and seamlessly integrated technology…”

            So stabilization and renovation led to private investment – a Hotel, a Conference Center, a Buffalo Architecture Center museum and education facility. More to come….

            https://stepoutbuffalo.com/hotel-henry/

  • Randy503

    The arguments for downtown basically come to this:
    Putting the train station at CT is a total waste because it will not revitilize or contribute to the economic growth of the East Side. Mainly because Amtrak services so few people it will not make any difference.
    So must put the new station downtown because it will have a dramatic impact upon the economic growth of downtown, because so many people use Amtrak. The passengers will pour money into millions of dollars and create thousands of jobs.

    • No_Illusions

      Yeah, but the CT is already a minor Eastside destination.

      A train station is not going to revilatize the surrounding neighborhood, but a restored Central Terminal with businesses and apartments might.

      Restoring train service will just guarantee that the building will be renovated sooner than later.

    • Davvid

      Exactly, sounds pretty contradictory to me.

    • Johnny Pizza

      Can you point out where in the article that Tielman says the new station will provide a dramatic economic impact? It sounds more like he is saying lets put the station in a place that is already seeing growth to leverage further growth.

    • Dan

      “…and create thousands of jobs”? Oh, brother. Such magical thinking. If you believe that, you should read the 1981 justification report for the subway. Main St real estate values would skyrocket, thousands of jobs created, Buffalo’s population would rebound to pre-WWII levels. Everything promised but peace in the Middle East.

      Furthermore, in your first paragraph you poo-poo the notion of any impacts on the East Side “because Amtrak services so few people” it will not make a difference. In your second paragraph you note that it will be a boon to downtown “because so many people use Amtrak”. So please decide.

      The station should be sited based on its capacity to shuttle people in and out of Buffalo, not on its potential to single-handedly revitalize a neighborhood. So far the best arguments I’ve heard for CT do focus on its actual capacity to move trains. Arguments for downtown have focused on its capacity to somehow turn Canalside into Pike Place Market. Very little mentioned about the actual movement of trains and people. Do these arguments not exist or are they just ignored by people who inherently value form over function?

      • Randy503

        Please Dan, calm down. I support the train station at CT. I am mocking the arguments of those in favor of downtown, because that is exactly what they argue.

        • Johnny Pizza

          “I am mocking the arguments of those in favor of downtown”

          Actually you’re mocking a straw man argument that you created in your head. As previously requested, show me where Tielman or others made the argument that putting the station downtown will be an economic driver.

          From the article – “which would enhance all of the other recent developments that have occurred around the site as of late”
          That means it will help elevate what is already going on, not that it will be the driver to more development.

          • BuffaloGals

            OK, if there are so few passengers, how is it enhancing anything? Isn’t saying it will enhance all the other developments another way of saying it will be an economic driver? I think his point stands regardless. Can it be argued that Amtrak services too few people to make a difference at Central Terminal (which would service more people than Canalside) and then argued that the Canalside location enhances everything else down there?

        • Dan

          Mockery doesn’t often read well in text, so my apologies for misreading you. But I am curious about what positive case, if any, exists for downtown as an actual train station (track width, radii, linkage, switching, capacity, etc.) and not just as an urban designer’s fantasy. You’re correct in that this weirdly-basic precept has been missing from at least one half of the debate.

          • Randy503

            Quite all right! Glad you are a bro-in-arms. But you are right, I don’t get the point of downtown when CT is superior.

    • OldFirstWard

      I’m a huge Tim Tielman supporter, yet I cannot understand why he is not in favor of investing in the future of the historic Central Terminal. Tielman is supposed to be a leading preservationist, not a progressive. His credibility is at stake here and he is losing it fast. I still believe the decline of Tielman the “vocal preservationist” came about when he sold out his loyalty to Howard Zemsky. Now, I don’t think he can get out from under Zemsky’s wing, a big Cuomo supporter and political appointee. The Campaign has been compromised.

      It is unprecedented for a leading preservationist to abandon the support for investment in restoring an architectural icon in favor of a new downtown station with that ridiculous tower. Where is Tielman the preservationist?

