I like the three arch bridge...def prefer the cable one, but hey, what are you going to do? the three arch bridge is beautiful in it's own right and the area HAS to get moving on building a new one. millions of dollars are ebing lost every year that we wait. i just wish they would take the old one down and build a new six lane (or more) span...i have neevr heard the reaosning behind keeping the old span...anyone know?
The three arch span is more practical and fits into the existing layout far better than the tower design.
Putting Menn's design in Buffalo is like putting lipstick on a pig. At least the three arch span fits the character of the city. I'm not saying the three arch bridge won't be nice, I just think Menn's design is a tad pretentious for a city that has been debating the additional span for multiple decades.
The thing that I absolutely hate about this story is that it's yet another example of groups in this region not working together to accomplish something. The FHWA should have been involved in this design process from the beginning. At the start of the design submittal, they should have been able to say the bridge should not be taller than X feet, otherwise it could pose a hazard to blah blah blah.
I don't know which group screwed up, the PBA or the FHWA... but if this concern was addressed from the beginning, we could have had a design contest with 10 designs that fit this requirement and chosen the best one. Instead we had a design contest where 9 of 10 proposals eventually would have been nixed because of this restriction. And now we're basically taking the default one.
Don't get me wrong, I actually think the 3 arch design is more suitable to match with the current Peace Bridge. But this story just makes me sick that people with such powerful positions that hold so much responsibility cannot foresee something like this.
well at least the 3 arch still hides the original. maybe the Canucks will fund a tear down of the original if the dollar keeps slipping against the Loon & they need another bridge to get more buses over to go shopping! Bring on our friends from the Great White North! As an aside - can we really still call this the "Peace Bridge" when that's the existing structure? Shouldn't have a new name? Maybe the "Yes h*ll has frozen over we finally built it bridge"? Or more seriously the "Friendship Bridge", or in proper homage the "Common Tern" bridge?
I never liked the tower design.. it IS THE SAME BRIDGE that they have in Boston. There isn't anything signature about it. I feel the arched design is actually much nicer and elegant than the initially supported design.
Could be worse i guess... Figg Engineering Group is one of the best bridge designer in the US...but Christian Menn is probably the best in the WORLD. The design that he proposed for buffalo is one which he has been working on as an experiment for years. A very similar one was published back in the early 90's, but it was always just a experiment.
Maybe that is not what buffalo needs right now.
or maybe it is.....
There is no doubt that the original was a much better design, but the new selection is not as bad as the original twin span proposal.
Also the fact that there were environmental reasons is ok in my book, we shouldn't assume and destroy habitats for two species just because we need to cross the river, especially when there is an option we know about that wouldn't impact them so much. I also agree with earlier posters that feel these issues should have been brought to the forefront before design because then we would still have options.
Take a walk on bird island pier. The original bridge is beautiful, in its own right. Why would anyone want to tear it down?
awesome....build it. now. just....build it. yes i want proper thought and consideration given to the plazas and the west side and asthma, but figure it out and do it. I'm gonna go grab some shovels, spray paint them gold and get a head start. you head over to valu to get supplies and meet me down there.
It's better than the companion bridge design the authority tried to push through a few years back. It can't be built soon enough to help the congestion on the Peace Bridge. I am sure the congestion will be worse now that the loony is at par. Will the pending lawsuits regarding the plaza and its effects bring this to a halt? It seems that the plaza issue needs to be settled first. Isn't the land off Amherst street, near the old Tee to the Green being held by a company hoping to build the bridge up there?
This development is further evidence of the incompetence of the various groups involved on the project. I hoped that the community's resistance to much of the early planning would result in one signature bridge that could be an architectural asset to western New York and southern Ontario. This second choice is not a marvel of design.
A new round of bridge design submissions -- that accommodate these migratory bird patterns -- should be demanded by the community.
regarding the West Side/Ashtma(sp?) issue, which I feel warrants much consideration, would a large grove of trees, planted downwind from the idling trucks alleviate some of the pollution? Would the grove absorb some of the carbon gases?
Cancel the whole thing. Can this get any worse for the city? Bend over Buffalo, the politicians, Authority and unions are going to see this thing through! Common good be damned!
