Buffalo Rising Online

Buffalopundit... seems like it just hit it's tipping point.

Amazing how many people advocate for the Higgins plan because it is 'something'- there's money in place, the planning is done blah blah blah. So what- delay it a year for new construction drawings. The Higgins crowd advocates building what isn't the ideal plan and then five years from now we go begging DC for money to correct the mistake? Typical government (Democrat)thinkiing. Spend-spend-spend. How short-sighted. Shameful.

The fact that people are already asking for details of the plans PROVES that there was no public review of this project. It was kept in the dark and for Higgnis to say we had our chance to comment on this project is BS!

right on silentmajority, right on. Jay - great way to get the petition on the ball!

unfortunately Higgins is proving to be just another blowhard Career Politician... I know he's a so called savior here on BRO but he is pure career politico

Edited for foul language and personal attack on author.

:(

You see all those bike paths and parks in the Background. Can you say thank you Congressman Higgins for what you has done for the South Buffalo waterfront. You see the crowds on the Path??. That right there aren't any. Even on the finest days of the year , Those paths are empty. Boaters have no problem getting to the docks. But for some reason or other , except for a very small group group of regulars, the public avoids the bikepaths and parks and piers like the plague. So who needs all this access? Keep it like it is.

If you haven't read through the entire approved NYSDOT plan, you can find all the information here.

The City of Buffalo, Erie County, New York State, City of Lackawanna and local IDA's have spent hundreds of millions of dollars remediating brownfields in the areas immediately surrounding the area in question. Development investments have been made at the Union Ship Canal, Lakeside Commerce Park, and reconfiguration of several acres of the old Bethlehem steel site as an area for future industrial use. The regional plan is to reinvent the outer harbor as a destination for manufacturing, multimodal transshipment, international cargo, and industrial use. So, I ask you, why do we want to subvert all of that planning and funding to plop down an at grade 35 MPH boulevard in the midst of an area that will require major road capacity?

Does it not make sense to continue the use of Route 5 as is and simply improve access to Fuhrmann Boulevard and the outer harbor? We get waterfront access with at grade boulevards and a roadway that can support industry. The construction as planned does not preclude future demolition of the Skyway and the improvements planned for Fuhrmann as an at grade boulevard with landscaping, and water access sound like a fair compromise. From the approved NYSDOT plan:

Route 5 and Fuhrmann Boulevard will remain along the Buffalo Outer Harbor as separate roadways. A low-speed, landscaped Fuhrmann Boulevard offers access, development opportunities and recreational use. A rebuilt Fuhrmann Boulevard will enhance and will create access for vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian use. It will be the basis of a new circulation system for the Outer Harbor and the starting point for a future “surface” bridge or bridges to connect the Outer Harbor with the rest of Buffalo at any one of three possible locations previously identified by the city.

While it is fun to rail against NY Authorities for their ineptitude and near criminal ways, this plan is the product of nearly a decade of study and planning. Extensive public commentary was solicited and all hurdles for construction have been overcome. Why on the near eve of the bidding process would the Buffalo Common Council call a special committee meeting to protest a fait accompli? Grandstanding. Frankly, I've had more political grandstanding since I moved home three years ago than one man should ever have to witness.

It is approved and there are no grounds for legal action. In order to file a lawsuit to block this plan, you need to show that there is an imminent threat of irreversible harm, and you need a valid cause of action. All the i's have been dotted and all the t's have been crossed on this plan.

Just build it. After all, the Bass Pro Elevator To The Moon Project will be started within 20 years and it has all the made up models that make new urbanists swoon.

What is in the NYSDOT plan:

- landscaped at grade boulevards - one half mile deep of waterfront park land and development potential - potential to take down the skyway in the future - funding for main street bridge to connect inner and outer harbor - pedestrian walkways, bicycle paths, and vehicular access to the waterfront.

Also, why do we keep pretending that the NYSDOT plan promote busy and polluted roadways while the CNU plan promotes an easy ride along the waterfront? Trucks still travel the route, 40,000 cars a day still travel the route, industrial development is underway to the south of the waterfront requiring access to the I-190, and people will still be up against a busy and highly traveled roadway. The traffic will just back up like NF Boulevard.

if the esteemed congressman had voted against the iraq war (instead of for it), may be there would be a little more money floating around to do this project right

WilliamZabkaAllStars

They would keep Furhman Blvd. separate and as is?

Separate, but new, landscaped, and boulevardy.

Route 5 and Fuhrmann Boulevard will remain along the Buffalo Outer Harbor as separate roadways. A low-speed, landscaped Fuhrmann Boulevard offers access, development opportunities and recreational use. A rebuilt Fuhrmann Boulevard will enhance and will create access for vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian use. It will be the basis of a new circulation system for the Outer Harbor and the starting point for a future “surface” bridge or bridges to connect the Outer Harbor with the rest of Buffalo at any one of three possible locations previously identified by the city.

From the DOT plan that I linked to above.

Well buffalo geek maybe trucks will start utilizing the existing thruway the 1-90 and should we really be catering to industry anymore. Look at how much industry has done for us in the past we need to start looking towards teh future and i think im not alone when i say that i hope the days of heavy industry are over in buffalo.

Hmm I wonder who Buffalo Geek works for? lol the DOT!

How do you suggest they get to the Thruway, downtown junkie? We may want to move onto other forms of business, but at this point, we have companies that wish to be here and employ people to support our local economy. Sorry if they don't meet your ideal of new economy...

Also, the idea that I am DOT employee is to laugh. When in essence, I am probably the only one here who read both plans in their entirety.

