Senator Kennedy Calls for Senate Hearing on Future of Skyway

Finally!!!

Sounds like Tim Kennedy is taking direction from Micky Kearns and finally making an effort to respect the concerns of the 'urbanist' community.

Now, if we could only get the State Senators to grow some more brains and tear down the 190, ban the trucks from the Peace Bridge, and establish a dedicated revenue stream for preservation projects (so that the preservation movement can become a catalytic force for progress).

Things are looking up.

yes please

I could go either way on this. Tearing down the Skyway seems like a moot point since the opportunity to downgrade Route 5 was recently lost. However, I can only imagine a large ice sheet flying off this thing and injuring someone skating the frozen canals when Canalside is built out.

Any word on where the traffic from Route 5 would actually go if the Skyway comes down? The most viable option seems to be Ohio Street, which doesn't seem like a fantastic idea. Has anyone actually discussed this yet?

There is atleast 1 city block entirely consumed by the access ramp (what is it Perry, Church, Franklin, Swan) between the HSBC Center and Canalside...this is becoming high value land needed to integrate canalside and downtown.

The same could be said for the access ramp at Erie Street by HealthNow when the Virginia access ramp is so close.

The Elm-Oak is another such problem

They are all to close to the downtown CORE. How can you develop center city when the life blood is drained so quickly by these access ramps.

Access ramps should be atleast 1 mile from Center City. Think about it...if your working downtown
1) taking Virgina instead of Erie or Skyway Access Ramp isnt a big deal.
2) taking Hamburg istead of the Skyway isnt a big deal
3) taking Jefferson or Best instead of Elm-Oak isnt a big deal either

But the benefits to downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods would be enormous

I'm not a fan of the Skyway, but if it takes a million dollars to remove it, I'd rather see that $1M get invested in the existing parcels below. A thousand bucks would be better spent on decent lighting a la Peace Bridge.

$10M to demolish, I'd rather $10M invested in the HarbourFront.

$100M to remove the Skyway, That's $100M easily spent renewing half of downtown.

$1B to tear down the Skyway, let's be real... it will cost $3B to fund HALF of the studies telling us what it would cost $100B to replace it.

Sure, we could do better than the Skyway. But we could do a hundred times better with 1/100 of the money it would take to do without it.

Good thing we just dumped $50 mil into a new super highway leading up to the Skyway.

Good Grief... This is nothing more than Kennedy making sure that he is publicly humping his Daddy, Higgins on everything that he possibly can.

I'm not for or against access ramps just honestly don't understand why they hurt a city. Can someone please explain why they are bad?

What would be the new route? I like the idea

Hello....do you see a trend here?

1. Skyway in Buffalo
2. Robert Moses in Niagara Falls
3. Inner loop in Rochester
4. 1-81 in Syracuse (I think this is much worse than the skyway)
5. Excuse my lack of details..but wasn't a highway removal in Brooklyn just defeated?

For the love of god..call these supporters/politicians in other cities, work together and package it as on deal.

Add up the value added to the tax roles via reclaimed land and larger valuations to adjacent properties + what you'll save NOT maintaining this superstructures..and noone in the right mind wouldn't refuse!

Follow the money folks...

Just like with the Peace Bridge and the PBA's desire to twin it and maintain the existing structure - things are no different with the rebuilt rt5 and Skyway maintenance... these politicians and DOT are tied up with lucrative contacts and kick backs from industries that create and maintain these structures.

This is why NY is so corrupt and upstate cities are dying.

Whenever it is a no brainer and politicians and authorities are involved - you simply follow the money.

I still dont get the thinking the population is declining but all these businesses abandoning one part of the city to move at another location. So how do they predict that its cheaper to remove the Skyway now rathter than leaving it? Were are the sources? I was for removing it too but now I seem to go back and forth on this. Would it spawn real estate boom in those areas if its taken down? At least if it were taken down people would have to drive in the city rather then over it. Im still wondering.

If the cost estimates in the original article are correct, then this is an easy decision. Get rid of that sucker. Although I do like the idea of leaving just one or two sections and using them as some kind of interesting look-out. It will also demonstrate to future urban planners what not to do.

Keep the Skyway!

1. We sure as hell should be concerned with all those commuters coming in via the Skyway. Make the trip too much of a hassle, by removing the Skyway while replacing it with nothing efficient, and guess what Pollyanna: The commuters won't move to downtown; their offices will move to Hamburg!

2. A tunnel would cost much, much more than maintaining the Skyway, and a tunnel would require large swaths of land, too. Where does it enter? Where does it exit?

4. Anyone who claims that draw bridges will work just fine for the traffic has never had to wait half an hour for the Ohio Street bridge. Get real. Every sailboat, every tug, every freighter, every time means the bridge has to be raised, and if there's a new bridge replacing the Skyway, that new bridge will have to be lifted much more often (as a lot of sailboats currently go beneath the Skyway, even if they don't go down the Buffalo River).