^PaulBuffalo...the cable stayed bridge is not a marvel of design either..they are everywhere, we just don't happen to have one in WNY.
I think the green, steel arches in the original peace bridge are extremely beautiful and striking, especially at night across the Niagara. What I liked about Menn's deisgn is that it preserved the aesthetics of those arches, you can see them and they stand out just was well with the large cable stay bridge right next door. This Figg bridge GREATLY detracts from the aesthetics of those original arches. The pattern of the larger arches is not all all in cohesion with the originals and distracts the whole design. Menn's design was proposed to compliment the original bridge, which he thought was a fantastic bridge. The Figg proposal would look much better as a stand-alone span, it appears to really ignore its context. Couldn't they have at least lined up the footers with the original bridge?
Build this design and stp whining. Its about time to do saomething and this looks fine to me. No more architectural reviews and delays lets build this thing now. I hope they get footers started before someone whines again and stops the process. We know we need a bridge we knew for the past 10 years we've needed this and its been delayed a number of years now so lets do this. Its about time!!!!! We cannot make everyone happy and someone will always want to be a critic of the design.
Its a nice bridge. We can talk travel plaza and customs areas later but get the bridge going NOW.
Ehh either or.... the second choice is far less intrusive.
I am for a bridge as long as it includes more taxes for canadians coming over here..
Xosder, I agree that the cable stayed bridge was not the best, either, but it was the best design of all the submissions. (TownLine above echoes my reasons well.) My overall frustration is the sense that this entire project must be completed as soon as possible. What does Buffalo lose by waiting? It's important that Buffalo build the new architectural icons that will be appreciated by future generations.
Prediction: No new bridge will be built. There's no justification - traffic has been declining for years, and the current delays are due to slow Customs inspections, not lane capacity.
The original companion bridge, including the replacement of the Parker Truss on the old bridge, was the most sensible and attractive proposal. The Menn monstrosity would have been a disaster.
I DONT CARE....AND I DONT THINK ANYONE CARES
WHAT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT IS DESTROYING THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD FOR AN EXPANDED PLAZA.
THE BRIDGE ISNT THE ISSUE....THE PLAZA IS THE ISSUE
COME ON FOCUS PEOPLE!!!!!!!
Migrating birds? Migrating birds??? What about the people they are forcing to migrate from thier homes on the west side???
well the bridge is the bridge the plaza is the plaza.. I say build the bridge and lets think creatively about the plaza.. Can anyone say double decker plaza... ;) It is already on a bluff just burrow down =p
Also this is a fine design maybe not as tall or pointy as the other but there isn't any great about it besides it trying to be great. It looks like the bridge in boston and multiple other cities already. This design is no reason to halt construction.. Although a fast charrette with the final constrictions could result is some fun and new ideas. Given the budget, peir location, height and say go.. offer the winner the prize. Assuming you don't change certain aspects then you shouldn't have to re-do an environmental review.
Now this is one fine design, especially as it emmulates the arches of the original. It says "Peace Bridge". But why ruin it with an unbelievably foul and noxious plaza? Build this bridge immediately and save the plaza for some other beleaguered community.
I like this design. I like it better than the tall tower one. I agree with others that this one will be more unique over the long haul. I, too, am a fan of the original bridge. I think the arches have worn very well over time. The aspect of the current bridge I like perhaps best is the clear view one gets everywhere other than the Parker truss.
For me the issue was always the plaza, not the bridge. But my idea was to connect the plaza to Niagara Street to attract some of them there as opposed to siphoning all of the cars to the thruway. In so doing, I wanted to provide customers with money to spend to Niagara Street businesses. Simultaneously, we'd get the bridge out of Front Park and Fort Porter. Getting the interchange off Porter Ave would also have provided the opportunity to connect LaSalle and Front Parks into one waterfront park.
This plaza of mine did require the displacement of a few blocks of mostly run down neighborhood. In exchange I was hopeful we could capitalize on cross border traffic to downtown via Niagara Street. The entrance to Buffalo would have been the Connecticut Street Armory, a few blocks of parks and then south of Porter a manageable section of Niagara we could gentrify. Fix Niagara Street and then all the spokes in the western hub (waterfront, Delaware, Elmwood) would be looking good.
