Yes, Buffalo, NY (MSA pop. 1.1 million) is home to one of the first light rail systems, a 6-mile line with one mile on the surface in downtown Buffalo and five miles in a subway beneath Main St. to the University of Buffalo. 

 

Just how long is this subway tunnel? To put it in perspective, Buffalo is home to more postwar new-start subway tunneling than virtually any other American city.  It is out-tunneled by only San Francisco and Washington, DC.  It will still be the longest light rail tunnel in the country after Seattle's $1.9 billion University Link extension. 

 

And I hate to break it to Cleveland folks -- this same tunnel under Euclid Ave. would have been the *exact* distance between Public Square and the red line's overpass, the dream line Cleveland might end up building in 30 or 40 years.   

 

In Cincinnati, this tunnel would stretch from downtown to Bond Hill or to the Glenway Crossings shopping center. 

 

 

 

Apparently this line was originally intended to be all-surface and much longer, but opposition motivated the much more expensive and much shorter subway. 

 

The downtown transit mall has proven to be a disaster because businesses have been denied the handful of on-street parking spots necessary to be viable in a smaller city like Buffalo. I think they should have built the downtown mile in a tunnel as well, since that could have sheltered the vehicles from Buffalo's big snowstorms (the vehicles show conspicuous road salt rust), and greatly increased the line's speed.  In my judgement the line surfaces about three blocks from the true heart of downtown Buffalo, and so wastes at least 2-3 minutes bumbling around in its surface approach.   

 

 

Location of the subway stations in the context of the city:

 

Construction began in the late 1970's and the system opened in 1984. The trains travel at high speed through the subway, which has eight stations. According to my calculations a full transit of the subway portion takes 14 minutes, and so the trains average 36mph with stops.  The trains move much slower in the downtown transit mall, but even with stops still much faster than one can walk. 

 

The line's portal:

 

Portal...the trains crawl out of this tunnel for safety purposes:

 

This is the first block that the subway travels under, the first subway station is next to the white building visible in the distance:

 

A typically hideous subway station entrance:

 

 

Another entrance:

 

Hideous transit mall station:

 

The mall:

 

Delivery vehicles drive down the mall but pull up on the sidewalks to make their deliveries:

 

 

 

Deteriorating concrete:

 

The subway portion of the line is high platform, but in the mall these staircases fold out:

 

 

 

 

They were running 3-car trains when I was there. All the seats were filled with nobody standing while running at 10-minute headways. 

 

Ticket machine:

 

This is the University station, the line's terminus, and an example of the line's hideous subway stations:

 

Directly above the end of the line (U of Buffalo's parking lot at left):

 

This is Main St. just a block past the end of the subway:

 

The low density 1950's-era neighborhood a 1/2 mile past the line's terminus:

 

This line sees fairly strong ridership (20k-25k per day), despite Buffalo's poor fortunes. The line's ability to attract investment isn't obvious until you walk a few blocks away from it where you are greeted by Detroit-like devastation.  Main St.'s streetscape is peppered by a few abandoned buildings and empty lots, but it's the Vegas strip compared to Buffalo's other avenues.

 

Buffalo's line is frequently cited as the worst new-start line since WWII, and that's probably the case. It's a small city which has been left to die. Some corners were cut in the construction of this line, but it's obvious that a downtown subway or even other lines throughout the city would not alone turn Buffalo's fortunes. Its problems are much too deep for rail alone to turn around.

 

All that said I think the line needs at least $100 million for improvements. The stations and station entrances need to be rebuilt with contemporary designs and lighting, and the trains need to be rehabbed.  The downtown mall needs to go, either replaced by a subway or with tracks running on parallel streets like how Portland does it. 

 

I don't see where Buffalo is ever going to be able to compete for private investment.  The city has some great buildings and a few great streetscapes, but its homes and neighborhood business districts have been hurt so hard it's difficult to imagine any scenario where this city turns things around.  This light rail line is a great asset, but the main asset is the tunnel and the high speed service it enables because the design of the cars, stations, and the transit mall are embarrassing.   

Thanks for this informative post on Buffalo Jake.

I thought rail cured everything?

 

I thought rail cured everything?

 

 

My thoughts exactly....

