NYSDOT Agrees to Look at Skyway Alternatives

Sky way isn't needed nuf sed

As much as I've always hated the skyway and still want it to come down, recently in some pictures, like the one in this article with the Metro rail underneath it, what I've noticed is that its height actually adds visual density to the area. I actually photoshopped the skyway out of a picture one time and what was left was an otherwise very very wide open, flat baron, windswept bald spot. Maybe now that there will be canals and buildings, cobblestone streets, lamp posts and trees etc (some day) that won't be the case? Would the skyway add to or subtract from that visual density? Not sure.

What if, for the sake of argument, the skyway were a beautiful looking old structure and not built in that horrible 1950s concrete style? What if it was all iron work, and cable stayed? Brooklyn Bridge style, made during Buffalo's Heyday? Would we still want it down?

Funny, there was a picture of Brian Higgins giving a speech the other day, right in front of the skyway, but the way the shot was framed, the new whipple truss bridge at the commercial slip looked as though it was an iron-work arch supporting the skyway and it looked fantastic; it make the skyway look pretty cool.

I think it will come down now that the DOT has budged and Higgins is a bulldog and will get it done. But if not, has the possibility of dressing up the skyway ever been thought of? I'm not just talking about just lighting it up, I mean actual structural additions for aesthetics sake.

IF keeping it alive and repairing it for another 50 years is what is settled on, do you think there NEEDS to be aesthetic improvements as well as structural ones to make it more pleasing to the eye (like adding arches to the underbelly and taller masts along the top so that it resembles a more classic style bridge?

I can't wait till they knock down the Skyway!

Then I can move my sailboat upstream; and four times a day I'll make sure to get that drawbridge to rise and backup traffic, just to prove how stupid the idea of knocking it down is!

Best sailing times are around 8am and 5pm right?

After thinking for a long time that we "could live with" the Skyway, I think it does much more harm than good.

Not only will the Skyway be removed, but the ramps leading to and from it will also be removed.

The removal of the ramps will free up acres of space, and will help stitch back parts of downtown that have been sacrificed to the ramps for all these years.

Take a look at a Google map and you can see how extensive (and disruptive) these ramps are.

Wasn't Brian a huge proponent of keeping the Skyway just a couple of years ago?

It seems the "long term strategy" has been refreshed, no?

Travelrr, at least your paying attention. Higgins advocated for the elevated route 5 project a few shorts years ago when most non-political and non-business stakeholder advocated for the boulevard alternative. It was a political decision because he could control the funding to the project and also choose which could get constructed quickest.... Therefore he had a built project to show off. That project never aligned with a future skyway removal, which was much of the asks for people being against it and for the at-grade boulevard.

But Higgins knows one thing... The electorate is largely not paying attention and even though he championed (bullied) a bad project, he could return for the next election cycle as a champion by forcing the skyway issue.

Removal is great idea, just horribly executed. So a new design after removal will have to link to a bad design that's elevated. That should be great.

"Great communities have the vision to look beyond the immediate needs of today and make smart decisions that can create a lasting, positive impact for generations to come"

This is true, however why didn't he have that vision when he pumped millions of tax payer monies into the Rt 5 reconstruction if it wasn't going to connect to the skyway eventually?

At this point in time I can take or leave the skyway. It does serve a critical function and over the last few years it has blended into the cityscape better then previously in my opinion but I hope there's more of a long term plan in place other than just simply tearing it down. I imagine this affects the development underneath the skyway as well so it would behoove them to decide one way or another asap.

This is gonna be the Peace Bridge debate for the 21st Century

I think its great that The Congressman finally listens to what Mickey Kearns said over and over again, Take Down That Bridge!
Now the Union workers will have even more jobs by leveling the elevated highway- a job is a job right?

People on here make it seem like the Skyway is the only think holding this city back from regaining is 1950's population. What are the alternatives? Take down the Skyway and everyone's going to magically start taking Ohio st, or some other backroad, which will spur economic development? Not likely, people will simply stop traveling into the city. Like it or not the Skyway serves as a functioning part of the city, as it helps traffic flow smoothly in and out of the city. I'm in the city all the time and if I had to take William or Clinton all the way into the city, I'd just stop coming. What we need is a bridge connecting Main st to the outer harbor. This way people have two options. Plus, the money we spend on leveling the Skyway we could take and build a new (signature) bridge. On top of that we could light them both up and wham bam thank you mam, we have something other cities would be jealous of.