      • Mr. B

        “Tielman is supposed to be a leading preservationist, not a progressive.”

        Those two aren’t mutually exclusive.

        Shocking, I know . . .

        .

        • MrGreenJeans

          Thanks for enlightening us

    • townline

      I hear CT advocates calling for that alternative because it will be the catalyst for the east side’s revitalization. I hear the Downtown advocates say that we need to continue to build upon the incremental resources we’ve already placed downtown and not take a step backwards by removing an important piece of infrastructure that is already located at the nexus of the region’s transportation systems.

      CT alternative is about pushing a silver bullet. Downtown is about the next piece to the puzzle that has resulted in growing success.

    • CS Hunters

      The argument and perception of a dramatic impact and creation of thousands of job is flawed on its face.

      No one will come down to hang out in a downtown train station. CT on the other hand – plenty – as there is a demand for the space today. That’s why public investment will foster private investment and help put that building back on the city and county tax rolls.

  • robert biniszkiewicz

    downtown is a far better location. The paltry activity from the train station will minimally impact the areas around either CT or downtown; economic activity isn’t the basis upon which we should decide location; there’s barely any to move the needle.

    The reason downtown is better is that 1) for those tourists who do use the trains, bringing them to downtown instead of the middle of no man’s land is vastly better from a PR standpoint–bring visitors to our best places, not those in most need–and 2) for locals who use the trains, downtown is far easier to access than CT.

    • No_Illusions

      I agree that downtown is the better location, but a restored CT is more than just about a restoring service. It’s about restoring a Buffalo landmark with residential and offices too.

    • East Auroran

      “economic activity isn’t the basis upon which we should decide location.”

      No, it should be decided on what’s the best place for trains. And the NYC determined many years ago, when train travel was the dominant mode of transportation, that locating the CT on a direct east-west line was the most efficient place for a train station, ensuring easy travel in all directions, without having to back up trains for more than a mile to return to the main line.

      The airport isn’t close to downtown, or served by light rail. Yet it works just fine, and no one advocates building a new one at Canalside. And the CT is an easy10-minute cab ride from downtown.

      Would a renovated CT spark economic development on the East side? Who knows? I know for sure an abandoned one won’t. And saving another Buffalo treasure from destruction is an added benefit.

      • No_Illusions

        Sure, people make things work, but why not try to make things better.

        Almost every major airport is connected with rail in other large cities. Buffalo is the exception, not the rule.

        Long term parking and taxis are expensive. If you’re just on a business trip and will be downtown why add the expense of a car rental?

        • Pig_Lightning

          “Almost every major airport is connected with rail in other large cities. Buffalo is the exception, not the rule.”

          Completely false. Only 16 of the top 50 metro areas have rail connections to airports. Another four have plans in the works. The smallest metro planning a rail connection is Las Vegas (31), twice the size of Buffalo’s metro (ranked #50).

          I support rail to airport but we don’t need to misrepresent the facts.

          • No_Illusions

            If it works and makes things more convenient, then why not go for it?

            Buffalo is one of the few cities with an abandoned ROW all the way to the airport. It’s a relatively cheap addition we can make.

      • Mr. B

        “No, it should be decided on what’s the best place for trains. And the
        NYC determined many years ago, when train travel was the dominant mode
        of transportation, that locating the CT on a direct east-west line was
        the most efficient place for a train station, ensuring easy travel in
        all directions, without having to back up trains for more than a mile to
        return to the main line.”

        Exactly.

        When building an airport, you aren’t just building a control tower or terminal building; you’re building runways, taxiways, hangars, etc., and need space to accommodate them.

        When building a train station/terminal — and this is what the downtown advocates forget — you aren’t just building a terminal, you have rail lines, storage/repair sheds, crossing points, switches, turnarounds, etc., and need space to accommodate them.

        So I ask again: for those advocating for the terminal downtown/Canalside, which buildings structures do you want demolished to create space for the trains that will use it?

        .