Thanks Jmeck. Western NY seems to have specialized in the new brutalism - I think it infects their character at times too. Niagara Falls is even worse than Buffalo - sad really. Rail doesn't cure everything but it is a highly effective investment.

Buffalo is a great example of what not to do. Many of that cities problems stem from the loss of a manufacturing base.

 

Cincinnati, and Columbus for that matter, can plan a system that works much better than Buffalo. If I were looking to plan a system Portland and San Diego would be my two prime examples.

Buffalo is a great example of what not to do. Many of that cities problems stem from the loss of a manufacturing base.

 

Cincinnati, and Columbus for that matter, can plan a system that works much better than Buffalo. If I were looking to plan a system Portland and San Diego would be my two prime examples.

 

Any city should plan that type of system, it's a no brainer and would work.  However, you would also need an economy like those two cities have, and an in-migration that those two cities have to see the same benefit.  Cincy and C-bus sadly do not have those economies that Portland and San Diego do...especially the economies of the 2000-2006 era. 

Buffalo's problem is that it was built under a street through areas that were not anywhere close to being dense enough to support a subway line. Because Buffalo is flat and does not have a major body of water in the city itself, its prewar construction is not particularly dense.  There are hardly any true rowhouses and there is hardly any construction taller than two floors along Main St. outside the downtown area. And while Main St. might have been the best street to build this line under, it passes by a large cemetery and a golf course that limit ridership originating or destined for the line's middle stations (although there is a small community college in this area). 

 

Second, the University of Buffalo's campus is not especially large, and they actually have a second campus about three miles away. I'm guessing the campus that Metrorail serves has about 15,000 students. Not small, but nowhere near as large as UC or OSU.

 

Look at the growth of Cincinnati and Portland since 1950 -- they are very similar. Portland's MSA has grown to equal Cincinnati in size after being approximately 30% smaller in 1950.  That means Portland has grown more overall and percentage-wise, but also that Cincinnati has more walkable areas leftover from the streetcar era, meaning higher ridership when rail returns as opposed to having to start from scratch. 

 

Snowbelt towns would seem to have a harder nut to crack than a place like Cincy. Ideally this would have been a surface light rail system, but with Buffalo's massive snow fall that would have seriously impacted the entire usage of the line and waiting in winter would not be fun.

but with Buffalo's massive snow fall that would have seriously impacted the entire usage of the line and waiting in winter would not be fun.

 

Some notes here

 

1) Buffalo does not get a lot of snow. (I think the average, including the big dumps, is around 35"/yr) It is on a curved spot on the upper tip of the lake.  The prevailing winds create huge snow drops SOUTH of the city.  Buffalo probably gets, on average, a lot less snow than Cleveland.  Even Cleveland's West side.  When the prevailing winds LINE UP JUST RIGHT (once a decade), Buffalo gets one big snow storm that makes national news.  Apart from that, it gets surprisingling little snow.  Erie, PA gets all the snow (as does Hamburg, etc.) 

 

What Buffalo does get is nice, cold wind.  That's the real problem with the winters, not the snow.

 

2) Buffalo is built on a granit outcrop.  It's very hard to tunnel under the city.  My friend attended UofB back when they were building the rail line.  She said that classes would have to stop while the construction workers blasted the rock with dynamite.  Then, 15 seconds later, the classes would resume.  This went on foreever, it seemed.

 

Cincinnati's economy has seemed a little more resilient than Buffalo/Detroit's IMO. P&G and GE have so far been able to weather economic storms. Cincinnati's economy relies on everything from manufacturing to service and medical businesses, which is more diverse than the manufacturing-centric areas around the Great Lakes. I would also venture to guess that Cincy is home to more Fortune 500 companies than Buffalo.

 

No, rail doesn't solve all problems. It does however help keep money in an urban core by providing an option for transportation. A good friend of mine is a staunch Republican fiscal conservative from Connecticut. He wouldn't dream of living in a city without a rail transport system mainly because it puts money in his pocket and allows businesses to thrive without relying on cars.

It's funny how people's perceptions are. CincyDad, your numbers didn't sound right so I looked them up. Instead, Buffalo's average snowfall as measured at the airport is 93 inches per season. It's true that Southtown areas get more snow -- 150 inches per season. But Erie gets less -- 88 inches while Cleveland receives an average of 57 inches per season.

