Five New Signature Bridge Designs Released

This will happen.... When the Bills win the super bowl and Sabres the cup....in the same year.

Anyone who had the heath of both the city and the region in mind wouldn't even consider expanding the Peace Bridge at this location.

This kind of infrastructure - requiring seamless connections to limited access highways and ample space for auto-related needs - clearly needs a non-urban location for capacity, connectivity, expansion and security needs.

And why is there no discussion of Buffalo's long-term major infrastructure needs into the future? - re-establishing the major WNY border crossing for the next 75-100 years has enormous impact upon what we will need for our highways, especially the Niagara expressway. Where are our leaders on this project and issue? Why does no Buffalo leader seem to understand that making changes in the city is more than just what we can get built right now.

Schumer's and Higgins' stance on this project and neglect to understand the real benefits and consequences of it disgusts me.

Pick one and move on with this already!!! A process started in 1993 its been almost 17 years already. In that amount of time someone has been born, raised, and is planning for college next year.

Wow the design of this thing is really going backwards.

From a design standpoint, all politics and reality aside, every one of those designs is very attractive and would look great.

I'll ask what is possibly stupid question - I assume the bridge isn't really going to be white - the renderings only illustrate the bridge form?

"it is about the economic expansion of a region through international commerce." This is the never ending story. By now I would imagine truck based commerce has already long ago figured how to bypass the area and cross the border elsewhere.

I know I know now the argument now comes that we've pushed this project off long enough and now can pat ourselves on the back because truck commerce will be a thing of the past in the new economy after all Buffett has pumped money into trains. The fact is we have an ancient relatively narrow bridge that isnt going to last forever, we have ever increasing human populations (well at least outside of WNY) and vehicular transportation like it or not is still very much in our future in a hybrid form or not making border crossings for truck and auto still very necessary. Maybe this idea will satisfy some of the haters? How about picking a bridge an then constructing it wide enough that there is ample ROW for a high speed rail crossing over the same train deck? Kill two birds with one stone here and tyhen we ont have to go through with constructing a whole new train bridge and have ensured the future potential for a high speed rail crossing?

Do we even need a new bridge at this point? Traffic at the Peace Bridge has been declining every year since 2003. What makes us think this trend won't continue? Couldn't the funds allotted for this project be better spent somewhere else (high speed rail)? Not sure, but it seems reasonable.

I'm still a fan of one signature span that will be spectacle for people to see rather than two bridges that have no similarities. If they do build it, I sure hope it's not the stark white color that the models suggest. Can you imagine what that will look like after 10, 15, or 25 years Buffalo winters?

If everyone really moves on the idea of adding rail ROW for high speed rail in addition to the vehicular lanes on this new bridge (PLEASE PICK ONE ALREADY) resulting in a wider bridge deck perhaps rail stimulus funding could be lumped into the bridge construction budget? This would likely set Buffalo as the crossing point for high speed rail and go further to establish Buffalo as a hub city for such rail service. Just a thought.

These are the same designs we were shown in about 2000. Only shorter to save the birds. I'm all for the No. 1 or No. 2 designs, BUT if this means knocking down an entire neighborhood so a few trucks have a place to park, then forget 'bout it. Not interested in a new bridge if that is what we have to deal with.

I'm unsure as well but its a bridge thats been in the planning phases and hopefully will be constructed this century. It seems like the quickest most readily available chance to push a high speed rail crossing. As for light rail I suggested a few months back that light rail be extended from Buffalo to downtown Niagara Falls (of course thinking regionally realizing that unfortunately in many ways the WNY area loves their moat surrounded little town/city/ village empires). The idea there would be that access to Niagara Falls and Buffalo would be easy for out of town tourists because a light rail train is within walkable distance from a hotel. A Niagara Falls train station that says you get on here and your ultimate destinatin will be...Buffalo Inner harbor, etc. or visa versa. Get on and the end of the line is Niagara Falls. This wouldnt require more vehicular burden on roads between the two cities, wouldnt require additional parking, just a rail line. If you extended light rail out to the Buffalo airport as it should be you might be able to tap the Central terminal with light rail and if you can fit high speed rail into the Central Terminal plans you have a great transfer point for high speed rail, light rail, rail line transfers, access to the airport, downtown Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and all points accessed by the high speed rail network. I like the idea of "make no small plans" and thinking regionally.

Hey, you can make equally pretty bridge and sunset pictures from Grand Island, can't you?

