Share, , , Google Plus, Reddit, Pinterest, StumbleUpon

Print

Posted in:

Rally to Save Delaware Park

On Saturday, November 18, the Scajaquada Corridor Coalition (SCC) is holding a rally to raise awareness of the plight of Delaware Park. The park is being faced with another blundering move by the NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and the community is taking a stand to try to prevent such an ill-conceived mistake. From the SCC:

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unite the park, and to reverse the mistake of the 1950s.  Delaware Park must be restored to its Olmsted design, including restoration of the Delaware Avenue Bridge (lead image) that park users walked across from the Meadow to the Lake for generations before the DOT seizure. Please join us for a rally in Delaware Park at the Agassiz Entrance (Parkway at Rt 198) on Saturday, November 18 at 2:00 P.M.

Written by Buffalo Rising

Buffalo Rising

Sometimes the authors at Buffalo Rising work on collaborative efforts in order to cover various events and stories. These posts can not be attributed to one single author, as it is a combined effort. Often times a formation of a post gets started by one writer and passed along to one or more writers before completion. At times there are author attributions at the end of one of these posts. Other times, “Buffalo Rising” is simply offered up as the creator of the article. In either case, the writing is original to Buffalo Rising.

View All Articles by Buffalo Rising
Hide Comments
Show Comments
  • Disqusminiscus

    I’d rather keep a parkway or some through traffic and get rid of the golf course.

    • Matthew Ricchiazzi

      I would like to see the golf course removed, restoring the meadow for public access, while allowing about a quarter of the meadow to be used for a Bison Paddock, like San Francisco has in Golden Gate Park.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/047da3850fcf3c24b9a7bf7fb529ebd04e1a924ab541bc2d202031469ccb3b61.jpg

      • Matthew Ricchiazzi
        • bufforward

          Love it.

          • Randy503

            Where sheep may safely graze….

      • Matthew Moje

        Bison escape meadow, hits car on 198, more on this at 11!

      • Matthew Moje

        Golden Gate State park is also double the size of Delaware Park, allowing room for the Bison

        • Matthew Ricchiazzi

          The Bison Paddock is surprisingly small and confined to a corner of the park nicely (and is only a couple hundred feet from a the very densely populated Outer Richmond neighborhood without escape incidents). Golden Gate Park is vast, one of the best in the world for sure. It has beaches on the Pacific, and Lands End Park around the corner (which has incredible unpaved paths meandering oceanside cliffs that are incredible). Of course our geography limits the reality that we can create at Delaware Park, but this is one feature that could be easily accommodated in about a quarter of the space of the meadow.

      • Johnny Pizza

        The meadows already has many many acres that go completely unused by anyone. This isn’t NYC.

  • Just get rid of the whole thing if we’re going to have this conversation.

  • Dan

    What exactly is the purpose of this rally? Getting the Governor’s attention?

    • Randy503

      Murder and mayhem, I hope.

  • Matthew Ricchiazzi
    • mikmo323

      So, your plan is to block the original building from elmwood with a new one and to get rid of the Buffalo history museum and reuse the building to then expand AKG again? genius….

      • Matthew Ricchiazzi

        The current building is not blocked from Elmwood. The entire facade is left untouched and visible from Elmwood. The image above depicts and underground exhibit spaces that will not obstruct the view or the original facades of either structure.

        This design attempts to orient the institution outward, towards the park, whereas to immerse the city in the institution’s artistic mission (with landscaped grounds, sculpture gardens, public plazas, pedestrian promenades, botanical gardens, and lots of pedestrian connectivity between the college and park).

        The Pan Am building that currently houses the BECHM would be a great site for future expansion. The BECHM is only 30,000 sq ft. There is more space on the second floor of the Buffalo Public Library at Lafayette Square. This lightly attended historical society would be far more successful co-located in that space, where it would enjoy lower costs and resource sharing with B&ECPL. It doesn’t have to be done at the same time as the new construction currently being contemplated, but it should be considered for accommodating future institutional advancement.

    • eagercolin

      Needs more Indian Restaurant.

      • Matthew Ricchiazzi

        You raise an interesting point: in what ways can private event spaces (that could accommodate weddings, banquets, fundraising gala’s etc) be integrated into the institutions’s expansion. I tend to think that these outdoor campus features provide a plentiful set of seasonal multi use spaces that will broaden the institution’s role in the region.