 

Source: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/snowfall.html

 

This helps display the wide variety in seasonal snowfall:

 

Jake - thanks so much.

 

 

I would also venture to guess that Cincy is home to more Fortune 500 companies than Buffalo.

It's more than triple than what Portland has.

>and waiting in winter would not be fun.

 

I visited Montreal in January a few years ago, and its metro is the only one in the world built entirely underground, including the shops. The stations were definitely not warm, but were at least free of wind, and better than waiting for the bus in blizzard conditions.  Some of the DC underground stations aren't warm either, or even have a breeze if they're too close to a portal. 

 

Looks like Buffalo has only one Fortune 500 company.  Portland has zero, Cincinnati has six, Covington, KY has two. 

 

>allows businesses to thrive without relying on cars.

 

Pedestrian malls only work in the biggest cities (NY's Times Square experiment) or in college towns. They don't work in small and mid-sized American non-tourist cities because having visibility from motorists and a handful of on-street parking spots is critical. 

 

I thought rail cured everything?

 

 

Well it helps me get to places I want since I have no space to park a car.  Though I wish I could have my car and the train.

 

 

Great shots! i can agree that some of the stations could use some facelifts.

Well those are straight jpeg conversions from about $3K in camera gear. I didn't edit these images at all. The photos I usually post look a lot better than this because I spend a few minutes adjusting them. 

 

>Buffalo already lost everything.

 

No kidding, and that's why the existence of this subway line is so baffling.  I have searched and have been unable to read up on how and why this line was built and funded. It looks like Buffalo's decline started in a big way around 1970 and was dropping at terminal velocity when this line opened in 1984, which makes me think this was built from funds allocated in an earlier era or as some kind of political favor. 

 

The odd thing about Buffalo was that the people seemed content. I really didn't sense anger as much as as contentment with the city's horrible situation.  Like I said, I honestly don't know where this city goes from here.  Perhaps demolishing crippled residential areas and redeveloping them for call centers is the answer.  I don't know. 

 

What this line is a great example of is as a living museum of early light rail technology and that era's thoughts on urban redevelopment.  It's the pedestrian mall I'm speaking of, because the subway tunnel is impressively fast and smooth like the DC metro. 

I would also venture to guess that Cincy is home to more Fortune 500 companies than Buffalo.

 

Bingo. Not only does Cincy have 9 Fortune 500 HQ's in it's MSA, it has no less than 5 in downtown alone, including two (P&G and Kroger) that are Fortune top 25, and Fortune Global top 50 companies.

 

What I take away from this post (which is very informative, bravo) is that even poorly planned rail transit can have a positive impact in even the most bombed out and economically depressed cities in our country.

 

I thought rail cured everything?

 

Edit: Buffalo has exactly NO Fortune 500 companies. Rail, for all it's benefits DanB, can't create F500 companies out of thin air. But I'm sure you knew that and were just being your usual grouchy self.

 

Fun map to play with:

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/maps/index.html

 

I thought rail cured everything?

 

Apparently you missed the part where he said Main St. was the Vegas strip compared to other areas of Buffalo.  I'm sure if they had simply added another lane to the road instead of a rail line Buffalo would be a vibrant city today.  As a matter of fact, ask Detroit's 7- and 9-lane avenues how that has worked out.

 

Don't put words in people's mouths.  I have heard nobody heard claim rail to be the silver bullet for any city.  But there is no doubt that almost without exception it provides an economic boost to areas it travels through.

According to an earlier post on the Phony Coney:

 

There is no example anywhere in America of a line like Cincinnati's -- one traveling between a metro's #1 and #2 employment areas -- failing, even in Rust Belt poster boy Buffalo, NY. In fact beleaguered Buffalo's 6-mile downtown to University of Buffalo light rail line's overall ridership is triple Queen City Metro's highest ridership bus line. That's right -- an economically depressed metro with 60% Cincinnati's population has *triple* the rail ridership between its downtown and its university as our current bus lines. In fact, Buffalo's light rail line has the daily ridership of Queen City Metro's top three bus routes combined.

CincyDad, your numbers didn't sound right so I looked them up. Instead, Buffalo's average snowfall as measured at the airport is 93 inches per season.