        • Travis Carlson

          If you think Central Terminal is the best location based on the NY Central Railroad’s non-consensus 1925 decision then bear in mind that there were 4 stations downtown operating at the same time (and for far longer) and that Central Terminal is a failed train station, not an active one.

          The place the downtown advocates seek to put the new station near canalside is four feet from where the inadequate train station currently is, on rail infrastructure already active, adjacent to facilities travelers need (local and out-of-town) and 70 NFTA bus/metro routes. We will be replacing a hardly-noticed parking lot, reusing the historic street stones and converting the dark underbelly of the 190 which cuts through the city into a visual connector

          Check out the video with the details
          https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=buffalo%20train%20station%20downtown

          • East Auroran

            Will the eastbound/westbound trains still have to back up from this downtown station to reach the main line? Is this the most efficient location for train service in all four directions?

            1. Yes. 2. No.

      • Johnny Pizza

        “And the NYC determined many years ago, when train travel was the dominant mode of transportation, that locating the CT on a direct east-west line was the most efficient place for a train station,”
        Flawed logic. Using that logic the DOT determined the 198 to be the most efficient place for a highway, so leave it exactly as is.
        Believe it or not, mankind has gotten smarter since 1929. There is at least a remote possibility that CT was not the best location for a train station.

        • East Auroran

          One can question whether the 198 is still needed. But the 198 still does an excellent job of moving traffic through that part of Buffalo, which is why it was built. That is beyond dispute.

          Keep trying. The CT was built where it was because it was the best place to serve train traffic going in all four directions. That has not changed since 1929.

    • foreverbflo

      You go Bob!

      I was advocating the CT for the longest time and still would like to see this happen for that community, but this post – along with the editorial in the Buff News today on the same subject – make sense overall. Its better for the locale noted and simpler… And, we have to think of the big picture.
      I am NOT dissing the east side or Bway Fillmore community – heck, I have been an active player adn staunch advocate for years in the community. ITs just that after inhaling all the discussions, facts, insights, financials, logistics, etc… it boils down to a downtown station and NOT Canalside btw.

      And, I agree with many folks who have written about this issue that we only get a couple of dozen passengers coming through here. Thats not going to help the CT.
      But, I certainly realize that locating the new station at the CT will be a significant catalyst for further (re)development and it has to start somewhere with a great vision, faith and persistence – and $$ and government support in some way.

      Often I am torn between the two, and still am slightly. My whole family on both sides going back 4 generations populated the BF community and my dad and uncles worked at the CT as teens. But a station downtown makes the most sense – all personal sentiment and nostalgia….set aside.

    • Davvid

      Most tourists arriving in WNY, either by train or by plane, are probably going to take a taxi to their destination. Everytime I take the train, the parking lot is full of cars that are picking people up or dropping people off. There will need to be a large parking lot to accommodate this activity at the new train station.

  • Spider13

    Absolutely the Central Terminal would be a grand entrance for visitors coming to Buffalo. Unfortunately the CT isn’t any closer to downtown in 2017 than it was when it was built in 1929. Amtrak stations for Empire Service and the Maple Leaf

  • No_Illusions

    On one hand a station Downtown makes the most sense at the moment as 20% of all jobs and 30% of hotel rooms in the region can be found there.

    One the otherhand a train station component makes a restored Central Terminal a possibility in the short term. The Central Terminal would easily be another architectural draw like the Darwin Martin House.

    The issue with the CT is that without a Metrorail expansion, we might as well just renovate Depew Station in terms of convenience.

    • bburbs

      The problem with the Depew Amshack is location, location, location. For a tourist detraining from the Lake Shore Ltd or waiting for a connecting train to Toronto (there are a few poor souls stranded there in that situation) , there are no hotels, shopping, restaurants within walking distance and very poor bus service. Central Terminal and a platform downtown to replace the Exchange Street stop works out best. That, plus the addition of more trains between Niagara Falls and New York (are you listening New York State?). CSX should also be reminded by New York and Amtrak that they have a obligation as a common carrier to operate in the best interests of the public and provide reliable transportation service , be it the hauling of passenger or freight service.