5. 'Functionally obsolete' does NOT mean unusable or beyond maintaining. It only means that the bridge doesn't comply with more modern practices. In this case it means specifically that there are no shoulders on the bridge and we wouldn't build a new bridge without them today. Oh, well. It would be nice if it had shoulders, but it's not tragic that it doesn't. And if it did, it would cost even more to maintain.

6. The blame the Skyway is getting for the outer harbor not getting developed is misplaced. I see no coherent case that the Skyway has hurt outer harbor development. The outer harbor was never developed because it was populated by dirty industry: steel mills, mostly. Until Bethlehem shut down (and Republic and ten other mills) it was a polluted mess. Tift was a garbage dump (I remember it) before it was capped and turned into a 'preserve'. It took Buffalo decades to build the first townhouses in the inner harbor. Now that the inner harbor finally has critical mass, and now that the industrial hulks are largely removed from the harbor, the outer harbor will follow the inner harbor, Skyway or no Skyway.

Commuters in Western New York have one of the shortest commutes in the country. When they come downtown they get cheap parking.

Buffalonians are spoiled. Shifting removing a ramp, shifting a bridge. Adding an additional 5 mins to someones commute wouldn't be the end of the world would it?

If you've ever driven on the west side highway in NYC you will see that you can move up or downtown pretty quickly even if there are a lot of lights. You will also see that NYC has recaptured and reactivated an entire swath of land that shifted from functioning port/commercial hub to residential and entertainment. It's not perfect, there are waste stations, and other more industrial pockets, but all in all it is great!

The Skyway can be replaced with something much more attractive with fewer piers and possibly a stayed cable design. You actually can retain the functionality of the Skyway while bringing in a new, fresher and more appealing bridge. Cost? Enormous, but nowhere near the cost of replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge. If the DOT wants to keep this infrastructure, the least they can do is replace that ugly duckling with a graceful swan. All other options only work if traffic is diverted elsewhere or declines dramatically. But as Downtown recovers from 40 years of neglect, the demand on commuting infrastructure can only increase.

http://www.ranwebber.com/Movie/skywaymovie.html

Have they ever considered just trying to build these ideas and new ideas, some where else?

Instead of the skyway, they could relocate The metro terminal for an extended board walk. The skyway needs to go, but since we haven't figured out a better traffic route, maybe it would be wise to figure out other harbor options.

Very great news!

The DOT has been making a lot of brainless decisions in regards to reclaiming land in the Buffalo area. This call to tear down a "functionally obsolete" structure at a small cost, and give back to the community for a larger investment sounds like something that the city is ready for. Why on Earth would DOT want to stick us with this monster for another 20 YEARS at the very time people want to get rid of it?

They really should explain to everyone what their "priorities" are, keeping in mind there are some more important than those pertaining to the motorist.

I am no fan of superhighways, but at the same token what are they going to replace the skyway with if it gets demolished. An at grade roadway with drawbridges is definitely the wrong answer. That will only cause horrible traffic congestion and pollution from auto exhaust which would make the downtown waterfront unpleasant and undesirable. The skyway bridge does not obstruct anything. Enough of that shopworn crock of shit that the skyway bridge obstructs the waterfront from downtown because the total opposite is the truth. I have no problem either cycling or walking from downtown to the waterfront. Obvioulsy walking under the skyway bridge is very easy. I can just envision all those road raging commuters being forced onto some grade level boulevard with an antiquated drawbridge as the only way across the Buffalo River. Instead of the safer, easy way of getting to the waterfront from downtown on foot or bike like it is currently, it will become a real safety nightmare for pedestrians wanting to cross this proposed grade level boulevard. Has any of these politicians or you guys clamoring for removing the skyway ever taking this into consideration?

Pro-Skyway arguments? What's next, defending the 33?

This mess looks pretty obtrusive to me (Google Map Streetview).

Had the Skyway never been built would we today be championing Hamburg resident's rights to easy, destructive access to downtown? No, because the population wouldn't support that need.

And why is biniszkiewicz defending the suburbs anyways? How do they collaborate with the city? Whenever Kevin Gaughan's regionalism idea comes up, toilets overflow because Erie County collectively throws a sh*t fit.

A safety nightmare referring to pedestrians having to cross a very busy and congested at grade boulevard. Keeping the current skyway bridge is a far better and safer alternative because it separates heavy auto traffic from the pedestrian friendly waterfront area below. The skyway bridge doesn't block anything, you can get safely under it. This whole belief that the Skyway blocks the city from its downtown waterfront is just a beautiful excuse and a baseless one at that.