 

OK, I stand corrected, but I remember reading in the Syracuse Newspaper that the totals were less than that.  Maybe if you exclude the occassional big snow, the normal years are a bit lower.

 

(The airport is just east of the city, right on I-90, but not that far from downtown, so the totals won't vary widely between downtown and the airport.)

 

I used to live north of Syracuse, in the area that is 150"+.... close to the area with 200"+.  I remember a number of winters with 220"+ snow where I lived.

I have searched and have been unable to read up on how and why this line was built and funded.

 

Try here for a brief background...

 

http://world.nycsubway.org/us/buffalo/

 

Another article I read talked about the backlash against Robert Moses's urban planning methods.  And personally, having lived for 15 years in the state, I wouldn't be surprised if the best answer isn;t simple politics.  There is a constant battle between 'upstate' and 'downstate' NY, with a lot, lot, lot of porkbarrel to boost one's side.  Maybe it was a powerful politition from western NY.  Maybe it was a trade-off to fund something in NYC.  Maybe it was an effort to create/bolster a big upstate city to counter NYC.  NY State had a history of grand construction projects up to that point.  It seemed to stop soon afterwards.  I keep hearing about polititions getting in trouble for kickbacks from construction contracts.  It's like the state was really being run by construction companies, who gave a lot of kickbacks to elected officials and hired their family and friends.

 

Historically, politics distorted a lot of economic decisions in NY State.

 

To follow on, New York State makes Ohio look like a smooth running machine over the last 30 years. The only reason the entire state hasn't collapsed is that they got lucky during the 20+ year Bull Market and could restore some of the luster to NYC, but the rest of the state has suffered. I think Western NY at this point is pretty much right-sized. The people there have pretty much chosen to stay because so many of their peers have left that you don't really have a stuck population anymore. The idea of leaving is not new. Charlotte is Western NY south. Bill Kaufman has written some about the localism that infects that whole region.

To follow up, if America's 30 major cities had all been given proportionate funding to build rail lines instead of or in addition to interstates, some would have fared better than others. The cities whose economies were based on industries that have since collapsed would have still declined, but not as much because more residents and businesses would have chosen to remain within city limits and some of what has been attracted to their suburbs would have located in the city instead.

 

Look up the population stats -- Cincinnati is clearly, pound-for-pound, the second-best performing city in the midwest since 1950 behind Chicago.  Cleveland and Pittsburgh had active rail during their declines, but nobody could claim that those rail alignments are ideal in the new economic environment in which universities and hospitals are premier economic drivers of those cities.

 

Cleveland doesn't have rail between downtown and The Cleveland Clinic (the walk from the red line is too far), and Pittsburgh doesn't have rail between downtown and Oakland. Cincinnati *is* planning rail between its #1 and #2 areas. 

Cleveland perhaps doesn't have "rail" but the new healthline is just as good and that connects Downtown to UC with Cleveland Clinic as a stop so what are you talking about?

Outstanding post, outstanding pictures, outstanding thread (a mini-course in comparative urban transportation development, civil discussion.  I learned a lot.  Thank you gentlemen. 

If we had simply invested in rail instead of circle freeways for every town in America that would have made all the difference. The most decentralizing force was not expressways, but rather the beltways which created the conditions for multi-nodal metro regions. Otherwise, more of the country would have followed the Phila. model with the clusters at the Main Line train stops.

Asked my friend who grew up in Buffalo about the subway/rail line..

 

She remembers it being funded primarily by the federal government, without a lot of ground support for it initially in the city.  But they decided that since the fed gov't was paying for it, then why not.  Once the fed gov't program ran out of money, the project stoped. She thought it was a Fed gov't program to build mass transit line in cities, and Buffalo happened to be one of them.  Not sure about this, though.

 

My friend also remembers there being a LOT of corruption on the bid process.  Claims that the area is controlled by the mob, and that they probably had a lot of influence in landing the project for the benefit of their un-employed followers.  That is hear-say, but what has been printed about the whole process strongly suggests that to be the case.

 

My friend noted that downtown Buffalo actually had a bit of an upturn after the line went in.  They built a new AAA baseball stadium and new Aud (NHL Sabers,etc), and a number of lake-front condos where there were none before.  So now they do have downtown living, where-as before the rail line, they had none. 