        • eagercolin

          The important thing is that somehow Frank Parlato should collect rent.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            That is ridiculous. The economics of a Niagara Falls location at the One Niagara Center still make it the better site from a revenue standpoint. Parlato has divested himself of any interests in One Niagara, and Gordon Reger leads the ownership group. Parlato has been defrauding Reger and is no longer involved at One Niagara. I expect forthcoming litigation between Parlato and myself, and we maintain no business relationship.

  • Mike

    I will be contacting the governor to tell him to ignore your call for action. The 198 belongs where it is. The speed limit should be increased back to 50 mph. In fact, I think we should even expand it to 3 lanes on either side… SAVE THE 198!

  • Johnny Pizza

    This is the one situation where I have agreed with the activists. The DOT plan is just bad. It will move fewer cars slower and improve nothing for the pedestrian experience (its a net loss for all). I also detest the idea that a public SERVANT has the balls to tell the public who pays him to “take it or leave it”. That’s you Driscoll. Don’t forget who pays you.

    • Mike

      The only changes needed for the 198 are to reinstate the 50-mph speed limit and add substantial barriers as required. An additional lane on either side would be nice, but not totally necessary.

      • Matthew Ricchiazzi

        No.

        • Mike

          Yes.

      • Josh Robinson

        We’ve had it that way for 50 years and weren’t satisfied with the result – an unsafe roadway with much higher accidents than the state average, and a park split in two with only a few risky areas to cross (seriously, crossing to Delaware Park from Medaille College is a harrowing experience).

        It’s time to try something different.

        • Mike

          From personal experience, I have to strongly disagree with the hazards of the 198 now. Before the speed reduction, I would argue that the range of speeds was tighter than it is now. Whereas before, most people kept it around 40-60 mph, now people are going between 20-60 mph. There are folks at the high end who didn’t adjust their speed at all, and there are folks at the low end who have adjusted their speeds. So now instead of a delta of around 20 mph between drivers, you’ve got closer to 40 mph delta. That is dangerous.

          I have seen plenty of accidents on the 198 near Agassiz Circle since the change, so I find it hard to believe your stat. Again, from personal experience, I have also had multiple close calls since the change. I go about 35, but constantly have people zip off the 33E at high speeds and cut me off so that they can get over to Humboldt/Main. I don’t think people were so eager to exit the 198 before the limit changed.

          • 300miles

            When the speed limit was 50 mph, cars crashing into light poles was a weekly occurrence. I no longer see so many downed poles. I would think if less cars are crashing into poles now, then less cars are crashing to each other.

            BTW if the only reason you still see accidents today is because some cars refuse to abide by the new speed limit, then those cars should be ticketed instead of blaming it on the delta differences in speed as if nobody is responsible for that difference.

          • Mike

            It only takes a moment (300miles). You can put all the blame on the bad drivers. I’m all for blaming them. They deserve it. But realistically you have to face facts. Road rage has been studied extensively, and I’m no expert by any means, but from what I’ve read, it only takes a moment. If you create a situation where drivers feel trapped, feel helpless to traffic jams, feel annoyed at other drivers, they are going to want to get out of that situation, and fast. In a single moment, a good driver makes a bad decision and boom. If you pay attention you can see it happen all the time. Things seem normal, then all of a sudden a driver in front of you or behind you bursts out and starts weaving in and out of traffic, slamming the gas then the brakes. Sure, we should ticket them, punish them, take away their license, but in that moment, everyone else on the road is in danger. The goal of the DOT shouldn’t be to beautify the park, but to make the road more efficient to sufficiently handle the traffic demands to create a more safe environment for all drivers, and road rage needs to be taken into consideration, as much as you’d like to simply brush it off as personal responsibility.

          • 300miles

            That would be a super lame excuse of any crime or offense, wouldn’t it.

          • Bradley J. Bethel Jr.

            Of course you would propose letting psychopaths dictate transportation policy. All of that sounds like criminal activity that you yourself would engage in just to prove a point.

            “The goal of the DOT shouldn’t be to beautify the park…”

            If the DOT had their way, half the city would be ensnared in a maze of expressways that would have erased even more parks and neighborhoods. The original 1946 proposal would have put an expressway through Allentown, and another one on the city’s northern edge, meaning that scores of homes, parks and businesses all would have been compromised, as has already happened with both the 198 and 33.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f234ac43c1d5d0bd8a9b6edb1c7f2a01fc494dc87c3d0c396465e16f544f8d0e.jpg

            All to service a misguided push for “progress”.