Perhaps the feds would be interested in bypassing Niagara Falls USA because NOTHING gets done there compared to the Canadian side. How has Niagara Falls, USA proven to the Feds that they can effectively plan for and have constructed new revitalization projects without some sort of scandal? A bridge crossing that would include high speed rail at Buffalo could certainly run into Niagara Falls, Canada on its way to Toronto.

Interesting...but can anyone say Boston's Leonard Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge (http://www.leonardpzakimbunkerhillbridge.org)? For that reason alone, I vote the last design....which also pays tribute to the original Peace Bridge design.

This is ridiculous. Just build a bridge already.

This is ridiculous.
By the time a new bridge is built anyone involved will be 6 feet under.

I don't know; those new designs, besides being ugly and passe,look like they'll pick up a lot of dirt.

"Revised" plaza design:
http://www.peacebridgex.com/files/Landscape%20Plan%20Map%20of%20%20Revised%20Project%20Area.pdf

Design 2 or 5 are the beset ones. I like the needle type support over the diamond one. The 5th one reminds me of an upgraded version of the existing bridge design.

Those bridges would look great in Lewiston.

If the 5th design was chosen and actually remains white, the contrast between it and the LED-lit trusses of the original Peace Bridge would look pretty amazing at night.

Maybe they could build the bridge starting in Fort Erie, then go along the river to Grand Island, enclose the bridge, divert all the fumes to blackrock, build a truck plaza in Lewiston, and connect it all to high speed rail to points in Los Angles, Miami, and New York. Maybe I will be asked to prove this point.

what? we're still talking about this? boooo-rrrinnnggg. i just hope whenever it's built, and whether or not in any type of office, i want to see Mr. Byron Brown holding the scissors for the ribbon cutting. because i'm sure he'd be involved somehow.

I assume there is a design reason for this but why can't the new support towers be lined up better with the current towers...and any of the designs are fine by me just get the bridge done already. I guess I like #1 or 2 best. #5 would look nicer if it matched up better with old bridge...there is nothing overly creative/unique about any of these bridges so just pick one and get it done.

And I agree that we should get rail connections from TO to Buffalo and Buffalo to Falls, airport, UB, etc. but the Peace Bridge is in need of repair once the new bridge is completed maybe that bridge could be used for rail as well? and the Falls already has Whirlpool bridge for train traffic...

What a Great Thundering Paradox our US Senator Charles Schumer is! He is quoted in the Buff News saying: "there are no more federal issues." as if the bridge design were a completely separate and segmented part of the overall Peace Bridge expansion plan.

Senator: We have been down that road before! And furthermore, there are DOZENS of "federal issues”!!!

First and foremost, Senator - the PBA is in FEDERAL COURT right now! There are trying to convince a federal judge that U.S. and NYS laws DO NOT APPLY TO THEM!

Secondly - The plaza is driving this project, - not a picture of a bridge! There are dozens of federal protections to the citizens who live in the shadow of the peace bridge.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a FEDERAL LAW that protects residents, parks,(especially historic parks),homes,and churches(all presently endangered by this boondoggle).

It also demands alternative sites be studied before a single home is taken (as did the EPA and the City of Buffalo).

Thirdly - an "investment grade traffic study" will be required before a single dollar is borrowed, bonded, or granted to the PBA. They have not made one public, why?

Currently they will be asking for $750 Million U.S. FEDERAL DOLLARS to construct and expand a bridge that now has 1988 (Pre-NAFTA) levels of traffic.

Last - Senator - In 1998 you ran for the US Senate railing against the "twin bridge project" because it was "ugly" and promised to deliver a signature bridge. Almost 12 years later you have delivered nothing but comments about stages and federal issues.

If you stopped for a single moment and looked at the real issues (human health for starters) involved here - you would not be stuck on clueless with regard to the neighborhood issues that will prevent any new bridge from ever being built in this location.

As our Senior Senator it is incumbent upon you to raise these issues – to do anything less is an insult to the public.

Why in Buffalo do people have to fight every single project there has to be a group of people fighting it...whether it be the bridge or the casino or canalside or whatever...it never stops and progress is not made.

Amazing how many people associate a shiney new bridge, a greatly expanded plaza, and loss of a neighborhood as progress around here. To the NIMBYs and activists blocking this "progress"- I say keep up the good work!

Personally I don't much like any of these designs, but that's subjective. More objectively, the perceived need to build one of these bridges (rather than consider other alternatives at other locations) is seen in the Governor's statement: he and other players clearly see this mega-project as a symbolic link between the US and Canada at this highly visible location.