 

As pointed out on this thread, a rail-line all by itself is not going to save a city.  But in the case of Buffalo, even the abreviated project seems to have helped the downtown actually recover some. 

 

Imagine what Buffalo would be like today if the larger envisioned rail system was built.

 

Charlotte is Western NY south

 

Let me correct this statement... Charlotte is Western & Central NY South. 

 

There.  That's more like it.

 

(seemed like everyone I worked with in Syracuse in the early '90s headed for Charlotte.)

Cleveland perhaps doesn't have "rail" but the new healthline is just as good and that connects Downtown to UC with Cleveland Clinic as a stop so what are you talking about?

 

Uh, no… the Health Line BRT doesn’t come close to having the effectiveness of a subway.  ‘Nuff said.

Ragging on Buffalo for doing what Cleveland should have done – building a full-fledged, high-platform subway line right up the gut of the City, was a courageous move for a smaller metro area who’s core is supposedly withering on the vine…  If Buffalo’s LRT is such a failure and Cleveland’s Rapid is such a success, how do you account for the Buffalo vs. Cleveland comparison?… that is 23,200  passengers over a 6.4 mile system  (or 3625 passengers per mile) in Buffalo vs. 29,300 daily passengers over a 34 heavy/light rail mile system (or a paltry 861.7 passengers per mile) in Cleveland.  Buffalo is running 3-car trains over light rail while RTA runs single cars at all times, except for Browns games and, maybe, at times during St. Paddy’s day; not even RTA’s heavy rail Red Line runs 3-car trains anymore; hasn’t for decades.

 

And no, DanB, can’t feed your hungry right-wing/anti-transit soul on this one: nobody said rail is the magic wand that will in every case and for every inch of its service, magically convert every old, struggling neighborhood into thriving, Manhattan-style walking districts.  However, rapid transit will almost always attract some development in spot areas – Buffalo’s downtown and aforementioned new stadiums (not unlike Cleveland’s Gateway stadiums as well as, decades prior, Shaker Square)… But if rail doesn’t always stimulate growth, esp in older cities like Buffalo or Cleveland, it will at least slow/cease blight in old neighborhoods, or at least, give them hope of catching on slowly or at some later date, thriving  because access to high speed rail transit always gives an area hope – Buffalo’s Allentown and Elmwood Park areas are good examples, while Cleveland has Ohio City, Larchmere, Little Italy or Detroit-Shoreway.

I disagree with the characterization by some that Buffalo’s a dead city at the edge of the abyss like some small-scale version of Detroit – no way… And if Buffalo’s so bad, look at Cleveland, which is just a somewhat larger-scale version of the same, can’t be far behind...

 

The news there still goes and finds all factory workers to talk about how they used to make things better, like going to the Fisher-Price plant and rounding up some old workers to chat when the Chinese lead toy debacle happened a couple years.

>Uh, no… the Health Line BRT doesn’t come close to having the effectiveness of a subway.  ‘Nuff said.

 

The Health Line is an incremental improvement on ordinary bus service, and I'd argue that simply building the shelters and running more buses would have accomplished 95% of the same thing (and it's debatable as to what that thing is, since there's no sign of major private development along the bus line) without having to completely rebuild 5 miles of a major city street.  The center island shelters create a bizarre and unnatural streetscape, one that is not particularly pedestrian friendly, and I'm not convinced that the bus lane and times lights allow much faster operation than timed lights alone.  Boston's BRT bus lane is the curb lane, which meant the whole streetscape didn't need to be rebuilt for center island stations, and it seemed to run just as well as the Health Line.   

 

 

>Ragging on Buffalo for doing what Cleveland should have done – building a full-fledged, high-platform subway line right up the gut of the City, was a courageous move for a smaller metro area who’s core is supposedly withering on the vine…  If Buffalo’s LRT is such a failure

 

Exactly my thoughts...most of Cleveland's Red Line stations are in terrible locations whereas all of Buffalo's stations are in prime locations. A poorly located rail station will not attract significant ridership and development. Highway median stations are always bad, and stations close but not close enough to established business districts or institutions are always bad. 

