Buffalo's Freeway Without a Future

but how can we rebuild Buffalo if we lose our vaunted "20 minute" commutes?

However, B. Higgins doesn't seem to be on the skyway bandwagon anymore, which is a shame. NYSDOT pay him off?

Light up the Skyway like the Peace Bridge, there are much bigger issues and better use of funds.

Unfortunately, Brian Higgins' and the DOT's complete lack of vision on Route 5 have left us with this awful highway for at least the next 1/2 century. It makes no sense to remove the skyway now that there is a brand new limited access highway connected to it.

The skyway's impacts go far beyond just an ugly bridge over the Inner Harbor that we could light up. The real problems are further north where its massive on an off ramps completely destroy the harbor's potential connection to Downtown via pearl street. Its a massive barrier between downtown and the waterfront. No accent lighting is going to solve those problems.

Once the new highway is completed on RT 5, will the current roadway be turned into a parkway and whats the final setup once all work is completed?

well townline, if the accent lighting was bright enough it could blind one into thinking that there is no skyway at all! Cheap and easy.

I don't see how the renewal of route 5 has anything to do with the skyway staying up. Why can't the skyway be brought down to grade with route 5 and re-routed via Ohio st, then connect to the 190 a little further east. Water/boat/ship access will affect continuing route 5 directly to downtown as it currently is. I can't imagine the upkeep of the skyway for decades to come is that much cheaper than a lower maintenance, safer (during inclement weather)skyway.

Route 5 is not "at-grade"

I'm not sure where you could re route it to, you would have to cut right through the cobblestone district, and probably need another massive bridge similar to the current skyway that creates all the same problems just someplace else. That would probably be the one thing worse than just leaving the skyway up. Build more major highway infrastructure that completely inhibits development in another neighborhood.

Skyway removal is a dead issue.

1. $50 million Highway on outer harbor is skyway depedent.

2. ECHDC is planning outer harbor connection bridge that can not accomodate current rt. 5 traffic.

However once skyway is remove some traffic would divert so it could be possible that the traffic level would be less. It's a shame, all the increased exposure the Canalside development would recieve if traffic was directed to city streets rather than elevated roadways would creat a major location advantage and likely increase the chance for waterfront commercial success. But apparently that's lost on Higgins, DOT (as if they could give a rats behind), and local leaders (who are clueless to begin with)

townline is right... the biggest issue is NOT about what people traditionally think of as the skyway (the high in the air elevated part), but rather the winding exit and entrance ramps that will forever keep downtown removed from the waterfront. There will always be a no-man's zone between the city and any waterfront development further hindering the chance for waterfront commercial success.

But hey, that's what buffalo is known for...the waterfront city with no relationship to the watefront.

@Nick,

You make a great point. While I am not in the "bash the burbs for all of the cities ills" crowd, I think the commute issue is key.

I think the City of Buffalo needs to stand up for itself and say "We" are going to do what is in "our" best interest. If this means that people living south of the city have a longer commute...so be it. The challenge is Higgins represents the city AND these southern towns and villages.

This is why Higgins sometimes speaks out of two sides. He simply is representing two mindsets and trying to stay in office.

I too am wondering what is going on with Rt.5. Is it going back to the way it was when they are done? It looks like it will, and I wonder what the point of all the construction was? And what will happen to the part (the detour) that we drive on now? Originally I thought it was going to be level and you could have easy access to "attractions".

@townline
There really is no perfect solution obviously. I'm not saying to cut through the cobblestone district either, a little further east closer to the perry projects and put the interchange there. There can definately be a fairly straight path cut through the first ward which is mostly abandoned anyway. The new rt 5 is more "at grade" than previously. I did see a documentary on one of the news stations last summer that showed the boulevard that will run parallel to rt 5. It doesn't seem that bad. I agree that the interchange downtown is at least half the problem with the skyway.

Not only do we need to remove the skyway, we also need to remove the I-190 which severs the City from the waterfront. Removing these highways (which drastically suppress property values and neighborhood desirability) will be transformational for the City. These projects will also be cash flow positive in the long term, as increased desirability will lead to increased land values, increased investment, a re-population of the Westside, and increased property tax revenues.

