That is the real question when considering the rival bridge proposals presented as the options for Buffalo’s international crossing to Canada. It’s harsh, I know, but that is the reality of it. Neither group wants to say it, but that is the result of either plan for a new bridge as proposed. Either a large portion of the West Side is demolished so that a new, full-scale, bridge plaza can be built for the Peace Bridge, or a huge plaza is built surrounded in a looping maze of ramps from a bridge in the International Railroad corridor directly behind Tops at Grant and Amherst Streets in Black Rock, right across the street from another residential neighborhood.
What the Ambassador Niagara Bridge group does not want the average Buffalonian to know is that there is a neighborhood directly across Amherst Street from their proposed bridge plaza. Actually, the plaza would literally be in the backyards of homes on Amherst Street. They focus on presenting their plan as cleaning up a brownfields site in an industrial area. Problem is that this is Buffalo, and former industrial areas happen to be directly across the street from current residential areas. So, the Ambassador Bridge alternative really is not even that. It is a choice to demolish one neighborhood, or saddle another neighborhood with the effects of a huge customs plaza.
Proposed Ambassador Niagara plaza looking west.
Quite a fun predicament created by two competing groups that both say they are right, they have the right solution, at minimal impact to our community. Unfortunately, as is often the case in a situation such as this, neither proposal is a solution. Buffalo is once again faced with a problem that comes from a lack of good and forward thinking planning. For too long in Buffalo, we have ignored urban planning as a legitimate undertaking, and that is the reason why we end up in situations such as this.
The real solution would be to look at the existing transportation infrastructure in the City and region, since this is not just a City problem, and truly determine where the best location for a bridge is. Now, I know what you are going to say, “another plan!”. See that is the problem, we never actually planned any of this in the first place. Planning was done by each individual group, each with their own preconceived notion of what the outcome should be. That is where the cart fell off from the horse.
The Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC) is the group that should have undertaken the planning for a new international crossing. The GBNRTC is the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Buffalo – Niagara Metropolitan region. They are the professional transportation planning group that exists to develop transportation plans for the region. Yet, they are not the group that was put in charge of this process, so now we are stuck with the choice of one City neighborhood versus another. Not a good choice. One neighborhood may appear to lose where in fact, we all lose.
As an urban planner working with the Black Rock – Riverside GNPA, I can say that there are citizens in the neighborhood that are not opposed to the concept of a bridge in the International Bridge corridor. The GNPA is opposed to a massive plaza devouring a prime development site, which consequently has been identified as the possible focus for future Buffalo State College expansion. The plaza would not provide any economic benefit to the Black Rock community, just as the Peace Bridge plaza has not provided much, if any benefit to the community that it exists in.
The real opportunity, as a commenter to Queenseyes’ article pointed out, would reside with the creation of an ‘inland port’ in an industrial area in the Tonawandas, directly off the rail corridor that cuts through Black Rock, Riverside, and Tonawanda. If all that existed on the brownfield site that Ambassador Niagara proposes for its plaza was ramps to a new roadway in the rail corridor with dedicated truck lanes going to this multimodal ‘inland port’, then maybe the Black Rock community would take the new proposal into consideration. But if the plan as presented is the only option, Black Rock and Riverside will be left to fight the Ambassador proposal with the same tenacity that the West Side is fighting the Peace Bridge plaza proposal.
It is a sad commentary, that as usual Buffalo is placed in a position such as this. It is the typical “caught between a rock and a hard place” scenario. Thankfully, neither project is at the point of construction yet, so no lasting harm has yet to be done. There is no guarantee that if the Ambassador Niagara group was able to build their bridge that the Peace Bridge would not be expanded leading to the full-plaza scenario. That is the final point that I want you, as the reader to consider, these projects are completely independent of each other. They can both be built, neither can be built, only one of them might be built. As things exist today, there is no rational planning occurring on a regional level as to Buffalo’s international crossing. This has to change so that we can move forward. Otherwise, we will be fighting over this issue for another 15 years, in which Detroit will have figured out their international crossing problem and will have taken a greater share of our cross border trade.
Overview of Ambassador Niagara project corridor.
Modified images from: Ambassador Niagara Presentation, Peace Bridge Expansion website (http://www.peacebridgex.com), and Google Earth.