Bridge Project on Aggressive Schedule: Early Transparency is Key
1 TrackBack
TrackBack URL: http://www.buffalorising.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4080
In the late 1950s, one of the two lift bridges at Michigan Street became inoperable while the other was soon thereafter hit by a freighter, causing it to collapse. These fateful events left the Queen City without a direct route to prime land along Lake... Read More
Comments
Leave a commentCan we add light rail to that crossing for "bikes, pedestrians, and cars"? At least provide enough ROW for it to cross? This way the ROW is there and its one less excuse as to why light rail cant extend southward to the outer harbor. They should establish a station and commuter lot for southtowns residents to access downtown on a part of the contaminated Bethlehem Steel property. Remove some of the parking woes identified downtown for sure.
Upfront one land bridge? And then what? In 10 years when the outer harbor develops we'll have to build another? That will take another 40 years.
I prefer the "red" option. IMO the others are either to close to potential development or to far off the "beaten path".
Just my opinion though.
As "FLYGUY" stated there should be a way to allow bikes and pedestrians.
If this is a STUDY - why is the DOT adamant about NOT STUDYING the potential for bridge crossings that could handle the skyway's traffic?
I'm not saying that they definitely need to replace the skyway with this project, but how short-sighted is it that they are not even going to study the possibility? I attended the public session last week and asked the question repeatedly. They gave me no answer as to why they can't even study it.
They're making major project assumptions before even conducting the study. If you are studying connecting the inner and outer harbors, then all options need to be the discussion. The whole meeting stunk of a state-run project being pushed through without ever looking at the big picture...
I agree with some of the previous posts...how about more than one bridge? You don't have to do all 4, but at least build 2 if you want to make development attractive.
Also, you MUST have an option for provisions for pedestrians and bicycles.
Doesn’t the skyway already connect the inner and outer harbors? Won’t the reconfiguration of Fuhrman Blvd. provide improved vehicle access to the outer harbor?
As far as cyclists are concerned, they can just pedal the extra mile or two down to Ohio Street, and cross there.
That leaves pedestrians. My guess is that with all the fatsoes in this area, there really isn’t much demand for improved pedestrian access. Most people are not going to stroll from downtown to the outer harbor no matter where a crossing is situated.
sbof,
Have you tried to ride a bike from Lasalle Park to the new bike paths on the outer harbor? Going over the Ohio St bridge and the encompassing streets is terrible for a road bike. Secondly, it is not simply a mile or two. Think about going down and back double what ever you thought. I ride my old road bike to go sailing every wednesday and what could be a quick 2 mile ride ends up being a dangerous and dusty 5 mile ride. If we had a decent bridge to connect the inner and outer harbor you could take the seaway trail all the way from Niagara Falls to Hamburg and beyond without riding on a road for too long. I second or third or who knows by know that this city needs to think long term and build 2 bridges ASAP and include access for light rail.
"Ranalli stresses that the bridge project has no bearing whatsoever on the future of the skyway and fears that public perception that the bridge would be a replacement for the skyway could ultimately slow things down "
Gee, I'm thinking the opposite. The fact they will not consider how skyway traffic could be accomodated is what is going to slow this project down. Why will they not even study it? I know they can't answer that question.. this is rediculous.
the "blue" option would probably be the most easily accessible from both the highway and downtown. michigan ave doesn't get much traffic down there and is pretty wide, open, and expandable.
both the "red" and "green" take you through some of the more congested side streets downtown, which will only get more congested if the harbor takes off. they also seem like they would be the most difficult to build and the most distracting aesthetically, given their proposed locations.
the "orange" option might be the easiest to build and have the most minimal impact on the environment, shipping, and aesthetics, but it's also sort of in an odd, out of the way location that isn't much better than the current route to the waterfront.
"with the hope that it will reinstate Erie on its original path, the redesign of the entire existing street is outside the scope of this particular project. "
If you look at the plan, it is technically within the scope as indicated by the red dashed line. OR is that meaningless? I don't understand.
I was under the impression that they planned on building ALL FOUR of these bridges.
one?
ONE?!
typical Buffalo
They said they are making provisions for bike and ped and cars. My point was adding light rail to that mix, something they did not touch in this discussion, at least providing light rail ROW. I think they have bike/ ped covered.