Geek for Legislature!!!!

I was being sarcastic.

I am interested in making the greatest impact possible on waterfront access in the shortest time possible. It is for this reason that I decline to support any of the design alternatives in the DEIS, and instead prefer another alternative - a grand waterfront parkway. - Brian Higgins 2005 written comments to NYSDOT

How sad: Higgins just wants a ribbon cutting above all else - even his own opinion.

Initiated in 1991,The Southtowns Connector-Buffalo Outer Harbor Access Project has evolved through public involvement and comments.Originally anticipated as a relocation of Route 5 traf fi c inland,the project was refocused in 2000 to a project that would improve access to the Buffalo Outer Harbor.The Fuhrmann Boulevard – Outer Harbor Access Project represents the first phase of the Southtowns Connector.

You had your chance... now go away...

To all those against Jay - any personal attacks are non-sequitur - the arguments hold no grounds and therefore are false and not-true.

Just so all you know - I have to get to a Central Terminal Meeting, so I have to get going....taking action WITH the CTRC....

And, THANK YOU, to BRO for publishing one of my comments in the BRO book under the name halljd39!! I really appreciate it!

There's a good video here about what Buffalo stands to gain by downgrading Rt. 5: http://www.nmgonline.org/Tools/Broadcaster/frontend/item.asp?ItemID=59

i dont see how this proposed plan helps connect the outer harbor to downtown, without a bridge at either, main st. or erie street (hopefully both), it doesnt seem like this is much of an improvement.

I wish I could figure out what the hell on this project. Honestly the alternatives aren't very clear. As long as the Skyway comes down I'd rather focus on bringing the 190 to grade level or, better yet, through a tunnel in downtown. I think back to Lakeshore Drive in Chicago. It is partly elevated and even where it isn't it is all limited access highway up to Sheridan, though with a 45 mile per hour speed limit, yet it hasn't stopped Chicago from having a world class waterfront. I want what is best for the city and future development but I just can't tell what that is here.

I can't remember where I saw this, but there's a quote: "If you plan for cars and traffic, you'll get is cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you'll get people and places." The boulevard option has the best potential to accomodate cars AND cyclists AND rollerbladers AND strollers AND wheelchairs AND commerce AND development. The "Preferred Option" just gives us more of the same: a deadening highway with a frontage road. Oh, with some classic highway blandscaping.

I'll stay out of the pro/con either way, but just to understand both sides of the controversy better... why wouldn't cyclists, rollerblades, etc. use the "frontage road"? Wouldn't all those actually be safer if trucks and fast-moving cars were using the deadening highway (using terminology of Frankster's), rather than having one single combined blvd for all to coexist on?

Also, wondering is there some VERY SIMPLE diagram/map anywhere of the two options?

Well, Atwater, how well does the present arrangement work for pedestrians and cyclists and wheelchairs and strollers and rollerbladers and commerce and development? The fact that all of the aforementioned are repelled by the highway and frontage road that we already have tells you that retaining this configuration is a perfect example of doing the same thing and expecting different results. The classic definition of insanity.

Fransker, thanks for the definition of insanity. I never heard that before.

About your answer to my question with a question of your own: thanks, I guess. But does that answer how having so much heavy traffic from cars and trucks along with, as your comment put it "cyclists AND rollerbladers AND stroller AND wheelchairs" all on the same boulevard would be so much better? That's what I was asking about - the single blvd apporach and how that's better for those things.

If your answer does really anwser that, then I'm so lost and clueless about this issue I shouldn't even ask anything about it. Probably I shouldn't anyhow. Sounds like it might be one of those passion-based issues. There's a lot of those lately.

Then why spend any money down there? This will do nothing beyond what is already there. Divert the funds to downgrading the 198, expanding metro-rail etc. One two-way street on one side of this high speed earthen wall will not do much more than the one-way streets on each side of it now.

Plan for the future of what we want to be there. Not for what we have right now. The 190 blocked off a nasty industrial waterfront at the time it was built. As did the HSBC tower hovering over Main St. Now we are trying to reclaim that land yet we have that barrier there cutting everything off from the rest of the city. If we want a dense waterfront somewhere down the road we need to put the infrastructure in place to give it a chance. If we want a couple buildings down there with huge parking lots and no real reason to go down there, then stick with the elevated Rt. 5. Removing it would put a good part of the truck traffic on 190/90. This is another road that is used because it is there. Cars/Trucks are racing by at 75mph because it is limited access and raised, in in other words because it is possible, not because it is needed.

Also, stop comparing the Blvd to Niagara falls Blvd or Lackawanna Rt 5. Those are also examples of car based Blvds that also would not help any. Actually, thats what the outer harbor will look like down the road with an elevated Rt 5 or one of those style blyds. The desired Blvds have separated side local access roads/street parking and bike paths. Through traffic is in two lanes each way down the center with signals and medians for pedestrian crossing. This would also give hope to developing the other side of Rt 5 along with trying to get an area that is not 50-75% surface parking. More bang for the buck.

Why not put this $55 million into putting a raised hiway though Dunkirk, Angola, Eden etc. Its such an awesome thing we should share the wealth.

Jay's petition is at 750 for the Rte. 5 Alternative!!!! Keep the signatures coming! Again the link is: ROUTE 5 ALTERNATIVE PETITION - PLEASE SIGN!

Thanks, BRO, for giving this article & petition extended play in your header. I hear that we have Mr. Higgins' attention and he's annoyed that we aren't just dutifully doing as we're told. Yay for sloppy, noisy, inefficient, undecorous democracy! It's the worst form of government, except for all the others.