Buffalogeek and Buffalopundit-

you are both missing the point.

The community (Buffalo Common Council, Village of Hamburg, lots of voters) would like to see the skyway removed and the DOT has said that it is in support of the eventual removal of the skyway. Once the skyway is removed, those trucks will be diverted to the future Tift Street Connector which links directly to 90 from RT5 in less distance then connecting through downtown on Rt5 even with the skyway in place. So assuming that the skyway will be removed (and if you don't think it should be then this is a different argument) then why would you spend millions of dollars to reinforce a limited access road that will be unnecessary once it no longer connects to another limited access road (the 90). It would be pointless.

So building the Blvd alternative is one step in the direction of removing the skyway. Reinforcing what we have will leave us with the skyway 20 years from now (unless the DOT wants to spend millions more on removing what it is about to build, not likely). We need the momentum to remove skyway within 10 years. Build the BLVD.

Can't you see the forest through the trees... This is all one grand conspiracy to keep people away from the Casino!

According to Jay, it's alright to live outside the city...as long as you agree with him. Else, he would be criticizing Chicago STEEL.

GO Mickey GO!!!!! Mickey is a great voice of reason in a crowd of Yes men.

Exactly, we're all arguing about having picnics on highway embankments. You're all acting rather silly...there is nearly one half mile of land between Route 5 and the waterfront. Let's at least be honest when we argue, ok?

Based on traffic data collection (March 2006), the average number of vehicles traveling the area defined by the current Southtowns Connector/Route 5 argument is 42,900 per day.

Based on traffic data collection (March 2006), the average number of vehicles traveling the area hated by urban planners everywhere, Niagara Falls Boulevard between Maple Road and the I-290 is 38,000 per day.

If the alternative boulevard plan is implemented, it would share many things in common with this backed up swath of suburban roadway: 40 MPH, Six Lanes, medians, and traffic.

A few questions for you guys to answer:

- Why does it make sense that a six lane boulevard = pedestrian friendly? - What in the current plan disincents development? - Does not provide for abundant waterfront access? - Precludes future demolition of the Skyway? - Separates people from the waterfront? - Disenfranchises the poor?

Nothing.

GO Mickey GO!!!!! Mickey is a great voice of reason in a crowd of Yes men.

Clarence Pundit don't you have anything better to talk about?

But in all seriousness, Clarence Pundit raises some interesting things to think about solely from the fact that he isn't yet sold on this project. Now bare with me here.

Clarence Pundit's arrogance, lack of insight, and disrespect for community concern (last count the petition was over 600 signatures) can be compared with the same attitude of Higgins, Spitzer, et al. So in essence sway the opinion of Clarence Pundit and you have Higgins and the rest believing that the Boulevard Alternative is the only way to bring down the current barrier on our waterfront. Just a thought.

Pundit has never seen a highway he doesn't like. There are a few more parks left to ram one through. Too bad we are all out of waterfront though. Well anyway I guess sacrificing the city for a 20 minute commute has all been worth it.

Doesn't someone have a blog to tend to?

Actually BP the majority of poster haven't met a development project they've ever supported, unless it had the word organic somewhere in it.

re: buffalo pundit remark I've actually bothered to read up on the various plans and simply do not agree that a 6-lane boulevard is some sort of panacea that will magically restore Buffalo to prosperity, develop our waterfront, and cure cancer all at the same time. No one said it would be a panacea but it is a better land use of water front property than an elevated highway will ever be. In my OPINION its one more piece of the improvement puzzle that when acomplished with other well thought out public and private projects will make for a better Buffalo. I also have reviewed the projects in detail.

I don't think the Skyway is permenant, but whatever replaces it will need to handle the same amount of traffic, and will have connections to 190, Downtown, and ultimately Canada and 90. So, from a traffic standpoint, same horse, different color. I doubt it'll be elevated, but it'll function the same.

We're developing an office/light manufacturing park in S. Bflo on Route 5, we're promoting our area as a logistics/transit corridor (Much like what brought us to prosperity 100 years ago), I don't think we'll be able to sever that link, regardless of the form.

Add to that the increase in sprawl we're seeing South, I just don't know if the Boulevard plan is the practical alternative. (Unless you find a way to bring me MetroRail before I retire/die).

Oh, and NYC, I didn't mean to direct the entire e-mail at you; I meant to seperate it in the middle, forgot to, and of course, can't edit it. :) So, my apologies if my tirade seemed directed at you completely.

NYC-

I understand your point, but actually have to agree with Pundit here. We're requesting a traffic laden, 6-lane mess, ala Transit road, on the HOPE that the Skyway comes down, and people stop using Route 5. Everyone says it won't happen, but I'd bet the farm it'll be a mess. I do like the Boulevard plan (And I live in the Southtowns, and drive Route 5 everyday), but see the practicality and borderline necessity of the Highway plan. Trust me, drive it at 8A or 5P, and you'll see why a 6-lane 35-45MPH road may begin to look like Transit of NF Blvd. I, personally, could care less if it takes me 12 minutes to get to my house in Hamburg, as it does now, or 25-30. It's still shorter than my friends in larger cities.

I also think that EITHER alternative may/will work, assuming easy access on and off these roads to the waterfront is there. It's not a black/white doom/victory scenario here. You can drive on a highway, get off, and still enjoy the waterfront. You can also get there on a Parkway, assuming access is easy enough.

I have read the DOT plans; and honestly, I think NY has cared for the access fairly well. Future exits/onramps could be added, and dare I say, I'd prefer to work/live/play next to neither, but the reality of it is, it will remain a heavy commuter corridor, and shipping corridor.