"Upfront, we'll have one lane in each direction because it doesn't make sense to put in a bridge wider than the roadway"
What if a long term plan identified a bridge option that may need to connect to a future roadway with 2 lanes in each direction? What if we did some planning here and figured out in the next 20 years we would like to be able to handle 'x' capacity to the outer harbor, how can we build something now that eventually will enable the skyway to be removed rather than be another excuse from the state as to why the skyway can't be removed. What if...
I'm happy they are being aggressive about getting things done and give them alot of credit for that. Just really really hope some of the comments on here are strongly considered. Lack of plan for a light rail crossing especially at the possible main street bridge is extremely short sighted. I was under the impression that the outer harbor was supposed to be heavily developed? Seems the outer harbor and downtown should be comprehensively connected and rely on vehicular AND alternate modes of transit reducing the parking burden. I fear this one lane bridge in either direction will end up being a fix it now project with no plan for the future when things get developing as they are supposed to whenever that happens. I dont have alot of confidence that another bridge could be constructed timely after this one is, or somehow this bridge could be widened when the traffic demands grow.
forget where - what type of bridge is most important! we NEED a bascule span to film high speed car chases on an opening bridge.
after all, wasnt the General Lee @ the BCT this weekend?
Let's not buy the studio apartment and plan to have a family. Looks like the State is saying a studio apartment is good enough for Buffalo as they have already given signals that they'd like to build the Ganson Street bridge and be done with it. That should not even be an option unless paired with another bridge.
i always picture if we had an MLB team that if we positioned the diamond by the harbor like San Fran, that it would be really cool to have the balls hit into the harbor and people on kayaks paddling all around out there.
To all the fans of the "Blue" Option: Didn't General Mills make some agreement with a former city administration that led to the citys' abandoning the portion of Michigan Ave. near the mill? I believe that the Michigan Ave site was studied and General Mills' stand on it was that they would close the mill if a brige was reconstructed there. General Mills uses that part of Michigan Ave as a staging area for their trucks.
I can't wait to file the lawsuit on this one. Sign the petition to ban these bridges: www.banallbridgesinbuffalo.com
just a thought, but will these bridges accommodate all the sailboats that more there?
Gen.Mills' taking-my-ball-and-going-home attitude toward the Michigan bridge is that it would make unloading ships less convenient.
Last time I was down there, Michigan Ave was open right up to the old bridge foundations at the water's edge.
I like the Main Street idea, but please build it wide enough for 4 lanes and lay down LRT tracks for the future.
I would like the reason why a tunnel would be like the skyway in reverse further explained, as well as why a tunnel would require such an extensive amount of land? Seems to me a tunnel wouldnt need a long elevated higway like the current skyway has all along the outer harbor. I dont understand why the tunnel couldnt simply be developed to go under the Buffalo River and then pop out soon afterwards and then stay at grade? I realize there are grade issues with safely descending into the tunnel and then coming back up but I still cant see how the land burden would be so great? Its the same number of lanes, just their going into a hole in the ground plus we get rid of this need for an elevated highway that acts as a wall along the outer harbor and eats up tremendous amount of developale waterfront property. In the Hampton Roads area of Virginia that area is graced with a number of major tunnel projects. In the case of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and Chesapeake Bay Bridge- Tunnel the roadway goes under the water while already in the river, it also comes up still with water on all sides. Yeah a tunnel would have a similar disconnecting effect while in it but so does anything crossing a body of water including a bridge, its a connector between points A and B. The disservice is done when you have elevated highways like the skyway blowing by all those lands and cutting the area up physically. Perhaps a bridge is a better option but I still am having issues unerstanding whats so wrong with a tunnel, especially considering foul winter weather where a tunnel would actually shelter travel along a windswept section of Route 5 at least for a part.
Only one bridge completed by 2013... not suprised but I guess I should be happy some sort of progress is in the works as far as Outer Habor access.
Steel: i agree build all four. i've often thought about the buffalo river and if it could be modeled after the chicago river.
what ever happened to that bridge that was supposed to connect the US and canada and replace the Peace Bridge? hmmmm.....
i'm sure this project is more important, my point however, is that decisions are made basically by the same people for both projects.
How nice would high rise condo towers look on 'kelly island' if they knocked down all those useless rusty factories! Would look like a modern city.
Well two things come immediately to mind:
1) I prefer the Erie Street location along the corrected path. Its historically correct and it allows an expanded canal district.
