Buffalo Rising Online

Remove the elevated portion of RTE5 ? Salvage the skyway and turn it into an elevated park? Where is BRO going with all this? Sounds like some kind of a disorder.

The DOT has brought this all on themselves. Once again if they presented to the community a long range vision for transportation and development on the outer harbor that incorporates the current alternative as part of a long range plan instead of this "trust us" attitude, then people would back down. But no, the DOT is acting like it's still 1955 and the trouble is people don't just trust them, for good reason.

I got a very well written letter from Higgins in response to an email I sent him about this matter. Unless that meeting with the Waterfront Coalition was fruitful he is very much convinced that the elevated portion of the route five with the road next to it is the proper and best way to go. I can't blame him seeing that this is still an improvement to what we have but at the same time he is failing to think big.

"Make no little plans for they fail to stir the hearts of men" was once uttered by Danial Burnham referring to the breathtaking city layout he proposed for Chicago. Ellicott - Olmsted followed suit with our city but yet today, 2007, we fail to understand the long lasting implications of our plans and roadways. We allow traffic engineers, not planners, from a state appointed authority to say what is best for us.

The waterfront coalition and especially the riverkeepers have a fair amount of knowledge in Urban Planning and city making.. why do the people who are educated on the subject considered somehow second rate to some number crunching hack. We wonder why our city looses its educated youth, we wonder why we fail to progress and develop the way other cities have.. This is an exact reason.

Every public investment that we pay for should not just push or slightly improve the current conditions, it should rethink the whole reasons and circumstances involved. We should be spending this money in a manor that improves access, creates a beautiful roadway and really removes the problems with such a large commuter pathway.

Looking at sprawl in the region, the over constructed infrastructure we already have serving too few people to make it worth while. Maybe it is time to simply scale back our highway system. We have 200,000 less people in this county than we did 20 years ago but yet we continue to sprawl, drive more and cost everyone more money. This plan does NOTHING think about those issues. It does nothing to improve the connection to downtown for anyone outside of a car, it does nothing to hydrologically reconnect Tifft to the Lake Erie, It does nothing to change the face of the waterfront.

I mean in the end a 6 lane road isn't a beautiful or easy thing to deal with, but not being elevated means people will drive slower, maybe even enjoy the view a bit and reduce the pollution and noise with hose vehicles. Ok enough, back to work.

Toronto has an elevated roadway AND Lakeshore Boulevard, and it still has major traffic jams. Removing the Gardiner Expressway sounds to me like it wouldn't have much value to the commuters who travel to work in Toronto. Commuters and just-in-time freight transit are facts of life in the big city. We should get some real logistics experts in here before we cut any main travel arteries. We may just bleed to death to save the waterfront. Just my humble opinion.

Because Pataki, the republican, never showed face to garner votes. Politicians are politicians now matter what their party is and both of them get undeserved votes just because of their label. The exact reason why our forefathers tired to NOT setup a two party system.

Brokeep - I agree Spitzer doesn't care, but don't forget we had a republican governor for a long time, so don't blame it all on the democrats (although I know it's a very republican thing to do)

Spitzer is best described as the male bully/tantrum version of a spoiled jewish american princess.

Spitzer could go after and intimidate the financial district but hey people have been building their name by doing that for near a century...its riskless...they pay because extortion is cheaper than fighting it but reforming the special interests of government like teachers unions....thats a completely different battle.

Spitzer is boggled down with using the state police to spy on the republican Senator Bruno, with drivers licenses for illegals and many other failed policies.

NOW IF SPITZER HAD AN OUNCE OF BRAINS HE WOULD TAKE THE ISSUES OF BUFFALO WHICH ARE SMALL BY NYC AND NYS STANDARDS AND RESOLVE THEM TO GET SOME GOOD CHEAP PRESS! THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE IS THAT SMART!

1) We do not have the density or population of Toronto. Comparing Rt 5 to the Gardiner is a non-start. Though looking at old aerials the Gardiner, it was also built through what was at the time industrial waterfront/railyards (looked very similar to our current outer harbor). If planned for its current use of residential/park land etc from the start, I doubt an ugly wall of an elevated highway would have been the choice for this area.