Just knock off the section that goes over the ship canal and down into the outer harbor. Sod the street and turn it into a "hiking" park with a gorgeous view of the Lake in the summer, then cover it with snow and make it a ski/tube/sledding slope in the winter.

Seriously if you think the the Skyway should stay, you really don't understand the essence of this website. buffalrising... as in a new future... as in good urban design and planning... the skyway represents the opposite of that.

Sometimes I wonder if some of you have ever been outside of Buffalo. Or I wonder if some of you have ever driven into downtown at rush hour. If you have, you'd know that THERE IS NO TRAFFIC IN BUFFALO!!! Not even at rush hour. Occasionaly weather or an accident will slow things down, but that is it.

If taking down the Skyway causes people to have to spend 25 minutes to get downtown from Hamburg instead of 20, big deal. The Skyway causes way more problems than it "solves", espcially since the one it does "solve" is not a real problem.

Traffic, like parking, is not even close to an issue in Buffalo. I hope some day that it is because that would mean we have added vibrancy to the downtown core, but using them as an excuse for anything at this point is frankly absurd.

Get rid of the Skyway. I know there are arguments on both sides, but the bigger arguments to me are on the side of getting rid of it.

Some of you guys disliking the Skyway isn't a good reason to remove it, just as it being liked by some city residents such as me isn't by itself necessarily a good enough reason to keep it around.

Higgins has lead the way in claiming the Skyway isn't cost effective due to higher maintenance costs compared to what a reasonable replacement would have.
Maybe he's right about that, and maybe he's mistaken.

Having the DOT take an objective look at the issue sounds fine. They're paid to be experts and professionals, so let's see what options they come up with for keeping or replacing it, and what various impacts they'd predict either way.

the coolest thing would be to leave a section intact as buffalo's high line. add stairs, an elevator, landscaping, and suitable enclosures to keep people from being blown off or jumping off, and we'd have a pretty dazzling park.

can a bridge just be build that free's up land for canalside developement AND has the height to clear a friggin sailboat?

Thought so

A few thoughts from a future mayor:

Take a step back.

What are the requirements for an artery into and out of the city from the South / Route 5.

If the skyway was not there now, would it be an alternative?

What criteria should be used to select the best option?

How many years will it take to disassemble the skyway and build the alternative - ref. Big Dig - Boston - This will likely actually cost 3x what the DOT will come up with and take twice as long.

How will Canalside programming be affected by the removal of the skyway?

Would there be no activity allowed under or near it?

What is the work-around plan to the years it will take to disassemble?

BUT - WHAT IS THE CRITERIA BY WHICH THE DECISION SHOULD BE MADE?

I DON’T THINK THE DOT WILL DECIDE WITH THE VOICE OF THE CITIZEN IN MIND.

This is why I want to run for mayor – our leader has not spoken nor is he qualified to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or threats of such an effort!!!

If I had to bet, the decision to tear down the skyway will take 4 years to execute – starting in 2015- then the waterfront effort would have to start from the drawing board. How do you have programming in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 for example when there is a skyway being torn down overhead?

No one has said how to integrate the monster into our plan, yet we adapted to leave the expensive-to-remove grain elevators. My intuition tells me that the downside of leaving the skyway is less than the upside of removing it if you want to establish a sustainable, growing economic entity as Canalside hopes to be.

I never thought I’d say this, but based on the multi-year threat posed by related construction and the other challenges that many daily commuters mentioned, I can’t see how taking the skyway down makes sense, unless you are willing to put off our redevelopment progress for another five years or so. And we have waited long enough!!!!

People may continue to leave Buffalo if they don’t have a Canalside from 2015 to 2020.

This whole discussion reflects the LACK of STRATEGIC PLANNING at the ECHDC – Lets be honest, if ECHDC planned on removing the Skyway as an initial step, they would have exhausted the $300,000,000 they had, so I bet they wanted to generate interest in the waterfront first. But this was perhaps the cart before the horse?