            If Allentown had disappeared, you would be giving your bullshit rhetoric today about how people have to be “realistic” about reclaiming a neighborhood that was taken against public approval. Just so you can get home from work fast enough.

            Every bit as arrogant and selfish as it sounds.

      • BlackRockLifer

        When the 198 was 50 mph there were many more accidents and close calls, also on many days it was bottled up at Agassiz Circle and at Delaware Ave. Since the new speed limit of 30 mph the road flows quite well at 40 mph, no need to make any change.

        • Mike

          Speaking of Agassiz Circle, have you seen how people react to the stoplight now? The city had to put up new barrier posts to prevent people from illegally exiting to get to Woodward Ave. And those who make their way onto Parkside, many of those now do illegal u-turns and drive through the park because of the long line of traffic that now exists on Parkside since the reconstruction. Those who don’t do illegal u-turns still zip off onto Woodward in very aggressive maneuvers. If the 198 flowed “quite well”, I don’t think you’d get a higher frequency of jerky and dangerous behaviors like this.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            Parkside would experience the most dramatic traffic reduction if the 198 were removed.

          • Mike

            Sure, if you cut off all traffic from the 33 leading to it. WTF man?

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            Yeah, we should remove the 198 entirely. You can get off the 33 at Fillmore, Kensington, Delavan, or Utica.

            Parkside and the Humbolt Parkway north of Delavan will be quiet, Slow moving places.

          • Mike

            Perfect! I always wanted my drive to take 10 minutes longer. Thanks Matthew, you’re the best!

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            You’ll learn to appreciate the East Side a little more, if, heaven forbid, you have to get off the 33 on the East Side of Main Street. Clearly that’s what this is about.

          • Mike

            What are you implying Matthew? Before you answer that, please understand that I used to get off at the East side when I used to live over there. Then I used to take the 198 over to the West side when I lived over there. Now that I live in N. Buffalo, I prefer to take the 198 about half way. I suppose, unlike you, I prefer the most direct and efficient path to my destinations. I’m kooky that way, I guess.

  • Mike

    SAVE THE 198 (Scajaquada)! I have contacted everyone you suggested we contact regarding this issue: Assemblymember Crystal Peoples-Stokes, Senator Tim Kennedy, Governor Andrew Cuomo, Assemblymember Sean Ryan, and State Senator Chris Jacobs. In addition to that, I will be urging friends and neighbors to understand the importance of the 198 and be an advocate against your goals to disable, dismantle and destroy the much needed roadway.

    • Matthew Ricchiazzi

      If Chris Jacobs wants to get reelected, he would be well advised to tend to this issue.

      • grovercleveland

        You’ve really demonstrated your ability to connect with the pulse of the electorate.

        Senator Stocker, Mayor Betty Jean Grant, Councilman Mascia etc. etc. etc.

        • Matthew Ricchiazzi

          Stocker, Grant, and Mascia — all good people, just like all of the other candidates I’ve supported. Certainly not without faults, like the rest of us, but all honest and fighting the culture of corruption that pervades this city.

      • Mike

        I’ll vote for him if he helps prevent the agenda of this “save the park” crowd.

    • SKOTTI

      What is the importance of the 198?

      • grovercleveland

        It moves people and goods efficiently in a modern regional/global economy and transportation network.

      • Mike

        The 198 provides a route across the city with access to Grant, Elmwood, Delaware, Parkside, and Main Streets, by connecting I-190 and 33 for a more efficient and safe method of transport as compared to side street navigation where families and pedestrians are in higher concentration.

        • Matthew Ricchiazzi

          This cross city traffic would be better distributed on Delevan, Ferry, Utica, Amherst, and Hertel — where empty store fonts and underutilized neighborhoods would benefit from the commercial activity that will come from the much needed traffic pattern. With access improvements made to the 190 at Forest, Delavan, Ferry, and Utica, the new traffic patterns can be made more seamless.

          • Mike

            Nobody is in the mood to shop during rush hour, dude. Anyone who knows Buffalo, knows how to get to the neighborhood stores when they aren’t trying to simply get home from work.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            Dude, if you can’t handle a 30 minute commute, you should switch to decaf or move closer to work. Problem solved.

          • Bradley J. Bethel Jr.

            You must live a very boring life if you’re THAT obsessed with getting straight home from work.

          • Mike

            I just don’t enjoy living in my car. If you’re satisfied with wasting time driving around dealing with bad drivers, go right ahead, but I have a family that I love and enjoy spending time with. You must lead a very boring life if the highlight of your day is sitting behind the wheel watching tail lights and reading bumper stickers.