Alas and alack, the engineers could not arrive at a viable alternative which shifted the plaza off the parkland (technically Fort Porter land) which together with Front Park Frederick Law Olmsted called the "Jewel of the Buffalo Park System". It's the only waterfront precipice (60' high) in Buffalo. The views (minus Peace Bridge Plaza) are spectacular (it's why we built our fort there: you can see for miles out on the lake and miles down the river).
But we won't get that. The new bridge will be built north, not south of the existing one.
At least the new plaza will shift some part of the way out of the park and fort site.
I still favor losing a few blocks of mostly beat up decayed houses (between the Episcopal Church Home and Niagara) for the plaza, but want to preserve as many of the nicer neighborhood (immediately south) as possible.
sbrof, rd666 and probably many others: just a clarification on 'plaza' vs. 'bridge'
In the context of the bridge, the plaza is not a place to shop but rather the infrastructure which carries traffic on and off the bridge and connects it to streets and highways. The plaza includes customs, homeland security, etc. I thought maybe rd's remark was one of his typical (often funny) jokes, but not sure.
The lawsuit which prevented the previous bridge design from being built had nothing to do with the design (Superspan vs. twin) of the new bridge. It had to do with 'segmentation' of the environmental review process. The bridge authority attempted to build the new bridge first with one environmental review for that and then perform a separate environmental review of the plaza later when they rebuilt that. The successful lawsuit claimed this separation of the study of impacts of the bridge and the plaza fundamentally undermined the intent of the environmental impact study legislation because by separating the issues of bridge from the plaza (local connections to the bridge) the bridge authority was predetermining where the plaza would be located and how it could connect to Buffalo. The court ruled the two (bridge and plaza) are essentially one project and therefore the environmental impacts of both pieces had to be considered together in one study.
Now, if only it could do this: http://www.diegorosales.com/projects/vf_02.htm
wow. Bruce Jackson must be sharpening his pencils....
the design is cool...but cable stay bridges have a dramatic flare to them... which this one does not have. in 70-80 years it will be just as pedestrian as the existing bridge is to us...today.
I also think the birds are being used as an excuse to cover concessions to the local unions... and conviently the new design will have more IRON... to WORK...
I'm sorry, but wouldn't the birds see and go around? They could go through the middle section or around, right? Are we actually stopping something big for BIRDS?
I agree they should be thought of together.. but at the same time a bridge landing can always be pushed north and south depending on where the final plaza ends up
I also agree that 'if' the plaza must expand (something I think is a false positive) and will change if we can get a shared border agreement. But that is a whole nothing issue. I also was never impressed by the options for a northern landing, nothing personal if you worked on them. But the idea of loosing all those buildings along Busti and Niagara which Paladino just bought, or shifting Niagara Street over onto Prospect and creating huge ramps and plaza on Niagara would be a disgrace I think.
I always loved the old postcard that shows the bridge emerging the park gracefully and beautifully.. Somehow we should get that back and without shared bored I don't think there is a plaza option worth pursuing.
Two things really bother me about this.
Why didn't the migratory bird issue come up sooner? We've only been working on the new bridge proposal for about 10 years, and now we find out that we're in the middle of a bird flyway? Doesn't make sense.
And, after an exhaustive community process, the Peace Bridge decides to notify all the stakeholders that have worked on this by puttiing an article in the News.? So much for community input and process.
it reminds me of the logo for "Sample". the thick posture takes some getting use to. I could see a bridge like this being successful for out inner harbor project, the lack of translucency seems to create a greater intrusion. I give it aa real late hand in grade of b to b-
Both designs look like bad retail signs along NFBlvd. The water and greenspace provide the beauty to the scene, not plastic-looking arches. Having seen so many bridges similar to the pictured designs in my travels, I discount them as tacky, wannabe franchises. A rarer experience would be for Buffalo to maintain a minimallly obtrusive view of the Niagara and its riverfront.
If they cover 2 of the arches in yellow neon lights, people will come from all over the world looking for burgers. Maybe we could sell the naming rights to McDonalds to help defer the cost :).
It just seems to me that the right thing to is just start this whole process over from scratch, maybe shoot for a kick-off meeting sometime early in 2010-11. We can use the time between now and then to have a public conversation.