I lost a lot of respect for Brian Higgins because of this issue. He is responsible for--what will be known as--one of Buffalo's worst planning mistakes in our long history of some pretty horrible mistakes. It's a $50 million mistake that will cost tens of millions more to fix.

http://www.changebuffalo.org/190-removal

The Skyway needs to go! We will have a beautiful waterfront with some of the original street grid built with the Skyway in the way. The one street - Llyod St. - that will be rebuilt, will be "built-around" the Skyway footer - for shame. Accountability, accountability, accountability.

Well, the Erie Canal Wharf Project has pretty much left only two workable options.
1) Keep the skyway and let the Erie Canal Wharf District continue to develop
2) Replace the skyway with a tunnel so the Erie Canal Wharf District is not impacted

Unfortunately Option 3 is not really viable as long as the Peace Bridge allows car and truck traffic.
Option 3 would be to eliminate the entire section of the Niagara Expressway from the Grand Island interchange to the new I-190 Tfft Street bypass. THUS ROUTING ALL TRUCK TRAFFIC TO THE YOUNGMANN AND THE WHIRLPOOL AND LEWISTON BRIDGES.

The investments in the Erie Canal Wharf arent going to be demolished at the end of the skyway life and that only mean one thing....a big dig type project reminiscent of boston...which would connect the Niagara Expressway, the I-190 and possibly Route5 underground.

It would then remain to be seen if we could carry that big dig mentality to put sections of the Kensington and Niagara below grade.

Said it before: I like the Skyway. Coming or going, the views are spectacular. Light it up. It's bigger than any 'signature bridge' would be.

I don't see how the Skyway necessarily cuts off the waterfront at all. It's tall enough at the water's edge that it doesn't really interfere with the Bass Pro/HSBC arena/naval museum, etc. Those things can coexist with this elevated roadway.

Replace a drawbridge to the outer harbor off Ganson Street, by the General Mills plant. Then people could get across the Buffalo River a few different ways. But keep the Skyway. A tunnel is crazy expensive and completely boring to drive.

I'm with Biniszkiewicz. I actually like the Skyway. I disagree that there is a consensus that it is ugly. I find the convergence of transportation modes at the entrance to our Buffalo River to be exciting. We can have everything we invision for our new waterfront without removing the Skyway. Infact, the Skyway can be the fastest way to get to the waterfront.

Townline, I agree with you 100%. However, what is the most likely viable solution that will actually ever happen? I wouldn't want it to cut too close to the Buffalo River either. But there is a neccessity for a highway to connect rt 5 to downtown so it can't just disappear completely. The only other option would be a tunnel of sorts. Obviously I'm not an urban planner but why reinvent the wheel? The problem is that we need a highway to connect southtowns to downtown from pt A to B within a limited amount of space, that will allow us to open up the waterfront. What I was suggesting is like rearranging the furniture in your room. Sometimes moving a sofa to a different wall makes all the difference in the world. As for the 190, I think with the skyway gone it wouldn't be so bad. Toronto seems to make it work along their waterfront.

Very sad that the opportunity was lost to reclaim our South Buffalo waterfront for another generation. Its one thing to lay an expressway over priceless waterfront land in the car crazed 50s when everybody was doing it. It is another thing to do this now when we should have learned from the mistake of these highways and are in greater need of waterfront development. Ever since I started reading up on Buffalos history and saw how destructive urban highways were to neighborhoods and the waterfront I looked forward to the day when at least one of them would be removed. You would think that our town shrinking we wouldnt need such an redundant road system. Guess Ill have to keep waiting.

Cue the "realists" and "fiscal conservatives" who will no doubt say expressway driving is an essential part of life without which wny would be uninhabitable for business. They will also point out that there is plenty of taxpayer money to spend on needless road construction and upkeep.