  • Michael DiPasquale

    Downtown is the best location for a new train station.

    • CS Hunters

      why? What’s your argument?

  • Bruce Baker

    Who is getting paid to push this sterile looking building. A child could design this station.

    • Travis Carlson

      No one is getting paid. It’s my understanding they are volunteer efforts – and I know for sure that they are not design proposals, but location proposals

  • BeatHarvard

    I keep going back and forth on this but downtown is starting to win me over. That said they really need a better rendering if they want to get the general public on their side.

  • Johnny Pizza

    I believe it would be a poor choice to invest in a train station that would bring out of town guests to the most plighted part of our city.

  • grovercleveland

    Count me as a vote for don’t build a train station. Does anyone honestly believe that people say “I was going to take the train to Buffalo today,but their train station is ugly”?

    This is going to be a colossal waste of money. Stop chasing shiny objects and put the money to good use.

  • Meliq

    The Central Terminal is actually fairly far from downtown ( I realized this when I was driving to the Broadway Market last week from Main St.). There is a an AWFUL LOT of infill needed to make that area feel connected to downtown Main St. In all honesty, as much as I’d like to see it reused, putting the new train station there will do little to revitalize and reconnect this area of the East Side to downtown. There is too much barren space and deterioration between the two spaces. I don’t think I will ever see the East Side brought back to it’s former vitality in my lifetime (I’m 41). A train station will not contribute much to it. What we need is massive amounts of businesses,jobs, and industry to come first, then the people will move in, creating small, necessary businesses thus becoming a dense neighborhood.

    • Randy503

      Yeah, kinda like how the airport is so far away from downtown. It’s a wonder anyone flies in and out of there.

      • No_Illusions

        Yeah, but people expect airports to be far outside cities.

        People expect to be dropped out right downtown (or close by when riding the train). It’s one of the top reasons for taking the train over a flight. No need to worry about Transportation once you arrive if you’re just going to see a concert, go to a sporting event of are visiting an office.

      • MD

        Exactly.. look how much economic development has come from the airport. Cheektowaga is thriving thanks to all the tourists the airport draws. And to see all the kids moving down there because its the hip new place.

  • MD

    Lets revitalize a piece of Buffalo history! Even if all the money is spent on rail road infrastructure and not restoration and even if it means costing the tax payers millions more. I mean sure, it may be less accessible for most of the community than DT. And passengers trying to get to to DT will have to take an additional mode of transportation to get there. And sure, a train station isn’t going to deliver salvation to an impoverished east side. But its so pretty and I’m so nostalgic about what it once was!

  • thestip

    Here is the argument against Downtown that no one is talking about, there is no expandability. Due to the curve restrictions with the cut under Main street and the support posts for the 190, only one track and one platform fits in this location. What is being proposed in a Downtown station is one that can only handle one train at a time in perpetuity. What if (and I know its a big IF) we ever did put commuter rail on the Belt Line or up to Niagara Falls? Or, NYS actually builds the 3rd track across Upstate for Amtrak and service is added? There is no where to add another track let alone another platform. So your new expensive downtown station is obsolete. At least with the Central Terminal you can just reactivate another of the old platforms (granted new track and updates to the platform would be needed). Still, you have to ability to add service if it comes along. Downtown does not offer this ability in this location.

    • CS Hunters

      And to go west from DT, the train would need to back up a mile on shared CSX Rail lines.

    • No_Illusions

      Eh, if they restore the belt line, we’re talking 20 years minimum.

      The line to Amherst won’t be opened until 2025 at the earliest, if everything goes well.

    • Johnny Pizza

      Trust me, before Buffalo is so large that we need another train stop or the Belt Line, mankind will have already destroyed itself.

  • Fly Street

    How do we sustain the fragile momentum started? Why isn’t there a conversation on how to link the Airport and UB North? And WHY O DEAR LORD WHY does somebody keep giving Tielman a soapbox?

    This is the stupidest debate when there are still so many issues that Buffalo’s “renaissance” faces IMHO.