I think the one we point we can all agree upon is we have yet to have a public conversation regarding the Peace Bridge expansion.
great. decision made. birds happy. now build the dern tern-safe thing!
now, at least migrating birds will make it far enough south to get minced by the windmills... (j/k that's mostly a myth)
Excellent observation Dagner. And this could best be accomplished by building the bridge and plaza at the International RR bridge site. A lift bridge could be built over the Black Rock Channel because large ship traffic there is minimal. The bridge clearance would only need to accommodate large pleasure craft. The environmental concerns about the cable stay bridge were known very early in the process. However, the bridge authority had their blinders on and full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.
Scrapping plan A because of birds is crazyness but I think I like plan B better anyway.
Chris69 and Auburner raise a good point. We have no problem forcing people to migrate out of their homes for the plaza yet we have a huge problem forcing birds to fly around some cables? That doesn't really make sense to me but hey...it's Buffalo.
Scrapping plan A because of birds is crazyness but I think I like plan B better anyway.
Chris69 and Auburner raise a good point. We have no problem forcing people to migrate out of their homes for the plaza yet we have a huge problem forcing birds to fly around some cables? That doesn't really make sense to me but hey...it's Buffalo.
I heard there was a bridge in Brooklyn that was for sale... maybe Buffalo could purchase that one?
Well....Let's see....Like the comment from the fellow that said building the Menn bridge would be like putting lipstick on a pig...seems to do it for me....
Buffalo seems to be lacking from a lack of imagination on the part of its civic leaders...going back fifty years...sadly it seems the brightest and boldest young people go off to New York City....
Watching the mayor go after the historic ferry Lansdowne confirms my worst opinion of Buffalo....as well as the broadsheet going after the preservationists who wanted to save the S S Canadiana....
If you ask me, the only things Buffalo has going for it....is the misguided Ani DiFranco trying to bring culture in to revive the city; as well as wings at the Anchor....
Poor Buffalo...So far from God...So far from New York City!
SteveFromKeene,NH---And a Patriots fan to boot.
Steel hit the nail on the head. This looks like something from the 60's.
From a real estate perspective, I think this is a step backwards. I know that some people like the "new" design but I feel that "old" design was better in terms of a view.
I had always hoped that a new bridge would have helped development along Niagara St. Just as units in NYC sell a view of the Brooklyn Bridge and units in SF sell a view of the Golden Gate, I felt that the first design would have added the same selling point. I just do not see it for the second.
Does anyone know how serious of a risk this is? Is it a lock that birds would get confused and fly into the towers or fish not migrate? Or is it simply a concern and the above agency's want to side with caution? I see that the letter sent to Higgins is just a suggestion. Is this a done deal?
Part of me also thinks this could be a stall tactic to push construction deep into the next administration to revisit the location of the plaza. It does not appear they are looking to spend more money on new designs but "talking" about the second design to hold up the process.
This is nothing short of criminal; and yet I'm reading that the more mediocre bridge should be built because it fits in with its mediocre surroundings, and/or that we need to build it just to get something RIGHT !@#$ING NOW. As the good Dr. Shibley stated, Buffalo had a chance to create a spectacular gateway to the Niagara River and decided against it. Whelp, Buffalo, enjoy your mediocrity.
The two- tower cable stay bridge was a monstrosity with the potential to harm wildlife.
The three arch design is actually much nicer, more environmentally friendly, and will just as well accomplish the main purpose of the new span - to move traffic across the river.
Buffalo lacks a plan, and the next important thing next to a plan is FOLLOW THROUGH!
Little Stevie: Indeed what we lacking is lacking, what we crave is craving, yet what we deem as divine is not God, God has forsaken our village many years ago. there is an absence of light that no longer illuminates this city of light. You have a bit of Little Lord Fauntleroy in your boastful, baleful glass menagerie. You give us your hand yet we do not bite yet slap our face when we look away.
"Menn's design is a tad pretentious"
Are we trying to be modest now? Is that a worthwhile goal by itself to be "not pretentious"? Its foolish for a city in decline to make an effort to be humble.