I agree the Skyway should go, but as it seems its staying for the time being, there is no reason why it couldn't be used to enhance the area. The DUMBO area in Brooklyn and the Borough Market in London are dense, high traffic areas full of activity, commerce and pedestrians. The 'bridges' in both of these districts add to the aesthetics and even shelter from nasty weather (in the case of London).

DUMBO:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/brooklyn/dumbo/dumbo_brooklyn_bridge_3march02.jpg

Borough:
http://janetching.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/img_2673.jpg

If anyone finds the photo in the article -- with the Skyway's tentacles reaching into every corner -- an illustration of Buffalo's beautiful waterfront, it's not a wonder why people continue to leave the city for greener and more beautiful pastures. The Skyway remains a suspended asphalt blanket on waterfront progress and this photo would make an embarrassing post card that wouldn't make it off the sale rack.

the image says it all. All that for 4 cars?!

I truly believe something along the lines of Ran Webber's adaptive reuse project for the skyway is the best option for the city at present and in the future. Those with little incite would argue that the best way to deal with the skyway is to tear it down. This seems very reminiscent of the "urban renewal" push of the 50's and 60's which posited that cities could demolish their way out of poverty and decay. However, forty years later policies like these have had devastating effects and have pot marked the faces of many American cities. Those with foresight would see the opportunity in turning one of Buffalo's greatest liabilities into one of its greatest assets. I just hope those are the kind of people we elect into office.

Really sums it up, "The City of Buffalo needs to stand up for itself and say "we" are going to do what is in "our" best interest.
Matthew makes a good point, removing highways would increase the desirability of city neighborhoods and increase property values.

It is time to stop sacrificing our quality of life for the covenience of commuters. The skyway and waterfront section of the 190 need to go.

best option is to put the 190 under ground tunnel style, you can't remove the whole thing it would just cause a problem else where

Tear down the skyway and tear out the thruway from the Grand Island bridges to Ogden Street. Tear out the Scajaquada because we won't need it if the Niagara section is gone. Stop the expansion of the Peace Bridge and let drivers use the Niagara crossings for truck traffic. Without all the highways people will want to live closer to the waterfront all along the Harbor Front,Black Rock, Riverside, and South Buffalo. Do what Queen City says, let's take out the Kennsington Expressway from the Scajaquada to Oak Street. This will make business commuters use the local streets again.

I am sure the cost of all the destruction will be worth it for the people who move downtown. Hopefully we can keep the businesses that are currently downtown as people's commute times double or triple. We could be really progressive and limit downtown access to bikes and mass transit only. Require people to park at the edge of the city and bus or bike in to work. Imagine the headlines and the green-minded / environmentally focused crowd who would welcome living in such a progressive and earth friendly city. This could do for Buffalo what grunge and microsoft did for Seattle.

I agree, I love the views from the Skyway and it is actually more dangerous to have Rt 5 at ground level in winter than elevated, at ground level this winter there was much more nasty snow drifts and white outs off lake, elevated there will still be poor conditions but the elevation serves as buffer. Easy for people not impacted or who don't use Rt 5 /Skyway daily to say it needs to go! The purpose of the construction now is to push back the elevated road to create a slower speed boulevard along water for access, build a ower pedestrian bridge to connect the waterfront, problem solved. Why is everyone always pushing for more waterfront and always focusing on the Rt5/Skyway part? How about we fix La Salle park so it isn't just a large pot hole...or focus on extending the subway and having it be useful and reduce the need for all these highways? And anyone who wants a tunnel see the Boston tunnel project costs!

Ad to the poster re: expressways in NYC above I agree, NYc has expressways along their water, yet somehow they prosper...!!! The Skyway, 190, etc are here to stay and should be here to stay as they should!