          • Bradley J. Bethel Jr.

            “I just don’t enjoy living in my car.”

            Then either take the bus to work, get up earlier to beat rush hour traffic, look into getting traffic lights synchronized to reduce wait time behind red lights, or move closer to your job. Otherwise, you’re just creating your own problems.

            “but I have a family that I love and enjoy spending time with.”

            So does everyone else. You are not special, Mike. If your entire existence revolves around the presence of an expressway, then you really need to re-examine your life.

          • Mike

            So your solution to not wanting to spend so much time on the road is “take the bus”? Yeah, that saves tons of time. You’re full of good ideas!

            Let’s get something straight. I’m not the one trying to push an agenda here. You are. So, please keep that in mind when claiming that this issue somehow dictates my entire existence. The 30 mph speed limit change definitely bummed me out, but I understand how people like you played on people’s emotions to get movement on your long lasting obsession with the park. I’m simply here as opposition to your selfish agenda to waste tax payer dollars on a project that is only going to make it more difficult to navigate the city, unless your only destination is always the park.

          • Bradley J. Bethel Jr.

            “I’m not the one trying to push an agenda here.”

            You’re the one who wants to block the whole city from recovering
            from a decades-old mistake, all because YOU’RE bummed out by YOUR commute time. You’re here playing on emotions of how ANGRY everybody is going to be that they have to comply with a new speed limit, because YOU assume that people are too stupid to adapt to change.

            All of your pathetic reasoning is about “ME ME ME! Everyone has to do things King Mike’s way!”

            Grow up.

          • Mike

            Again, I’m not the one being selfish here. Unlike you, I’m not saying that people should just deal with any and all changes being proposed for the 198, no matter how debilitating to commuters it may become and suggest that they either move closer to work, or find another longer, more frustrating route. You may speak for the trees, but I speak for reality, and the reality is, Buffalo needs the 198 to remain as the functional outlet from the 33 it has always been, more than it needs the 198 to become more beautiful.

          • Bradley J. Bethel Jr.

            “Again, I’m not the one being selfish here”

            Yet you’re saying that the city should remain hostage to its own mistakes just to cater YOUR selfish desires.

            If God forbid you vandalize someone’s property, or murder someone all because YOU couldn’t get home fast enough, that’ll be nobody’s fault except your own.

          • Mike

            You act as though it is a universal perception that the 198 is a “mistake”. This seems to be where our disagreement stems. I happen to think the 198/33 is the best way (a dynamic duo of sorts) to provide access across the city to the 190 and the 33 which both feed directly to the 90. You can call me selfish, but thousands of other drivers keep using it this way, every single day, and the only complaints I hear is that the speed limit changed. Not that it is ugly.

            Disturbingly, you also seem to correlate a desire for convenience and efficiency as a precursor for vandalism, murder, and scofflaw. Weird.

          • Bradley J. Bethel Jr.

            “Disturbingly, you also seem to correlate a desire for convenience and
            efficiency as a precursor for vandalism, murder, and scofflaw. Weird.”

            This is YOUR alarmist rhetoric of how we must bow down to the threats of frustrated drivers.

          • Mike

            There is a big difference between “threat” and “cause and effect”. Nobody is threatening you with the effects of the changes that have been made to the 198. Nobody is threatening you with the effects that will likely occur if proposed changes are implemented. Again, I’m the messenger here. The voice of reason, trying to explain to you how traffic works, and how it can affect human behavior.

          • Bradley J. Bethel Jr.

            “Cause and effect” can be motivated by an underlying threat. You would try to justify animal behavior just to promote yourself as the “voice of reason”.

        • BuffaloGals

          And there’s no other way to get from 190 to 33 that doesn’t cut through dense residential neighborhoods. Certainly not Elm/Oak Street!

    • Mark W DiGiampaolo

      The BOPC is not advocating the elimination of an east-west roadway through the Park. A careful reading of their Position Statement reveals they propose eliminating the current expressway with a boulevard up to 4 lanes wide. Their primary concerns are making access to all areas of the park easier and safer for the many who use it, as well as providing vehicular traffic through the park on a roadway more in keeping with Olmsted’s methods. They are not anti-car fanatics; they simply want a better environment for all who use the park either as commuters or for recreation. A bit of compromise on both sides should lead to a good resolution: park advocates accept a roadway through the park; commuters accept an additional 1-2 minutes of travel time.