Its the LAX Theme Building, completed 1961. In triplicate.
http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/LAS/history/historylab/LAPUHK/Text/Concepts/Icons/Icons_LAX.htm
No slaps intended....well...maybe...a few.....OK...lighting a firecracker and tossing it into the stands....trying to provoke you all into maybe getting off yer duffs...Everytime I read something 'bout Buffalo, its bad...Cowboy up!...One thing that drives me bonkers is the passive nature of yer city...Isn't there any anger out there?....
If yer going to lay down like defeated dogs...I'll admister a kick...don't want to...But really Buffalo, get up!
You folks realize that this new bridge (three arch bridge) will cost MORE to build and MORE to maintain than the cable-stayed bridge , correct?
It's all about the money.
The Public Bridge Authority had no intention of listening to the public.
See ya in court PBA.
Steve. The only thing about your comment that pisses me off is that you are a Pats fan. Sorry for the lack of fire but we do all agree that Buffalo is the proverbial pig always looking for her lipstick.
Rally up my friends...send some letters into that broadsheet....I can't....they don't like outsiders....It is easier for me to get my letters in the Times or Post....That newspaper has not been a boon for Buffalo....which why I am here bothering you...
Become bezerkers....shake up those who lead your city....when you have nothing to lose...it frees you up!...makes you interesting....redefines your community...
I work with some defeated communities...Lowell, Ma....Manchester, NH...old mill towns lacking even your beautiful lake....Buffalo doesn't need to be the pig....
Best
Steve
PS---New York...if not your end of the state, had their revenge at Superbowl.
Oh man now I hear we cant build this bridge either thanks to the feds? Because of Birds? Really? How does anyone build anything? Everything has the potential to get in the way of migratory birds. How do you build any bridge? Why have other bridges been built within the past 10-15 years elsewhere? Is this some sort of scandal? Some sort of joke? A strategic move to ensure Buffalo's economy doesnt turn around?
Looks like the Peace Bridge Authority got what they wanted. A bridge that would satisfy the local labor unions instead of bringing a beautiful architectural gem to the area. Some of the responses are so typical to this area. People saying that they don't care what's we'll have, just as long as it's built. And the sour grapes comments: "I didn't like it anyway" & "other cities already have the same design". Isn't that the mindset that got this region into the mess we are today? This "recent" discovery was so conveniently timed in it's release to the public and to the members of the planning board.. Right near the end of the planning process when people are just desperate to get something in there. Where deadlines need to be kept in order to get the proper funding. Then the authority tells everyone that the only other option is this costlier and, let's be honest, uglier bridge. BS. I hope this goes to court and derails the new plan. They're doing this at a time when they know the public isn't focused on the bridge. They're more focused on the crappy economy, rising gas and food prices, the presidential election, and god help us.. American Idol. It was the public outcry that blocked the first design and the public should do it again.
Oh, and where was the extensive environmental study on the Lackawanna windmills? I'm sure there is some bird that flies around that area and those spinning blades (which aren't lit as well as this signature span would've been) are far more dangerous to migrating birds than a stationary tower.
Actually the migration theory was debunked on Cape Cod and Nantucket. Ted Kennedy and his "holy green river keeper nephew" tried to derail windmills 6 miles off the shore because of the "migratory bird" issue. This was put into the Coast Guard Bill of 2005 and almost sunk it because they did not want the windmills to be visible from their Hyannis homestead. There was a study done and migratory birds were not an issue (kind of reminds me of how Robert Moses sunk the Westway due to an obscure migratory fish which proved to be a myth and the Westway project was lost forever). So Mr. "Not in My Backyard" Bobby Kennedy Jr was forced to go to plan B, obstruction of shipping...
I smell a skunk here, why did the birds go unbothered by the current Peace Bridge. Someone has a hand in someones pocket on this!
And to Steve, how in the world did Keene NH manage that huge municipal epic of a project off the ground? The bridge between Keene NH and Brattleboro. It is all of what? A football field long? Wow, you in Keene are really on the architectural edge. And you ability to negotiate between two states is uncanny. Remember, pal, Buffalo is dealing with two countries and two currencies to pay for it.
Oh, and Tom Brady is a metrosexual and the Patriots are cheaters!!!
I think we should just redesign the bridge.
