The Buffalo West Side
Environmental Defense Fund (BWSEDF) is hosting a fundraiser tomorrow, August 28
to support their current battle with the Public Bridge Authority. BWSEDF is a not-for-profit,
"whose mission is to generate public awareness of environmental issues, to
raise funds and to take other actions addressing quality of environment issues,
all with a view towards improving the quality of the human environment and
diminishing public health hazards in the West Side neighborhoods of Buffalo,
New York."
For tickets or information
contact Kathy Mecca via krmecca@yahoo.com
or 716-984-4218.
For a large part of Buffalo's industrial heritage the air quality in all of the city was far worse than it is in this small area right now. If it was okay for over a hundred years I dont see what makes it so bad now?
That's one of the worst points made in an argument I've ever seen.
Right, Up. How DARE you people not want to settle for elevated rates of asthma among your children, dwindling property values, etc. Similarly, the Lake could have been set on fire due to its pollution 40 years ago--how dare Riverkeeper ask for better.
Just accept what is. Don't ask for more/better. Mediocrity rules, right Up?
Really, asthma, you're scared of asthma? Let's stop millions of dollars in investment so we can prevent little johnny son of a bitch from raising his chances of getting asthma. You should also tell all the people who play in rec sports leagues that they're huffing in asthmatic pollutants as they play soccer, or any other type of activity. Also, I'm not 100 percent familiar with the block value of the neighborhood, but I'd bet my next paycheck the Peace Bridge isn't cracking into anyone's equity to the point where their going on welfare.
Millions of PUBLIC dollars in investment that can't be expected to produce hardly any private spin-off investment. Furthermore, injecting more truck traffic into the neighborhood and expanding an asphalt field will only cause harm to the surrounding neighborhood tax base... I would never move over there with that thing coming in, no way.
This is going to go down as one of the stupidest investments Buffalo has made.
Good, I could give to shits if it's public money or not. It's money going into the pockets of local construction workers, who will spend money our local economy. I'd rather spend millions of dollars making Buffalo more of a corridor for transit than 300 million on some patronage bridge to know where in Alaska. If it doesnt get spent here, it'll get spent building something else we dont need. So get over it, this project is happening no matter what a few nimby residents do, so you might as well embrace it and look at the positives and keep truckin', no pun intended
You're an idiot.
We need a tunnel from Canada to Grand Island, it's thinly populated and basically rural!
Wow. You are ignorant and clearly lack compassion for others.
What if this expansion project affected YOUR children and YOUR property? Would you still feel the same way? I highly doubt it.
Bernice - you accuse Up-and-Coming of 'clearly lack compassion for others'.
But if smart liberal leaders such as Cuomo, Duffy, Chuck Schumer, Sam Hoyt, Sean Ryan, and others are correct that plaza expansion would reduce 80% of fume-causing congestion compared to the status quo, isn't it actually the hoping to block plaza expansion by you, BRLifer, etc showing much less 'compassion' toward people at risk from fumes?
Even if their 80% prediction is off and the expansion end ups reducing fume-causing congestion by 60%, or 40%, or 20% (- hypothetically due to expansion causing net growth in trucks beyond what would happen with current sized plaza, as BRL guesses would happen -), isn't still the compassionate side of this clearly the side of Cuomo, Hoyt, Ryan, Schumer, Up-and-Coming, JimB, and me?
Is your side letting preservationist zealotry keep you closed minded about fume-reducing good which expansion could bring?
Any excuse of pretending that a silver bullet pipe dream like banning all trucks on the PB isn't compassionate either, by the way.
I don't think anybody who's well informed seriously believes a PB truck ban will happen, for many reasons. Pretending about something that won't happen (and which would bring its own new bad fume consequences it if did, on other north-south routes through northwest Buffalo), all while trying to stop something practical that can reduce fumes, sounds like the opposite of compassion.
You and a few others seem to be hoping to prevent a something that brings a practical reduction in fume-causing congestion, and then you claim that people like Up-and-Coming who favor it 'clearly lack compassion for others'.