      • Louis Tully

        lol you said as much the last time this came up last week. And no one responded. I dunno… some people hear what they want?

      • Mike

        You might want to tell Matthew Ricchiazzi that you don’t plan to remove the 198. But to your comments, I’d say that your compromise was the speed limit reduction. You’re done. No more changes. There is no more compromise for our side. Anything you do will further constipate the traffic from the 33 during rush hour. More than 1-2 minutes.

  • grovercleveland

    The park is widely used and enjoyed and is no way in danger of being lost.

    • Mike

      The goal these activists seek is to cripple traffic surrounding the park, which happens to sit smack dab in the center of north Buffalo. So if you have a job, they essentially wish to remove accessibility to your daily commute.

      • Matthew Ricchiazzi

        Liar.

        • Mike

          If it’s not the goal, you need to understand that it will be a direct result.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            No, it will not. There will be no massive bottleneck. Traffic will redistribute itself down tributary streets. Our highway system was massively overbuilt at a time when the city was expecting to double it’s population. Instead, we’ve lost nearly two thirds of the people but continue to subsidize suburban communters in this perverse and destructive way.

          • Mike

            There already is a massive bottleneck since the speed reduction. This is why traffic has spilled off into tributary streets – You’re right! Traffic now flows more heavily down side streets with families, churches, schools, and thus a higher concentration of children playing, biking, etc. Only, now, once people are forced off of the 198 in this way, they become aggravated. Take a look sometime. You’ll see how aggressive people are driving down side streets now. Check out Woodward Ave around 5:00 PM (M-F). The 198 serves a purpose, and if you can’t see that, you obviously do not drive.

          • BlackRockLifer

            Why would anyone be foolish enough to chose side streets over the 198, traffic flows better than ever at an average of 40 mph. I have been commuting on the 198 for several years and have seen NO change in my commute time since the speed limit was lowered.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            A bottleneck is not the same thing as slower moving traffic. The traffic on the Scajaquada flows very nicely at 30 mph.

            In fact, it should be 25 mph, if the roadway continues to exist at all.

          • bufforward

            Matt, I lean toward your side on this issue, but I have heard this argument put forth many times over the years (and will admit I used it myself in the past). It just isn’t that accurate.Yes, the population of the city has decreased, but the per capita car ownership has increased more.

            Buffalo population 1950: 580,132
            Per capita car ownership 1950: 0.32 cars per person = 187,795 cars in Buffalo

            Buffalo population 2010: 261,310
            Per capita car ownership 2009: 0.83 cars per person = 216,887 cars in Buffalo
            The number of cars on the road in Buffalo now is higher than ever before.

            Sources:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo,_New_York
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle#United_States

          • A-BuffalLover

            have you ever tried to move down parkside to amherst past colvin at 4:30 – it takes 20 minutes. You are an idiot if you think everything will magically be fine.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            Parkside will benefit most from reduced traffic without the Scajaquada pouring it in one spot. That is the problem with limited access highways — which are culprits that create bottlenecks, because they concentrate traffic volumes rather than dispersing them. It is a mathematical reality that street grids better and more evenly distribute traffic, because their are hundreds of unique routes that will accommodate the traffic through dispersion. After the 198 is removed, you will quickly see storefronts on Amherst, Forest, Delavan, Ferry, and Utica fill up and benefit from the commercial activity that will come from the new traffic pattern.

          • A-BuffalLover

            Let me address your two points:
            1) If the 198 were removed, then people exiting the 33 would still have to go somewhere. There are only limited amounts of places that they can go. So the bottlenecks won’t magically disappear, they will get worse. It is a mathematical reality that thousands of cars will need to move. Its like a tree. Yes, there may be hundreds of branches at the top, but there is only one trunk. The trunk is the 33.

            2). So you are saying that getting rid of the 198 will magically bring back the demand for the butcher and baker and candlestick maker? That as people are sitting in gridlock, they will jump out of their cars* and say, hey look – a dress shop. I’m not sure if you are paying attention, but retail is dying. Big box (such as wegmans) and online are taking over. There will be no benefit from increased traffic.

            * I would also question where people would park on Amherst Street if they wanted to stop in at the blacksmith shop, but they may as well just leave their car where it is because traffic won’t be moving.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            1) the 33 will have exits at Grider, Fillmore, Delavan, Kensington/main, Utica, Best, Jefferson, and Michigan. Those are a lot out routes through which traffic will be naturally redistributed without bottlenecks.