Close your eyes and imagine this: a giant phallic symbol to manhood, reversed arched over the river.
Combine it all with a re-branding campaign: “Buffalo, we’re cocksure!”
man i had no idea the original plan was 567 feet tall! That is taller then anything in buffalo, that is such a hardcore design. I could see how that would effect birds. Though some one please tell me they care enough about the city to see how major this project would have been. Can't we have some kind of big brother program for the birds, get that lady from home alone to feed them?
since when does our government care about the environment? i think the new design is cold, gloomy and depressing, it just wreaks of ancient iron trying to be impressive. I'm sure some smart individual could create bird nets to stabilize the force of impact. Birds hit my gazebo all the time and fly away.
if the deflection netting would not work (bright yellow and gymnastic grade). they should create a multi use bridge terminal and send the spca cats out on the wires to warn off any bird of their danger.
chris69: speak for yourself and only yourself. why don't you focus on Shared Border Management and the rest of us will focus on the bridge. deal?
Not every "1960s World's Fair" structure is bad, The Space Needle from '62 is actually quite iconic. This new bridge design really doesn't bring any particular "60s World's Fair pavillion to mind...maybe an abstraction of the SKF Pavillion from '64? ...If you squint really hard? While we're playing the association game, I think the old design looks like a 1970's uninspired cable-stayed nightmare in Rotterdam Harbor. So there.
Up and working...Our new bridge near Keene, NH....No small feat....connecting Libertairan-Conservative New Hampshire to Left-Liberal Vermont...but done because it needed to be done.....Not a bad-looking structure, comparable to it's successor....winner of the 1937 steel bridge design award for its category...See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SeeBees_Bridge We hope to reuse the old bridge as the Blooming Bridge...a pedestrian public space and tourist attraction....
On the Menn design....It does have a large windage area....Doesn't seem to make sense to me...Buffalo being at the east end of the Lake,...downwind....facing fierce winds...so I think the decision on design choice is more than about the common tern.
Best
So wait a minute, they're leaving up the old piece of sht bridge next to this new one? Why?
Simcoe: it's been the PBA's preference since the beginning of this project (15+ years ago?) to have two bridges.
One reason is that they score higher with the Feds for possessing a back up bridge (I don't remember what the scoring relates to in terms of funding and approvals, but the PBA has always insisted that two bridges are preferable in some scoring system to which they are subject). If a terrorist blows up one bridge, you still have the other one, that sort of thing.
The second reason is that they prefer the ability to completely shut down one bridge while performing repairs and maintenance, shifting all traffic to the other bridge.
A third reason is that the original structure, while not designated an historic landmark in America, is nonetheless eligible for such designation and SHiPO (state office of historic preservation, however it's officially titled) would treat it as historic (so says the PBA). Also, the bridge is eligible for comparable historic status in Canada and the Canadian community prefers to keep the existing bridge (which is, admittedly, fairly graceful from their side).
Because the authority always planned on retaining the original bridge, they first designed a new bridge which would almost match it. According to contemporary thinking in the SHIPO, however, that original twin would no longer be approved because the design was too derivative of the original. The historic preservation office would prefer a bridge which did not attempt to mimic the first and besides Buffalonians ranted and raved for a different bridge.
But yes, many Buffalonians may not realize that the original Peace Bridge will definitely be staying in the picture (literally).
A side note: years ago I was at a community meeting about the bridge. A very elderly man came up after the presentation and told me stories about when the bridge was built (1927). He said that way back then there was an argument in the newspapers about how large the bridge needed to become. The solution proposed at the time was to have US Customs on Canadian Soil and Canadian Customs on US soil so that no one would even get onto the bridge in the first place unless they were already cleared to cross. That would mean that once you got on to the bridge, you'd keep going because nothing would stop you on the other side. So instead of the bridge becoming a parking lot, it would be a highway. They couldn't work out the customs arrangements then, either. But in terms of traffic capacity, three lanes is probably plenty if there are sufficient customs booths open at the other end. It's the customs slowdowns which transform the bridge into a linear parking lot, not the bridge itself.
Actuall , the Menn design cable bridge looks like 2 bowlegged pinheads taking a crap in the river.