Isn't that backwards?
Up and Coming has a history of rude and provocative comments that add little to a serious debate. Bernice called him out as such, your defense of him/her rings hollow.
As for increased truck traffic, this is not a guess but fact. I attended meetings several years ago during the Ambassador fiasco and the PBA had a clear plan to increase truck traffic and the lucrative toll revenue that comes with it. I was privy to this information because I was a leader in the fight to keep Ambassador from building a trucks only bridge here in Black Rock and the PBA was just as interested in stopping this development. Even if there was no effort to attract more trucks "build it and they will come" applies here, trucks follow the path of least resistance and would take advantage of a larger plaza until capacity was again over extended.
On preservation, even though I am a preservationist with a solid history of action I think preservation is a sidebar in this battle. I do support that effort but believe the focus should be on public health, as this is real and serious in nature, not just the nuisance so many like to claim.
Finally, I offered a clear and concise opinion and solution to the problem near the end of this thread, I am also disappointed in the political leadership on this issue from both sides.
Forgot one more point, no one to my knowledge advocates "banning all trucks" at the Peace Bridge, local delivery for business located in Buffalo or Fort Erie would be a reasonable compromise. Long haul truckers add no value or have any positive economic impact on Buffalo or even WNY and should seek alternative routes or methods of transportation.
BRL>"Up and Coming has a history of rude and provocative comments that add little to a serious debate. Bernice called him out as such, your defense of him/her rings hollow."
BRL, nice moving the goal post there. If she'd only called Up-and-Coming rude or provocative like you did, I wouldn't have questioned it. That wasn't what she said, so your spin about me ringing hollow itself rings hollow.
While I won't defend rudeness, it's common on all sides of things. (Is there a more rude and provocative person than Mr. Chicago, for example? He's incredibly obnoxious and rude to those who disagree with him. There's all kinds of personalities on all sides.)
That said, it's substance I'm more interested in, and so if Up-and-Coming favors something which reduces emissions it looked strange to see him/her said to be "lacking compassion" by someone who's position as I see it is opposing something that will reduce emissions.
BRL>"As for increased truck traffic, this is not a guess but fact."
It's a fact that they predict truck traffic growth.
But what isn't a fact is whether the actual truck traffic growth after plaza expansion would be so much higher (compared to how much truck traffic would grow anyway if plaza expansion is stopped by activists) that it would raise emissions by so much that the total emissions would then equal or exceed the emission reductions from plaza efficiency improvements.
^ that isn't "fact", but a wild guess with nothing I've seen from you or anyone to substantiate it.
And if the guess is wrong, then blocking the plaza improvements would, logically, be resulting in greater emissions than would be the case if the improvements happen.
By how much would PB truck traffic have to increase beyond what it will anyway, when economies eventually get heathy growth again, populations keep rising, etc in order to bring more emissions than are reduced by what Cuomo and Hoyt say would be an 80% decrease in the current congestion which we see causes huge backups across the whole bridge?
"If Up and Coming favors something which reduces emissions", problem is there is no evidence an expanded plaza will do that. Expansion will certainly draw more truck traffic, that is the intent of the plan, this was never about "reducing emissions", the PBA is simply looking at revenue.
As to attracting more trucks, that is not a "guess", the projections of future truck traffic has long been a driver of this plan. I am not pulling this out of thin air, as I said previously I did a lot of reasearch as an opponent to the Ambassador proposal.
BRL - again, even if plaza expansion is blocked, what's any reason to seriously think the PB won't have long term growth in truck traffic? Economies & populations of the U.S and Canada will have long term growth, which in turn likely increases amounts of commerce, and so on.
I find it far fetched to believe you really think Canada/Ontario could be unilaterally forced against their will to go along with all that would be involved in ending nonlocal truck crossings via Fort Erie, even if that was favored by U.S./NYS?WNY elected officials (which it obviously isn't widely favored here either), so it's just an unrealisitic pipe dream of a red herring.