  • lexwood

    Imagine it’s 10:30 pm and it’s just you and the 3 other people that got off the train. As you walk through the cavernous (yet beautiful) terminal you notice it’s empty. All you hear is the echo of your footsteps as you make your way outside. There you find yourself alone, cold and freightened. In the distance you see the bright lights of downtown. A downtown you have heard all about. The nightlife, the parties. You need a cab, no an uber! But there is not one in sight, so you sit on your suitcase, and wait… and wonder to yourself “WTF? who’s bright idea was it to put the train station way out here?”

    • East Auroran

      Uh, if the train arrived, cabs would be there, because that’s when the customers become available. And of course the station would not be empty.
      And please tell me how your make-believe story is any different than when you enter the airport terminal after a late-night flight on a commuter plane with 20 other passengers? Nevermind that the airport terminal is at least five miles further away from those bright lights of downtown.

      • lexwood

        Um, no they would not be there. Cabs don’t wait around for hours for the potential 5 customers. I pick up a friend from the exchange station at that time and there is no cabs waiting. And that is downtown! And let’s just say there is a cab waiting, our new visitors would be in for a ride through one of Buffalo’s most desolated, abandoned and dangerous neighborhoods. First impressions are the strongest!
        Aa for the airport, there is always a high number of passengers waiting for a cab.

        • East Auroran

          I am sure for decades, then, arriving train passengers enjoyed their ride through the abandoned wasteland that is now Canalside. Or arriving plane passengers loved the view of the abandoned Westinghouse plant and the beauty that is the Genesee Street corridor. Wonder what their first impressions were?
          And I guess the cab driver(s) who were smart enough to show up at the CT when the train arrived would get a nice fare (s).

          • Cvepo

            “I expect when someone gets off the train at the new CT they would be
            pretty darn impressed that someone had the foresight to save such a
            magnificent building.”

            No. They wouldn’t.

          • East Auroran

            Yeah, like no one says that when they visit the Darwin Martin house, or like no one will say that when they stay at the hotel at the Richardson complex.

          • Cvepo

            The CT is in the worst neighborhood in the city and it’s evident if you take off those rose colored “Buffalo Renaissance” glasses. One step out of the building, and the beauty of the CT fades away when you see urban blight and decay. No one (out-of-towners at least) will give a crap if it was rehabbed and saved.

          • East Auroran

            Tell me what you saw at Canalside 15 years ago? You’re losing your own argument.

          • Cvepo

            Canalside has proximity to Downtown, which despite being desolate has always had a consistent population and frequent visitors/clientele. Canalside development was inevitable. The East Side does not have that. It probably never will. And I like how you respond, and just assume you’re “winning” the argument without even waiting for my response. You must be a joy at parties.

          • East Auroran

            I am!
            And even with flight from the area, more people still live on the East side than downtown. And that’s where cheap housing opportunities still exist, as the rest of the city becomes more expensive.

          • Cvepo

            So are you going to up and move your family to the East Side to send your kids to their amazing public schools because of a cheap house?

          • East Auroran

            Ten years ago Rhode Island, Massachusetts and other streets on the west side of Richmond Avenue were not considered suitable. Now it’s one of the hottest areas in the city.
            And people who live in the richest parts of Buffalo send their kids to private schools too. Or to City Honors. Those “amazing schools” are not limited to the East side.

          • Travis Carlson

            Populaition density of Buffalo and access with $2 public transportation and 30-min or less travel time

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5b1115c4603c935ce93932d94497bebb5ace33456a7f156ba3eb2a75426cb3d.jpg

          • Travis Carlson

            Nice fares indeed, just under $40 for roundtrip cap from CT/Airport and population-rich neighborhoods of B. Rock, S. Buff, West Side, Universities.

        • Mr. B

          “Um, no they would not be there. Cabs don’t wait around for hours for the potential 5 customers.”

          Well, perhaps the “potential 5 customers” had the foresight to call their friends/relatives — or a cab — ahead of time . . .

          .