2) I would remind everyone that the International Railway Bridge and the Ohio Street Bridge both need to be replaced.
So I would start with the Erie Street Bridge first, then examine traffic patterns for useage....does traffic want to return on Main (very small development area), Michigan (fits perfectly with the development of the canal district) or its current return over by Ohio.
Also to be examined is....the effect of the Erie Street Bridge and the Tifft Street Connector on the Skyway. Is it needed? Is it needed as an elevated expressway?
If the skyway is needed, then I can see it being replaced with a tunnel.
If it is not needed then I can see Furhman Boulevard eventually becoming route5 parkway the the Tifft Street Connector being the expressway interconnect.
Either way...whether the skyway is replaced, kept or dismantled...one thing is for certain...the area surrounding the Ohio Street bridge and its relation to the Inner Harbor (Kelly Island) and the Outer Harbor must be completely rethought. ITS NOT GOING TO BE GOOD ENOUGH TO PLOP A BRIDGE AT THAT INTERCONNECT AND SAY ITS DONE.
One additional bridge connected to this peninsula is more than adequate. The difference between this and the river in Chicago is that on both sides of Chicago's river there is ample land for development (which indeed has been developed). What this bridge will connect is downtown (lots of development; good) to is a small peninsula (not much potential for development; bad) which then broadens out as the skyway makes landfall. That small peninsula will never support huge growth. More than one additional connection here (aside from the skyway) is a waste. We can find far more effective uses of taxpayer dollars.
As for a tunnel, that idea should die. First, tunnels are incredibly expensive to build. Second, the slope leading down to and up from the bottom makes the tunnel a very long piece of roadway. You enter way before the river, travel down sufficiently to be far under the bed of the river, then make your way up gradually. It takes a lot of land. Sure, you can develop the land above it, but aside from the expense, driving a tunnel provides no visual connection to where you're driving.
Bini for Mayor!
"More than one additional connection here (aside from the skyway) is a waste. We can find far more effective uses of taxpayer dollars.
As for a tunnel, that idea should die."
While there may be less developable land in the Outer Harbor as opposed to the Chicago River corridor, there is still ample land for development and if done properly, at a very dense level, it more than justifies all four bridges, not to mention the low-impact traffic plan which enhances quality of life. Further, these would not be massively expensive bridges at all; just smallish, hopefully stylish ( Sir Norman Foster, anyone? ) connectors that recast the entire harbor area in a new light. But I do agree with your assessment of a tunnel replacement of the Skyway: it would be a potentially multi-billion dollar project that would serve a small, and stable, if not declining, traffic count. But for the record: If only Robert Moses had thought tunnel in 1950...
Sony,
By dense do you mean going up? If so the biggest challenge with this is what exists on Kelly Island. Not the greatest view if you know what I mean and going "up" depends on the view. Sure you have Lake Erie to one side but the "City View" would be horrible.
biniszkiewicz which is why the only potential option for a tunnel is the skyway replacement.
However...a lift bridge at Erie or Main in combination with the Tifft Street connector...with change the routes of alot of downtown traffic.
Which is why it is very important to get a lift bridge at erie or main (preferably erie) and get the Tifft Street Connector built and then re-examine...the skyway, route5, the ohio bridge and how the interchange at the southern end should be configured.
Can someone explain to me what the plan is for this "Tifft Street Connector"? I've seen it mentioned many times but still have a fuzzy idea about what is actually planned. I live in South Buffalo so needless to say I'm pretty interested with the idea.
Wolffman, do an internet search and look for NYSDOT.
"New I-190/Tifft Street Arterial This project component consists of construction of a new four-lane (or two-lane expandable to four-lane) arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. The alignment of the new road consists of construction of new on/off ramps at the existing Seneca Street interchange on I-190 and it follows a former railroad right-of-way to a new fixed bridge over the Buffalo River beyond the river’s navigable portion for commercial vessels. The alignment passes through the eastern portion of the former LTV/Republic Steel site. In addition, a new bicycle/pedestrian trail is constructed along the full length of
the alignment."
their website can provide picture and such.
Thanks for the info QueenCity, I just read up on the Arterial and it's an incredible idea. Once built, there is no reason for the skyway to stay up. I can see there being a serious logjam at the Tifft/Arterial intersection and at the on/off ramps to the 190 (similar to the 33 on the 90) during rush hours, but regardless it will allow trucks and traffic to completely bypass the waterfront on its way through the city. Well, till north of downtown at least.