Also again - what you seem to be claiming/guessing about and I'm taking exception to is that the *extra amount* of truck growth you say would result from the plaza being expanded (compared to how much it would grow if expansion can be blocked) will be so much that it causes enough extra emissions on a net basis to overcome the amount of emission reductions from what Cuomo, Hoyt, etc say would be an 80% reduction in fume-causing congestion in the plaza (2nd paragraph at that link).
To just keep saying truck traffic would grow after plaza expansion is a lame argument against expansion because truck traffic is expected to grow regardless, and there's no evidence the expansion will result in net growth of emissions compared to if the status quo plaza was forced to say as is.
Historically, the truck traffic has grown….
http://www.wnyheritagepress.org/photos_week_2005/peace_bridge/peace_bridge_expansion.htm
"Although now years old, the Peace Bridge remains virtually the same as it was when completed in 1927 … The growth of truck traffic from 40,000 crossings in 1950 to 450,000 crossings in 1974, and the increase in total traffic from 800,000 in 1943 to 5,800,000 in 1970, has necessitated many changes. Additional warehouses and in spection buildings have been built, up-to-date toll collecting facilities added, entrances and exits enlarged, and direct connections made to major highways at both ends of the Bridge. ..."
And in general for all crossings, it's projected to grow...
http://www.nteu.org/UnionOffice/LegislativeIssues/CongressionalTestimony/TestimoyPrint.aspx?ID=174
"Congressional Testimony Date: 05/04/2011
Before: Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Title: Securing the Border
…
Each year, 45 million vehicles cross into the United States from Canada. Most of the trucks use 22 principal border crossings. By 2020, the volume of truck traffic is projected to grow to 19.2 million per year, an increase of 63% from 11.8 million in 1999.
The six highest-volume crossings on the Canada-U.S. border handled almost 90%of the value and three-quarters of the tonnage and truck trips. According to the most recent data NTEU has, the six highest U.S.-Canada POEs are Ambassador Bridge (Detroit), Peace Bridge (Buffalo, NY), Blue Water Bridge (Michigan), Lewiston-Queenston Bridge (NY), Blaine (Washington), and Champlain (NY).
…"
FYI - I NEVER said this was a preservation issue. This is a Buffalo issue. This is a major health issue. Those houses mean nothing to me in comparison to the health issues that I do not want myself, my future family and my friends to deal with.
Did you forget that until last year ALL the West Side democrats, including Sam Hoyt, were AGAINST the peace bridge expansion primarily because of the health issues? Did you know that Sam at one time was a key leader and advocate for the prospect hill neighborhood and the west side? Hmmmm... I wonder what made them change their minds so quickly because the issue is still the same??
Lastly, there is no proof that this expansion will reduce the diesel exhaust fumes - why do I say that??? Because no firm plan has been given to the public.
The PBA is hiding the fact that they want to build a giant gas station, bigger duty free while harming the health of Buffalo's citizens and destroying a strong, diverse neighborhood.
bernice>"I NEVER said this was a preservation issue."
Ok, good, that's to your credit, unlike Tielman's group which is making this a pres issue. I had put that in the form of a question to ask if pres is part of your motive.
We agree then that preserving the 8 houses isn't a good reason to be against reducing truck congestion. So far, so good.
bernice>"Did you forget that until last year ALL the West Side democrats, including Sam Hoyt, were AGAINST the peace bridge expansion primarily because of the health issues?"
Wait a minute. Many of them (including Hoyt) favored a new larger bridge to replace or accompany the Peace Bridge.
That isn't being "AGAINST expansion".
Isn't it the opposite of being against expansion?
Here's Hoyt in the Buffalo News January 2010 (almost a year before Cuomo was even elected gov), when Hoyt was still an Assembly member, favoring a new larger bridge to accompany the Peace Bridge, which surely would have been accompanied by a larger plaza and more trucks, and explicitly opposing any lawsuits to stop it:
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/niagara-county/article162145.ece
"With open mind on bridge, lawmaker awaits public showcase
By Patrick Lakamp
Published:January 25, 2010, 11:56 AM
…
Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, D-Buffalo, who has been involved in the issue since the current environmental study officially began in October 2001, said he is “confident we can choose a bridge that is attractive and can make a significant statement.”