Let's focus less on adding two more lanes, and lowering the speed limit, and more on having intellegent on/off traffic patterns, and actually developing Fuhrman and Tift into streets that you can get to. I think a well designed interchange system can function BETTER than at grade 4-way intersections for moving people in and out, with no detriment to the waterfront.

Oh, and PS, I won't be picknicking at EITHER raodway. I hope it's filled with buildings and attractions. I'll picnic at Letchworth, or Chestnut Ridge, Delaware Park or another park, somewhere, thanks. We don't need more parkland, we need something prosperous there. When I go to chicago, I don't bemoan the fact that I can't picnic next to Navy Pier and N. Lakeshore drive (Another highway).

Also, why do we keep calling it the DOT plan? We elected the people who appointed and confirmed DOT board members, we has the opportunity to comment publicly on the issue...this is the plan we approved.

One other thing, what issues has Pundit come down on the wrong side of? Are you talking about the Bass Pro plan that was relaunched in a fit of pique by Brown and Higgins last month? Ya know, the one you guys are busy patting yourselves on the back about? The one no party has officially signed onto yet? The one that was made of styrofoam models thrown together by an intern just hours before the press conference? Great. When I see a concrete signed agreement between Benderson, City of Buffalo, ECHDC, Erie County, Bass Pro, and the preservation community, I'll agree with you. Until then, no one is on the wrong side of that issue. Because nothing has been decided.

So your opinion is the skyway is never coming down, correct? If the skyway is permenent and trucks will always use this route to connect to 90, I see your point.

I think those who advocate for the Boulevard, hope the skyway can one day be dismantled. I think it certainly should and feel strongly that it definitely will be dismantled within 10 years.

Does one have to read this plan thoroughly to understand its implications for future developments of neighboring sites?

Uh, yes.

oldimpala, Have you had a chance to look at the tift street connector? This route will connect directly to the 190 from route 5 in a much more efficient way then route 5 will now and especially once the skyway is removed. This route is intended to address the need for industrial/ manufacturing traffic to reach the 190/ 90 and beyond in a way that will still allow this area to be promoted as a logistics/ transit corridor.

does anybody know how to add an image to their comment? I have seen it done and it would be useful now..

I don't think we are talking about a big delay to do what's right.

And by the way, has anyone seen the commercial slip lately. It looks great and will be a huge addition to downtown Buffalo.

Also I think there is a bit of fear mongering by calling the Blvd option the future Niagara Falls Blvd or Transit Road. That is all speculation. Its the same as people calling rt5 a superhighway.

Rt5 can be what we want it to be because right now it is nothing more then a busy road through brownfields. Options for connecting to 190/ 90, the skyway removal, and lift bridge options to downtown are all wild cards that need to be flushed out before we build something permanent. We need a bigger vision, a concept for what the outer harbor can become before we settle for an option which many people believe will perpetuate what we have now. What is the big picture? Where is the phasing plan? If the DOT can fit this current proposal into a larger vision that makes sense for the entire community then I am all for it.

Show us the vision!

and - land use planning not working in conjunction with transportation planning is what gives us Transit Road and Niagara Falls Blvd. That is what is happening here with the current option (or either option for that matter) - a disjointed planning effort.

And the pedestrian access issue is indeed speculative with the boulevard option; but it is IMPOSSIBLE with the DOT's plan.

I see you haven't yet read the DOT plan. Thanks for joining the conversation, ill-prepared.

The DOT needs to show what its intentions are. They must develop a phasing plan that has an end result of removing the skyway. Then the DOT needs to demonstrate how this current project fits that plan. That is how it will get community buy-in.

But I wonder, this current project adds an interchange and underpasses to the current rt 5. It would be interesting to know what percent or how much they are spending to reinforce the existing bermed road vs amount they are spending on the Blvd adjacent to the rt5. Is it worth tearing this out in 10 years? Is it a waste of money and they should just do it right the first time? My opinion is that they should just do it right the first time. They also should do it in conjunction with the city's master plan for the outerharbor rather then as a separate project. Land use planning and transportation planning should go hand in hand. You don't do one and then the other.

Chiknlil - Buffalo is creating a land use masterplan for the outer harbor so once it is adopted it will not be possible for strip malls to pop up.

Pundit, show us the dot plan that describes what you say will happen? You are speculating that the bermed section will be demolished once the skyway is down. Even if it was, isn't it a huge waste of money to construct the interchange and underpasses only to demolish them once the skyway is gone? I just can't believe the dot preferred plan works in conjunction with the future removal of the skyway, at least it's removal in 10 years or less. The DOT owes the community the whole picture, not just a piece. Until they provide it, this debate will continue.

and i don't believe the blvd option would be a conjested mess like you also speculate.

Pressure to remove the skyway is only going to increase this point forward. It is getting where it will be unacceptable for the DOT to say "don't count on it" or "it will happen some day" when it comes to the skyway removal (especially when it holds hostage inner harbor developable land). They have initiated a major study on the lift bridge connection to downtown, they have the Tift Street connector planned and now they have the opportunity to look at the skyway removal. It will follow on the coat tails of both projects. The peices are all there, they need to be put together in a phased masterplan that works in conjunction a land use and urban design masterplan (consultant recently hired by the city for this work) for the outer harbor.

So honestly, I think neither design, either blvd or dual road considers a larger vision for the outer harbor. The only reason I support the boulevard is to prevent (or whatever) the dot from moving forward in a peicemeal way. And really, the outer harbor is not a 5 year development project, more like 25. So delay one year and bring everyone to the table to make a smart decision on how to proceed so that we either do not make a permanent mistake or waste tax payer money.

and like i said, if the dot came forward and said look how this plan fits a long range vision for the outer harbor then fine, but they haven't done that.