Wolffman,
I dont know enough to disagree or agree. However, if you see a traffic bottleneck...then thats the place to invest in property. Three rules of commercial property: location, location and location.
Yes, Tifft Street Arterial will change the justification for the skyways existence, route5 elevated expressway, the access ramp at Franklin, Pearl, Seneca as well as put into question the elm oak arterial...which I have often said should be moved further away from the city towards Jefferson or Fillmore.
We can only hope that the Erie Street access ramp to the Niagara Expressway is also closed and detoured to Virginia.
A lift bridge at Erie must be the priority, then the Tifft Street Arterial....THEN WE CAN RE-EXAMINE THE CHANGES TO DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC.
THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN....AS THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO OPEN DOWNTOWN UP TO THE EAST PAST ELM/OAK, TO THE NORTH PAST ERIE STREET ACCESS TO NIAGARA EXPRESSWAY AND THE SKYWAY ACCESS, AND OPEN SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE FIRST WARD, INNER AND OUTER HARBOR AREAS.
The only thing that will do more for Buffalo is the larkin, central terminal, galleria, airport corridor line of our light rail.
Perhaps you are right about a tunnel not being a viable option to include with these bridge proposals but I maintain it should remain a very viable option for the replacement of the skyway. Route 5 is not really a tourist route where its crucial to have that visual connection every second, its a north-south commuter route more than anything and a way for some north towners to get to Bills games on Sunday, its an efficient mover of goods and people and little more. Route 5 is not of an intimate scale roadway that would complement efforts to create a tight knit dense inner harbor area if built at grade with a big bridge or maintained in its current elevated state, it would act as a big burden in my mind, a physical barrier just as devestating as the Kengsington hole in the ground. I see value in tunneling this and developing that smaller scale urban walkable district above, not to mention to rid the waterfront of a big visual barrier that detracts from inner harbor efforts.
How nice would high rise condo towers look on 'kelly island' if they knocked down all those useless rusty factories! Would look like a modern city....
I love this idea. I have always dreamed of Kelly Island becoming a large open park, with development in mid or high rise form on both sides of the island. I wonder what it would take to get General Mills to possibly move off Kelly Island and on Lake Erie or if it is even possible.
I know some people like the grain elevators but seriously...they are not going to be redeveloped..at least all of them.
confucius say - can you be called a rust belt city if you remove the rust?
General Mills is not going anywhere until the day it closes. This is an industrial landscape that has many great features in some of the remaining grain elevators. The area just needs a good scrubbing and better access.
thats a great idea!
That would be so nice if that was a green area kind of like a central park for people who lived on the Outerharbor and in the Cobblestone district.
Plus the rooftop / upper floors of a highrise building views would be spectacular looking down at the green area.
So much vision for this great city, but like they always say, "the difference between an entrepreneur and a man with a good idea is that an entrepreneur follows through with his vision rather than just dreams about it."
4 years to build a bridge? Buffalo at its best!
Like many other viable WNY projects, this either won't get done or will get delayed indefinitely.
How is that outer harbor land transfer from the NFTA to the ECHDC going? Absolutely laughable!
Why not infill half the City Ship Canal? No one uses the back end of it and its all dead water anyways. Now you could just pave over instead of cost of building the Ganson Crossing. The infilled area could be more parking(joke). This passage, along with the Erie Crossing would be ideal.
On another Inner/Outer Harbor note after checking the EarthCam view of the Aud removal it is apparent that the Skyway needs to go. How can they possibly think of building up the Inner Harbor with that monstrosity hovering above..?? Time for Buffalo to fight and get the funding and the NYDOT to wake up and remove that eyesore..
Funny, but if this were 1899 or 1909, "aggressive schedule" would mean that the bridge was ordered from the steel mill about 3 months ago, the parts had been delivered, and it was being erected already.
Too many things are studied to death ...
Well, they want to be sure they get it just right...so we can rip it to pieces!
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200




Smart money would build all 4 of them. Imagine Chicago if there was only one bridge across the Chicago river every 2 miles or so.
Agreed. Plans should be drawn up for all four options and funding and construction should occur whenever possible.