 

Buffalo's subway stop closest to Buffalo General Hospital is much closer than Cleveland's University Circle station is to the Cleveland Clinic.  In Buffalo the walk from their subway station to the *farthest* reach of Buffalo General Hospital is 1,500ft.  In Cleveland, it is 3,000ft. just to the edge of the Cleveland Clinic, and 6,000 feet to the farthest reach. 

 

The reason why Portland's slow streetcars have been successful is because *all* of the stations are prime locations. Station locations are more important than speed!   

 

And it's important to remember that Rochester is worse. You can always rely on that.

 

I was with you until you said that.  Rochester is Upstate's most successful city (though not most interesting or urban; that's Albany), has a great downtown, wonderful revival with the High Falls area, Monroe is awesome, and has a nice boardwalk.  Rochester, in my opinion, annihilates Buffalo (except for Buffalo's grandeur architecture aka City Hall and Elmwood Ave/Olmsted areas) and seems much more livable.

The personalities of the cities are vastly different. Buffalo is more working class while Rochester is known to be more umm... elitist I guess.

Interestingly, Rochester has an abandoned 1-mile streetcar subway. 

 

http://www.railroad.net/articles/railfanning/rochestersubway/media/rsb_map.gif

Rochester is slightly less ghetto, but not any more livable (it doesn't have as many Victorian bargains as Buffalo). It's got all the same problems, not to mention one of the most poorly planned Triple-A ballparks in America (surrounded by surface lots in a fringe area, so no spinoff). The baseball stadium alone is reason enough to hate Rochester. They also have a brutal inner highway ring of death completely chocking off Downtown. Though I suppose it's a tossup between Rochester's inner highway ring of death and Buffalo's waterfront highway of death. They both are very damaged cities that have fallen from grace.

 

I'd argue Buffalo wins for one simple reason- Elmwood Village. Other than that? Yeah, they're pretty even. Buffalo's worst parts are worse than Rochester, but Rochester has no Elmwood Village. Buffalo has more extremes. On one hand, there are neighborhoods every bit as bad as Detroit, an abandoned port, and a university that makes Kent State look beautiful, but on the other hand, there's one of the most functional neighborhoods on the Great Lakes.

 

Rochester is still a better city.  One neighborhood doesn't trump a city in this case (if THAT were the case, than Detroit's Mexicantown + Hamtramck > all of Buffalo and Rochester).  Rochester is noticably, healthier, isn't declining as much, has a way better downtown, more natural features, and has a more "white collar" base.  Ballpark parking lots and Elmwood Village don't cut it.

 

Buffalo's subway stop closest to Buffalo General Hospital is much closer than Cleveland's University Circle station is to the Cleveland Clinic. In Buffalo the walk from their subway station to the *farthest* reach of Buffalo General Hospital is 1,500ft. In Cleveland, it is 3,000ft. just to the edge of the Cleveland Clinic, and 6,000 feet to the farthest reach.

 

True, but the Univ. Circle station is just a few blocks from also-large University Hospitals main campus, which is much denser and more focused than the larger Cleve. Clinic.  A lot of UH commuters reverse commute to downtown and the West Side.

The Health Line is an incremental improvement on ordinary bus service, and I'd argue that simply building the shelters and running more buses would have accomplished 95% of the same thing (and it's debatable as to what that thing is, since there's no sign of major private development along the bus line) without having to completely rebuild 5 miles of a major city street. The center island shelters create a bizarre and unnatural streetscape, one that is not particularly pedestrian friendly, and I'm not convinced that the bus lane and times lights allow much faster operation than timed lights alone. Boston's BRT bus lane is the curb lane, which meant the whole streetscape didn't need to be rebuilt for center island stations, and it seemed to run just as well as the Health Line.

 

Agree totally.  Even downtown along lower Euclid, I psychologically feel crossing the street is more difficult, esp w/ those center street stations; even though E. 4th is happily spilling over to Euclid, our main street feels like it has barriers to crossing it w/ the Health Line and its stations.

Old post, I know.  It's just that I'm compelled to post because there's a lot of disinformation in here, along with the factual data.  Background: born and raised in Buffalo, and witness to LRRT construction from the start.  I still have the monthly newsletters from the NFTA dating back to the 1970s tracking the planning and construction.  (I really should have gotten rid of them earlier; I'm the opposite of a hoarder in most ways.)