I'm no city planner and I haven't been in buffalo long, but here's my idea: Remove all of the on ramps to the skyway crossing the Buffalo river and the bridge itself (including the I-190 and rt 5 exchange). "Move" route 5 to Michigan avenue, it would need upgrades, but the skyway doesn't see much traffic anyway, so it wouldnt be too bad. Make the crossing at the Michigan lift bridge (it would have to be improved to handle increased traffic), add another bridge across the city ship canal and reconnect to the current spot after the skyway on the other side. The entire stretch would be at grade This would open up the outer and inner harbor and wouldn't be overly expensive. Pedestrian bridges could be added at Erie street or reuse remnants of the skyway supports. This could also bring business to Michigan Ave, and initiate a further redevelopment to the East Side. While I am very pro public tranportation and believe cars are generally detremental here, we need to be somewhat logical and compromising.

I would love to see the 190 removed and the Erie Canal re watered, but that's not going to happen for a long time. Maybe we could downgrade the 190 and add more pedestrian crossings (tunnels and bridges) but removing it would be troublesome right now.

An even cheaper option if the skyway was left: remove the ramps still and put the access away from the harbor more. The Pedestrian crossing to the outer harbor could be the bottom of the skyway itself. I would love to have tunnels, but its hard to see that realistically happening with the economic condition we are in.

The 50s ruined cities. Let's start undoing the damage now in calculated, moderate steps.

The entire focus of this thread is on vehicular traffic, skyway, arterials, on-ramps, off-ramps, where is Robert Moses when you need him? Would the costs to change the infrastructure be high, yes, but what are the costs of not doing anything? I just don't understand the acceptance of the status quo, as if it's not worth the expenditure to make things better here. While other cities work to become pedestrian friendly, Buffalo seems stuck in the mud and autocentric. The city/region has had this mindset for 50 years, and it (not alone, clearly political and economic factors as well) has failed the city, but people seem to like it. I don't understand it, I guess after you hit your head into the wall so many times, it starts to feel good.

WWW.RANWEBBER.COM

Suggest everyone read Bill Graebner's historical piece, "Ribbon of Steel and Concrete: A Cultural Biography of the Skyway" from American Studies, before voting to tear it down. Sorry to cite the competition, but it's available in pd thru
http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/tag/william-graebner/

WWW.RANWEBBER.COM

Change the Skyway into a building.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=211867095400

Let me sum up the article Dianne posted to save everyone time. "We shouldn't be so quick to tear down the skyway because it's fun to drive on." Although I do suggest looking at the picture on page 3 (1955) and compare it to the picture on page 17 (1976).
.
The article also mentions 1950 "urban renewal" as if it was a positive? I mean really, every city that embraced the destructive policies are kicking themselves in the ass today. Detroit is a great example of auto driven urban planning as it was some sort of great thing... I just don't even know what to say and I even love my car. =\
.
The only two things that matter at this point is does it make more financial sense to keep it up or knock it down and do we need it?

it is unfortunate as Buffalo is about the only great lakes city located on the eastern shore of the lake therefore getting the full effect of lake enhanced weather. So i agree that there are challenges to development of housing etc. I don't think it is impossible and there have been proposals before looking at configuration and orientation of buildings and landform to minimize effects of the wind. But regardless, snowdrifts can be addressed by other means than keeping roads elevated..geesh!

And as far as traffic, the DOT said itself the boulevard only option was feasible from a traffic standpoint.

I like the skyway and I think it adds an exciting urban visual. I'd prefer to see the stretch of I-190 at Balckrock to downtown placed underground...thre's bigger fish to fry than the skyway at thispoint. I say light up the skyway with colors and celebrate the structure as a large piece of art.

I like the skyway and I think it adds an exciting urban visual. I'd prefer to see the stretch of I-190 at Balckrock to downtown placed underground...thre's bigger fish to fry than the skyway at thispoint. I say light up the skyway with colors and celebrate the structure as a large piece of art.

when you look at NYC, there are no major thruways cutting through, or around the outskirts of the city. maybe if we get rid of the skyway, and therefore the infamous 20min commute for a good portion of the southtowns, we could drive up the population within the city limits. there is a chance all of our affluent suburban residents might migrate back to the city...

Tunnel from Lasalle Park to outer harbor to include vehicular lanes, bike/ ped, and metro line!!!! If other areas can have tunnels then so should Buffalo, plus it takes traffic out of the elements at least for a bit.