    • Randy503

      Or you can walk from the empty hall to the metro station and board an LRRT train that will whisk you right down to the city. And you marvel and the efficiency of it all, and you are awed by the architecture. You then decide you would like to see more of it.

      • lexwood

        completely agree. Unfortunately there are no plans or funds for a LRRT extension.

      • Travis Carlson

        since that would cost over $200m to build a commuter rail line for those several hundred passengers a day, why not just let amtrak drop them off downtown on the tracks they already utlize, without a transfer?

    • No_Illusions

      Cabs know when trains arrive. It’s not an issue for Depew station currently.

    • CS Hunters

      Keep your day job as your narrative holds no water. At 10:30pm DT is not the hustle or bustle you make it out to be. Putting a station in the Terminal will bring in private investment. – Tim Hortons, restaurants, etc… You project nothing positive coming in to support of the station. Closing the Depew station will move 114,000 people arriving and departing from the Terminal.

      Plus we’ll still need a train station DT. You need to educate yourself on how the rail line runs and the Amtrak options to get into Buffalo. Someone going DT from the east would get off at the DT station. Buffalo needs two stations as a passenger train running on a CSX freight track will need to backup a mile, backing up freight traffic. CSX freight traffic has priority over Amtrak.

  • Michael DiPasquale

    Many cities are building under highways. Take a look at what Boston is doing…. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8e1b2b1c99306577b4c54af5cdf6025dc151bbf7f8bc3c08f8751b98fa66a5f.jpg

    • CS Hunters

      A few rocks, grass and a deck is the best you have?

    • Travis Carlson
    • East Auroran

      I bet that place is absolutely lovely in the winter. Or in the spring, when the slush drips off the roadway. And it’s probably quiet, with top-notch air quality, too, since interstate highways with heavy truck traffic don’t make any noise or emit any exhaust fumes. Probably shielded from the winds off Lake Erie, too.

      It’s a plan Robert Moses would endorse, for sure!

  • pastor randy

    Anything other than CT is short-sighted for the long haul. Regional planning for 30 years out would be far more productive.

  • 300miles

    I’m seeing the benefits of a downtown station. In the near-term it seems like the best option. But will it still be the best option years from now. If NYS ever implements higher-speed rail, will a downtown station still work? Would a highspeed system still have to back up to get to Chicago? Or maybe if/when highspeed ever happens we ditch the downtown station and switch back to the CT?

    • Randy503

      no high speed train is ever going to back up. It will just bypass Buffalo all together. NO one wants to wait half an hour

    • Travis Carlson

      High speed rail (Empire Service) would and could terminate in downtown Buffalo on the very proposed, but not promised, expensive upgrade to amtak. It’s never been considered, even on a wishful thinking map, that it would extend to Chicago – thus high speed to Chicago is unfortunately a moot point. Even low speed to Chicago is nearly a moot point, as trains severely struggle to compete vs planes/cars over long distances.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/27cae0a3f5dc286e2dff50c30107aa3b8aac2feccee80605fcb59016678811ac.png

  • bburbs

    So if they do put the Station where Mr. Tielman wants it, do they take down the Washington St. entrance ramp to the I 190? ? If so, how will that benefit the traffic patterns Downtown and Canalside?

    • MD

      Washington St. entrance ramp would stay. Traffic patterns would be effected minimally by the train station as we only get 4 trains a day.

  • Cirris

    The Central Terminal would be a perfect place for an Amtrax station. IF you’re willing to invest in a second subway line that would service the Airport, Walden Galleria, Harlem/thruway plaza, Broadway/central Terminal, Larkinville. Perry/ old first ward. Then it could either run down to south park ave / main st subway line. OR continue south east and make a final stop or two in South Buffalo neighborhoods. While extending the main st line to meet at the Perry st projects. Which hopefully will be the site of a future NFL stadium / convention center.

    Without those link ups that would generate public traffic back and forth thru CT. It’s still out on an island where it stands now. no different than the Depew station. While it would be more historic and nice, it’s still would be barren and isolated.