Bob,
I appreciate your well thought out response stated above but do you honestly believe all the crap your shared? This process is being driven by the Public Bridge Authority and no one else. They have manipulated this process from day one and have no intention of building anything but the original plan from 1980.
Having two bridges has little to do with scores - it has everything to do with cost and maintenance. Get it right buddy.
Oh, and by the way, the three arch bridge will go away, too any day now and be replaced with this for some “unfounded” law or reason:
http://www.forteriecanada.com/newdev/resources/new%20span.jpg
And from today's Buffalo News we learn: "Bridge officials doubt the agencies will change their position, and even if they did, pursuing the cable-stayed concept now could put the authority in a vulnerable position if a lawsuit is filed.”
Again, the bridge authority will do what they want regardless of the public will because these new environmental concerns and LAWS that must be followed? That in it self should deliver a lawsuit from the Public! Since when can birds file lawsuits?
And shocker: Higgins & Brown continue to find themselves on the wrong side of issues - everyday.
“Asked why he did not notify his fellow federal lawmakers when he heard about the bird problem, Higgins noted that the Peace Bridge is in his district and that he felt it was his responsibility to write a letter to the transportation secretary and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
Come on folks - why else would Higgins not get reach out to others? How more obvious can this be? They kept this close and quiet because of the PBA and their plan. The coordinated response from Higgins and Mayor Brown smells BAD – when this ship goes down with the PBA on it – you’re all going with’em boys.
Anyhow, the Public Bridge Authority continues to affirm its incompetence and corruptness and should dissolve immediately.
Actually, I think its a communist plot like when they flouridated the water. Now they want to control the bridge design. Last time I was fishing on the BI pier I saw too covert individuals with sun glasses and trench coats. It could have been Higgins and Brown plotting something or other on how to get control of the design process. They were throwing little silver fishes in the water and shooting at the birds with slingshots. OMG! OMG!
I would say the current bridge doesn't hinder the birds because it is only 250ish feet tall.. the proposed cable bridge was 500.. these types of bird apparently fly over things not under them and that is where the problem lies. Since they fly up and down the river upwards of 7 times a day to feed from their nesting grounds on the lake shore it would hinder and potentially harm them by forcing them to fly over this thing many times a day. Energy expenditures are very important in the natural world and such extra efforts come at a cost.
Are we still talking about a bridge? OMG, this is a joke!
The arch bridge reminds me of McDonalds. Maybe Mcdonalds can sponsor the bridge and paint two of the arches yellow. Bada-ba-ba-ba, I'm NOT lov'n it!
Well since its apparent that everyone wants to be a critic may I suggest the Buffalo area just decide to do nothing at all. Do nothing and let things just sit and continue as they have for the past 40- 50 years because its more comfortable that way. Who needs a new bridge anyway? By now truck traffic has probably been rerouted away from the Buffalo area and all that commerce creates alot of noise that we really dont need in our communities. Since all new architecture is just crap and never looks good anyway why would we even want to promote a new bridge and new distribution and warehousing centers because they would be new and look like crap? Its obvious that we as a society cant design anything worthy of being located amongst other historic pieces of architecture left by other generations. All we want is parks and open space anyway everywhere so why promote any development at all? Lets buy into the shrink to greatness position and see what happens. Lets shrink until theres nothing left.
You're right flyguy, we should continue as usual and let these rouge authorities do what they want and ignore the public - just like they've done the past 50 years.
I don't know about you but if the past 50 years are an example of what's to come - then yes, we will "shrink until there’s nothing left."
Bini, thanks for accurate information. There isn't much here. Over 80 posts and most are uninformed, biased junk. Atypical, you are by far the most biased, uninformed, non-constructive person on this site. You have absolutely zero facts correct but are a master at BS. The Peace bridge Authority is doing exactly what the public wanted.
You got what you asked for, for 10+ years. Does anyone really think that everyone will agree on the type of bridge to build? Not in Buffalo. The Peace Bridge is trying to please everyone while still trying to get what US Dept. of Homeland Security requires for a US plaza and a bridge that works for traffic volume, esthetics, and the environment. Stop the whinning!!
they should convince the local colleges to build the bridge. It would save us all a whole heck of a lot of money.
Report this