Buffalo Rising Online

It really does seem like some sort of double standard being held. Why does Buffalo's waterfront need to cater to those commuters and therefore not what is in the best interests of the city and its residents. 40% of Buffalo's residents do not own cars (Census 2000). How is this project for them? How is a limited access highway, with only a couple points to cross it in their interests? How does someone like me even get to the waterfront that this project is supposed to invigorate? You cant, you still have to walk for 3 hours to get from Erie Basin Marina to the lighthouse. I know I did it. It still will take 20-30 minutes to get there by bike going down south park, to ohio street, to access then go around the city shipping canal only then can you access the waterfront down by the NFTA small boat harbor. Who knows is that underpass even still going to be there? Is it moving north or south adding to the distance necessary to cross route 5?

I am not one to think we should build a wall around the city but why does our waterfront need this elevated highway when once you leave the city it drops promptly to at grade. God help us if those suburbanites actually had to ride at level.

It is a plan designed by engineers without the best interests of the whole city in mind. It is a project about cars, travel time and commuters... that is it.

in most if not many cities there are no expressways directly through the heart of the city but as you enter the city you are distributed back onto at grade parkways and boulevards.

If you want an expressway then you take the bypass which in Buffalo would be the Youngmann. The problem that Buffalo has is that the southern version of the Youngmann which should connect (Lackawanna or Hamburg, Orchard Park and East Aurora to say I-90 was never built so there is no southern expressway to bypass downtown as there are in the northern suburbs.

the issue really goes deeper and we really need to think more about deconstructing the skyway and rerouting it to the I-190, removing downtown access ramps within the business district within 1-2 miles which would get rid of the the downtown access ramps, the skyway and innher harbor expressway, the elm-oak arterial which would open up downtown for growth!

I dont think downtown Buffalo can get a grasp on its downtown core without considering the directions downtown in growing and wants to grow (east and south) and the obstructions to downtown growing (elm-oak skyway and access ramps)

just as the longer downtown ignores a light rail extension...the longer it will struggle....downtown retail will never be able to compete with the suburbs unless downtown is connected to the Airport, just as UB will never be able to utilize its 3 campuses unless Amherst is connected, just like the Senecas will never be able to utilize its Niagara Falls and Buffalo Casinos unless Niagara Falls is connected. We have major engines of our local and regional economy....and if their not integrated...then Buffalo and WNY looses!

I think that replacing the Michigan Ave lift bridge, for now, would be the best option. Until the newly developed waterfront is partly functional there will not be a lot of need for more access. The money wasted on replacing the Skyway could be better used for the waterfront project. To date this project has mostly been a reason for Higgans to get himself free publicity on the taxpayers dime.

Pundit, the waterfront coalition is smart enough to consult with real urban planners while the DOT is not.

The dot plan is traffic engineering pretending to be urban planning.

Huh??? You expect people to believe that snowdrifts blown by strong winds across a nearby frozen water surface would impact an at-grade road more than an elevated road?

That's way too much thinking and not enough feeling.

The at-grade portion of Route 5 in Lackawanna has acres of brownfield to its immediate west. When the water comes closer to the roadway, it becomes a bermed roadway. That is because winds predominately blow in from the west, and the elevation is to minimize snowdrifts on the roadway.

Actually his makes sense in terms of "logic". The brownfields add distance and of course drifts will lessen the further east the road is. And it's not an issue of snow "never coming near" and elevated road as kahawa frames it, but it's undeniable that elevating moves a road up away from the level of the frozen lake and so less of the snow that was sitting on the frozen surface will be blown up onto it.

But my point to BP was this blog isn't the place to discuss physics. He should instead try to make a more emotion-driven argument that appeals to people's feelings here.

Opps that should start "Actually his comment makes sense..."

by keeping route 5 elevated you will be certain snow will continue to blow unabated from the lake to the highway.

nyc - That would depend on distance and what's in between. If the Coalition's alternative is a "lakefront boulevard" as I've seen suggested so often, doesn't that sound unabated? Snow builds up on the frozen lake as we know it does, then winds blow it east. You're saying putting the road at same level as lake and closer to it wouldn't affect anything?

all i am saying is that can not drive decisions about what we do on the outer harbor. if we expect the outharbor to develop then why are we worried about all this snow blowing off the lake and impacting route 5. buildings and trees will lessen the impact. That's the solution. In the meantime put the road at grade and it's not going to be closed any more often then the skyway. It makes a futile argument as to why we should maintain the bermed section of route 5.

Just so I understand - being pessimistic about the DOT/Higgins plan is good, and it's wrong to be optimistic about that one? And for the Coalition's plan, vise versa - optimism good, pessimism bad? I think I get it now!

I really don't think that the highway being 20' higher makes any difference in the amount of snow that is going to slow onto it. If that is their reason for it then that seems rather lame.

BP is right snow is an issue on an at-grade roadway east of large water source. It's a valid argument. I personally don't think it's a strong enough argument to justify building bermed limited access expressways along our waterfront. This isn't progress - it's like we are going back in time to the 1950's.

There are better solutions and we need to look for them. The Waterfront Coalition brings in outside expertise including former DOT officials. We want this project to proceed as much as anyone - but bermed limited access expressways along our waterfront cannot be the only solution - right now it's just the most expedient.

The DOT did create an at-grade plan that they deemed feasible - this is the plan that the Waterfront Coalition is advocating. The problem is that it would delay the project for 12 - 18 months - the question is whether it's worth the wait. I believe it is.

Harvey

A revue of local news pictures of snow removal problems on Furman Blvd., before t was raised onto berms, will show rotary plows creating roadside walls over 8’ high.

A berm allows the snow, that does not blow off to lower ground, to be plowed off down the berm sides.

The primary reasons for closing the skyway are high winds, icing or blowing snow.

Deep snow has seldom accumulated on the skyway bridge deck.