 

FWIW, I'm far from a Buffalo booster or "homer".  I'm criticized on other message boards for being so negative about Buffalo.  Still, it seems like  the whole of Buffalo is being made out to be like the worst parts of East Cleveland or Detroit, and that's far, far from the case.

 

1)  Why does Buffalo have a subway?  It's part of what was called the ABC Plan -- Amherst Buffalo Corridor -- drafted in the mid-1960s.  After the state decided to build a new SUNY campus in Amherst, but before construction broke ground, the ABC Plan was drafted and adopted.  It called for a corridor of dense residential and commercial development along Main Street (NY 5) between downtown and UB South, and Millersport Highway (NY 263) between UB South and UB North.

 

An important part of the ABC plan was a heavy rail system to connect downtown and the two UB campuses.  The rail line was planned to eventually be extended to the south to Orchard Park, with an east-west line from Cheektowaga to the west side of Buffalo.  The lines would meet at Layfayette Square.  Main Street downtown was to be covered in what would have amounted to the nation's largest shopping mall, with a gallery looking down to the subway at the lower level. 

 

The original subway line was to be elevated north of Delavan Avenue.  A group called "No Overhead Transit" opposed the plans, and the opposition gained momentum.  Ultimately, the current system was built with the money that was budgeted for the longer heavy rail system.  Tunnels are much more more expensive than elevated rail, especially through the bedrock at the north end of the city and underneath the buried Scajaquada Creek tunnel north of Delavan, so the system was shortened, and the rolling stock changed from expensive heavy rail to cheaper light rail. 

 

2)  Why Main Street?  Buffalo's dominant direction of growth has always been to the northeast, but there was no rail corridor or other corridor of vacant land along the "Golden Spike" (the affluent area west of Main Street from downtown out to the suburbs) where a line could be built.  Thus, Main Street and the blocks nearby was the only alternative.

 

At the time, and it's still very true to some extent, Buffalo's bus routes were based almost exactly on old streetcar lines.  Buffalo has excellent transit leading downtown, but at the time crosstown service was poor.  Many bus lines would follow Main Street for some distance, and then branch off to one of the perpendicular streets.  It was hoped that the rail line would relieve the bus traffic on Main Street, and free up more of the fleet to increase headways on crosstown routes and create new routes; LRRT would replace the Main Street portions of 20+ bus lines.

 

3) Yeah, but Buffalo?  It's so small.  Population projections for the Buffalo area in the 1960s had the same faults as those in Cleveland; no accounting for shrinking household sizes, outmigration from the region, or urban blight.  They assumed the typical household would still be a large Catholic family with three to six children, and that children would remain in the region, the children of those children would stay, and so on.  The Buffalo metro area was expected to have a population of over 2,000,000 by 2000.  UB was expected to have 80,000 students at buildout.  Remember, Buffalo almost landed a major league baseball team in the late 1960s and mid-1980s.

 

4)  The population density in Buffalo is low.  FALSE.  Buffalo has very few townhouses, and much less 4+ unit multi-family residential development compared to Cleveland or Cincy.  However, the modal house is a two-flat.  The standard Buffalo building lot is 35' x 120'.  That's 20 DU/AC in areas where two-flats are predominant.  Some lots had two two-flats on them.  On the East Side, the little telescoping houses often had a rear unit, and they were on even smaller lots; 25' x 100'.  Some city neighborhoods had population densities approaching 30,000 per sq mi or more, even without apartment buildings in the traditional sense.  Buffalo maxed out at around 600,000 in 42 square miles in 1950, and that's including industrial land, square miles of swamps immediately south of downtown, institutional properties with no permanent population, and so on.

 

More in a bit ...

Thanks for the data.

I hope Buffalo activists can push planners into expanding the LRT, esp (from the south end) out to the airport (and possibly stopping and/re-energizing empty/crumbling Buffalo Central train station), along with the NW branch from near LaSalle out to the Tonawanda area, which has long been discussed and where an abandoned rail corridor exists.... Even in its small status, now, Buffalo's LRT is a major asset and well used, serving the wonderful Allentown area, among others.