While I understand the urge to create large symbols, especially in people who can use "other people's money" to create them, those advancing this project continue to wear blinders to all the other factors that would constitute good planning here. Questions I don't see being addressed are: (1) why don't we consolidate the individual bridge authorities, so that instead of protecting and growing fiefdoms we can take a "border-wide" look at how we move people and goods back and forth across the border (2) is this the best location for goods movement (3) can this project really go forward without an expanded plaza, which is a crux of opposition (4) does the traffic at this location justify the expenditure (5) in an increasingly green era, will goods movement by rail more effectively compete with truck (6) what about the ancillary infrastructure, which at this location has to be shoehorned in and causes urban liveability problems, and could it be more easily developed (or already exist) elsewhere--? Among others.

While I completely sympathize with those who cry that we need to move forward on this "right now no matter what" out of a need to erase the perception of being a place where things don't get done, my fear is that in trying to dig out of that trap we'll find ourselves back in another: being a place that, after completion of projects, often realizes we did the wrong thing, at the wrong time, in the wrong place -- AGAIN.

But it appears that we're not alone wrestling with a dilemma like this. A community leader forwarded this today, about a similar situation on the Ohio River:
http://www.wfpl.org/2009/12/08/bridges/

Misguided, myopic, public officials trample each other to herald a "significant breakthrough," claiming they're "ready to move forward" and that "regulatory hurdles are cleared;" when, in fact, we've always known ANY BRIDGE DESIGN UNDER 400 FEET would fly. What they all fail to mention is that not only are these designs appalling, they're passé (and that color will get dirty fast). Oh, yes, and THE PLAN IS INSANE!

The worst of all possible results would be to have a second bridge built that does not complement the first. Doing nothing, or replacing the existing bridge with another would both be better options.

Of the options presented, #5 is the least bad. But what a sad commentary on the state of bridge design that after all this time, these are the choices.

how about a tunnel? nobody could complain about the ugly design. :-)

This who thing is a wast without proper customs. The problem is not the bridge. The existing bridge can more than handle the traffic volume. The problem is getting cars and trucks through customs. So we are going to spend a bunch of money on another bridge for cars to park on? That is what the peace bridge is a parking lot. The customs should have been all move to Ft. Erie but non-sense red tape got in the way. On the US side they want to demolish more of the city for a biggert plaza? Double deck the plaza in the same footprint, you don't need to knock down houses.

I mean if we are building a bridge just so people can drive by and say that is a nice bridge great, but lets focus on the real issues not saying 4 more lanes are going to solve our problem because they are not, when they are going through the same customs booths.

I used to like #5 the best a few years ago when they first showed it. Now I think I like #4 better. It is lighter, not so heavy and ponderous. I like the graduated heights of the arches in both. But I could live with 5, too, if they choose that (personally, as I constantly say, I'd rather they expanded border capacity with a new bridge at the IRR location instead).

Or they could just propose a half mile wide concrete bridge and truck plaza combo that gives the PBA both their expanded lanes and their little truck rodeo.

They had a good design, before the "signature bridge" issue was invented. Build the twin span, which even included replacing the supposedly ugly Parker Truss section. If they had been allowed to build that, it would've been completed long ago. I happen the admire the old Peace Bridge's looks.

Has anyone ever noticed the Ron Reinas, Peace Bridge Authority Tactic of digging out celebrity bridge designs whenever there is backlash from the community against the bridge.

No one notices that the Buffalo News has dug out the same old bridges in a new story less than a week after Higgins appointed a pro-bridge and pro-plaza and pro-demolition representative.

Really not a single person?
Nothing manipulative or co-incidental?
No attempt to manage public support for the preservation of the neighborhood and minimize the plaza or relocate the bridge to queenston/lewiston.

Really? I thought Buffalonians smarter!

It's such a simple solution... build but NOT expand the plaza...

done

think 20 to 50 years ahead ... the best location for a new plaza is the gm plant site with the 190 shared onto the rail corridor, with the waterfront given back to the people

If a new bridge is needed to accomodate all the trafiic and it is assumed that there will eventually be an influx of more truck traffic, then what difference will an added bridge make? I mean there is still only two lanes of highway leading to the bridge so does the 190 need to be expanded as well if we are expecting this sudden rush of more traffic at some point? Wont there be traffic jams there too? I still feel that waiting all this time actually worked in our benefit. Isn't it obvious that we no longer need a new bridge or plaza? Now it seems like they're moving forward out of spite to prove a point. If they scrapped this whole thing how many people would actually be upset (aside from Ron Peinas)?