Our City needs a Mayor who understands the comprehensive, holistic nature of such challenges. I do. Look at the questions above folks!

ECHDC should have planned for the removal of the skyway BEFORE putting the shovel in the ground at the waterfront, now you're halfway down the track and you're saying, "oh, let's change the landscape, which, by the way, derails the whole train trip for a few years.

A decision must have been made back between the initiation of the ECHDC and 2005 or so to develop a Canalside WITH a Skyway.

Now the leader who conceived of the ECHDC is changing the vision for the initiative after it is five years along.

I am all for adapting to CHANGING circumstances, but there is no changes in the circumstances. The skyway was there and is there now.

The decision to leave the skyway (or not face the challenges of removing it) back when ECHDC started, set the direction on this effort. Follow through, now!

NO ONE IS MENTIONING THIS.

OR let's admit that we gave $300,000,000 to a team who did not properly assess the situation first, before they executed.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT - when you were at the Memorial Aud, enjoying our sports heritage, you never thought about the sky way during a game. And when the game was over, you were glad it was there.

How many HSBC visitors use the sky way?

How many would not come to a game if there was not a quick way out of the city to the South?

Look at all the factors.

Removal of the Skyway will give Ohio street more use and hopefully spur development along the way.

Temporary traffic problems with the removal of the skyway are insignificant. Worrying about that is a mistake of cause and effect, assuming the traffic always will and needs to be there in the same form, and also assuming that there isnt a greater value available. Look at the Embarcadero in San Fransisco for the perfect example of how these highways detract from their surroundings while not even providing the "benefit" they claim.

Removing highways returns value to the land around it. It also increases the value in living closer to the city and reduces the value of living away from it. That will eventually increase the demand for public transportation as well.

If you add value back into being in the city, then the system starts to correct itself.

Remove the skyway but do not reduce speed and efficiency with whatever alternative is favored. If the outer harbor develops as it should to include a major hub of economic activity and employment then the transportation system infrastructure shouldnt discourage interstate commerce and truck traffic, especially considering the areas major crossing to Canada for international trade. Do the Ohio Street improvements and the Buffalo River bridge for local traffic and I would hope an extension of light rail to the outer harbor and beyond along the waterfront AND build a highway tunnel under the skyway footprint. Nice thing is generally nothing under the skyway now so cut and cover easier. If the Bostons or thw world can have the big dig and Tidewater Virginia can have the amount of tunnels and bridge tunnels they do, then Buffalo should get a small piece of that action. We're talking a mile or less? Heck, build the tunnel wide enough to accomodate NFTA light rail and a bike trail to the outer harbor and three birds with one stone and get three or more modes of traffic out of the winter weather for awhile. Instead of closing the skyway for bad weather, a tunnel could be a safe haven...lol!

Has anyone put a value on all the land taken off the tax rolls because of:
- the skyway and its access ramps
- the Virginia street access ramps
- the Erie Street access ramps
- the Elm-Oak Arteriole access ramps
- and the Kensington access ramp from Main to Best Street.

And you wonder why downtown isnt integrated with its surrounding neighborhoods and retail cant get a foothold.

Downtown Buffalo is only integrated with the westside/BlackRock, North Buffalo and a fraction of the eastside.

Downtown is severed from the outerharbor, canal district, 1st ward, hydrolics district and dead space caused by the Elm-Oak.

Your never going to get the city that you want if your not willing to drive on its streets.

Up and Coming... not sure what your problem is, but you need to take a pill or something.

I actually brought this to Governor Cuomo's attention this past summer, along with similarly-veiled plans to scale back the Kensington and Scajacquada Expressways, because of the DOT's long history of neglecting such projects.

What it basically boils down to is how much the DOT is willing to commit. Right now, it's taking a lot of public pressure for them to understand that there is more to the picture than that of the motorist. People need a practical alternative to the oceans of traffic that already defines places like Amherst and Cheektowaga.

Really Brian, again with the podium? OMFG!--When did this donkey-Irish dandy buy a tie?!?!