2)If the trucks and commuters can make time through Lackawanna section, they can live with this 3-mile stretch being put back at grade with the rest of the area. Trucks can detour up Milestrip to the 90 if they so prefer. If done with the through traffic center lanes and outboard local traffic lanes, both needs can be met. This is a small spur on what should be valuable land which will only keep it from attaining its maximum value.

3)Does no one find it ridiculus that Buffalo be forced to keep one long highway (Rt 5 and I-190) from its southern border to its northern border between the waterfront and the rest of the city?

4)5 minutes added to the commute time is a fair trade to allow the outer harbor to fully integrate itself. All this plan will do is perpetuate what is already there, albeit with a slightly prettier two-way road sandwhiched between it and the water.

5)Roads like this perpetuate the disinvestment in the city. They make it easier for people to move farther out and commute instead of living near their employment. Who says someone in a 4-th ring burb should be able to get to downtown in 15mins? Especially when such a route would just draw more people out that way because it is so easy. Then support buisnesses follow, then other buisnesses follow to try to be closer to where people are living. And then we all criss cross each other in our cars every commute and complain that the roads are all clogged. We have shrank. Sections of highway can be downgraded for a better purpose. No more should be built/extended. Tolls should not be moved outward until population growth for the area dictates the need. Buffalo needs to stop being the low self esteem girl that buys into the "you are lucky that I'm even with you, so you better keep doing what I ask."

If the boulevard was determined to be feasible there should be no justification for not making it happen instead of wasting $55million on a project just because "it is better than what is already there". Just as slapping 20" chrome rims on my non-running car won't get me anything but pretty rims to stare at, this will give us nothing more than a pretty street crammed next to an elevated highway to look at.

I have no hostility to people choosing where they want to live. I have lived on the East Side of Buffalo, Elmwood, Clarence Center, Off Sweethome, Village of Lancaster, and the City of Lockport over the years.

The problem lies in subsidizing that choice and what that does to our infrastructure as a whole, especially in a metropolitan area that is bleeding population and perpetually whining about high tax loads. In the 50's politicians claimed these highways were vital for the city to survive when all these gashes did was speed up the bleeding. Want to live in Lancaster and work in DT, no one should be able to stop you. But tax money should not go to ensure that you can get there super quick. Nor should infrastructure that kills a part of the city be built/maintained to ensure that you can do it super quick. Areas of huge population growth spread out because of the need to. Here we do only because we are able to. I'm not for increasing that ability, especially when it takes away from an existing area.

And now today, when we have the opportunity to heal some of these wounds the city is told it better keep these outdated pass throughs for non-residents. This is the city's land and they should be able to dictate what they want done with it, not those that chose to pick up and run but want the benefits of an easy trip into work. Complain that Buffalo needs to fix itself, but don't allow it to choose what it wants to do with its land usage?

Ever been to Vancouver? Not one highway punctures into the core or cuts it off from its waterfront. It is a beautiful city. Streets are busy and it can take a while to find a spot to park. That's called viality. You don't mind the extra effort to enjoy it/get to it. What does Buffalo get? An inaccesible waterfront and a bunch of commuters saying you better keep it that way for our convience or "insert doom and gloom here". The city is already at doom and gloom with them. I don't see how they can continue to be a "selling" point.

All those cities you list also have massive immigration greating pressure and need for space. We do not have anything close to that. One that you list: San Fransico goes on to prove to the additional benefit/development that was seen from removing highways such as this and disporved all the doom and gloom that people said would happen if they were removed. So I do not see the point here.

190 is a continual interstate. This is a small spur off it. The best chance of any watefront reclemation lies right here. With work ready to go on now, the best time to fix it is right now. And did you watch the video on San Fransico? Did it look like a 6 lane monstrosity similar to N. Falls Blvd? No it did not. Stop trying to make it sound like it is. The current 4-lane elevated monster is no better.

If I were to puncture a hole in a dam, it too would be functional but may end up draining the water resovoir. People downsteam may enjoy the convience of more water for a period of time but in the end we would all end up high and dry. That is where this area is heading/already at. I am not promoting building a wall here. Buffalo deserves infrastructure here that is best for them while taking in consideration the commuters. Not the other way around. The first focus of the infrastructure should be on making Buffalo itself strong. Make it strong and desiralbe enough and the need for commuting is reduced.

The first focus of the infrastructure should be on making Buffalo itself strong.

right on MJ we seem to think alike.