“While I don’t think we’re going to be on the covers of any great architectural magazines, the current design options are much more impressive than what we were originally talking about,” Hoyt said.
Hoyt, whose district includes the bridge neighborhood, said he would have preferred a six-lane replacement bridge in a different location, with U. S. inspection facilities on the Canadian side of the crossing.
None of that is in the current plan, and Hoyt anticipates lawsuits from opponents.
“Will I be a party to such lawsuits?” Hoyt said. “The answer is no.”
…"
So yeah, they may have favored other alternatives such as putting the whole plaza on the Canadian side in Ft Erie or having a new additional bridge be somewhere else - but when those things became ruled out, they didn't at all consistently oppose the concept of expansion.
Hoyt in that Jan 2010 article I quoted was focused on aesthetics of an additional new bridge at the PB site, and explicitly against a lawsuit to stop it.
bernice>"there is no proof that this expansion will reduce the diesel exhaust fumes - why do I say that??? Because no firm plan has been given to the public. "
Doesn't it logically follow that if truck congestion is reduced by 80% as Cuomo, etc all seem to be saying - that there'd consequently be substantially less fume-causing idling on the bridge and in the plaza? How could there not be?
Have you seen how at times how the trucks currently back up barely moving all the way across the whole Peace Bridge?
Will you be open minded if a plan is released which shows changes to greatly reduce congestion delays and idling in the plaza?
"Wow. You are ignorant and clearly lack compassion for others.
What if this expansion project affected YOUR children and YOUR property? Would you still feel the same way? I highly doubt it."
You might want to look in the mirror before you toss the "ignorant" bomb out there. I'm not sorry if my realistic point of view is to hard for you to understand. Also, to address your hypothetical question. I'd never move next to a bridge that has mass amounts of truck traffic on it, if I was concerned with truck fumes. Thats like moving next to a landfill and complaining about all the garbarge, so nice try.
now that's exactly the kind of argument rightfully mobilizes opposition to the project. good work.
What would your take be if you were suffering asthma because you lived in this neighborhood, or worse if it was your own child? What would your take on NIMBY be if your neighborhood was getting destroyed for essentially a patronage cigarette shop?
um, asthma can kill you and asthma death rates are rising.
http://www.epa.gov/aging/pdfs/2004_1209_increasing_asthma_mortality.pdf
Did you hear about the guy who had French asthma? He could only catch his breath in snatches.
A Lot of other unsafe and unacceptable practices were "OK" a hundred years ago, we have evolved and progressed, at least most of us.
hey, if cancer was good enough for my grandparents and parents, the, by golly, it's good enough for me!
If it's such a huge deal then why don't you hear complaints from every resident that lives close to the 290, 190, 33 (which def pump more toxins into the air than the peace bridge) or any other main roadway complaining? Answer, because it's not. We live in an era where the air is much cleaner that it's been in probably 200 years, so get over yourselves people.
It is because truck plaza's are proven to be diesel "hot spots" due to the concentration of exhaust from the incomplete combustion of idling trucks. An idling truck emits 20 times more pollution than a truck in transit. That is in addition to the fact that diesel exhaust contains 100 to 200 times the amount of fine particulate than gasoline exhaust.
In that case expand the plaza and help create less of a log jam. Less of a log jam, less trucks sitting at idle, less trucks sitting at idle means less toxins. So if you think about it about it the residents should be championing this program and not opposing it.
Expanding the plaza will simply attract more trucks (which is the intent of the PBA). Trucks are the largest source of toll dollars, the plan has always been to increase the volume and revenue at the Peace Bridge. More trucks will of course mean long lines waiting at customs, we will still have the problem of idling trucks.
But if you have an expanded plaza that means the trucks will have more lanes to pass through, which will mean less idel time, thus generating more tax revenue. In the end I don't think the plaza would be expanded if it didn't mean less of a wait time, even if there are more trucks.