            2) I am saying the removing the 198 and reconfiguring the regional highway system will increase the demand for more livable urban neighborhoods close to the city core, which will repopulate our neighborhoods and reverse our decline. Increased population density will help fill vacant storefronts for all sorts of neighborhood services that target a hyper local niche.

            *the Grant Amherst neighborhood in Blackrock has on street parking, and two massive parking lots at Tops and Wegmans.

          • Mike

            All options from the 33 you listed are horrible options for maintaining a realisticly smooth commute. Stop signs and stop lights at every corner. Are you f-ng joking? Plus, you imply we all live in the same neighborhood. The beauty of the 198 is that it provides an outlet to North-South roads like Grant/Elmwood/Delaware/etc. Why do you live in the city? You obviously want to live in a suburban neighborhood.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            No, I don’t want to live in the suburbs. I want the body politic to start appreciating urban spaces.

            You want to impose enormous burdens on urban neighborhoods (like urban disinvestment, depopulation, and depressed property values) so that suburbanites can enjoy an egregiously arrogant luxury (universal 25 minute commutes).

            We are then forced to subsidize suburbanites to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year maintaining the interstate highway system; and tens of billions more maintaining state roadways. All the while the arrogant suburbanite refuse to make the same investments in mass transit.

          • Mike

            “The butcher and the baker and candlestick maker” – LOL

          • Louis Tully

            I’d reply to @disqus_kGJkom6KSi:disqus and @scottbuff:disqus but I think their minds are made up.

            As you say, there’s been plenty of outside-the-box examples that support your claim. I don’t think anyone needs to present anything extraordinary for this discussion. There have been numerous recent examples of downgrading/eliminating roadways and the sky actually doesn’t fall.

            For the highway lovers – –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox

            https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ypwyw5/the-math-that-shows-how-less-roads-can-lead-to-less-traffic

            If you’d like to respond with material defending your position I’d love to read it.

          • Mike

            All anyone needs is a stopwatch. When the daily commute for your average Buffalonian increases by 25-33% people will be upset. But you won’t care because you’ll have gotten your way.

          • Louis Tully

            No, I won’t care because I seldom use the Scajaquada. I used to travel it for work, and now my occasional trips at ~33mph have been hardly universe destroying.

            25-33% sounds a bit ridiculous, but I’ve been following your work now so it’s what I expect.

            Have you looked at anything I’ve posted to you, or are you too locked in your own dark, antiquated box to be illuminated by a different way of thinking? Or, at the very least, could you offer me some contrary reading? I’d love to see something to support the sky-is-falling claim. Or, as @markwdigiampaolo:disqus pointed out, could you show where the goal of the SCC is to eliminate the roadway.

          • Mike

            Talk to Matthew Ricchiazzi. He seems to disagree with the description of your agenda. My drive used to be 25 minutes. Now it is 30+ with just the speed limit reduction. With the way traffic constipates at the 198, even if I find an alternate route, it still takes 30+. Yeah, what’s 5 minutes? I already dreaded 25, and you increased it by 25%. Any changes being proposed would further increase that commute. I don’t need literature to prove that point. I love how you say that you “used to” use Scajaquada. That says it all. It’s not universe destroying, but it is a HUGE waste of money and resources, and completely pointless to suggest the 198 needs to become some kind of slow as molasses road. I think you are under the impression that the 198 belongs to the park. It belongs to Buffalo, and WE use it for daily commutes to get home, not to get to the park, not to stroll around aimlessly. We are done with work and want to get home (PERIOD).

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            You are free to move closer to work or to choose a place of employment with a commute time that is acceptable to you. I encourage you to move into the city. The Blackrock and Hamlin Park neighborhoods can be expected to experience steadily appreciating property values in the medium term.

          • Mike

            Why should I move? I’m in the majority. I think folks like you who want to turn a city into a farm should move out to the countryside. That would be a lot cheaper than wasting all that money on demolition and reconstruction of the 198. All we need for my changes are some signs that say 50 MPH.

          • Matthew Ricchiazzi

            I don’t want the city to be a farm. I want the city to be a city rather than an off ramp. The city is the destination, not the thoroughfare.

          • Mike

            Oh really? We should have bison roaming around the meadows of Buffalo? Give me a break!

          • Louis Tully

            Exactly, that’s why I included it for you. Because no one deserves a say in an issue unless it directly impacts them…

          • Cvepo

            Not sure why Buffalonians feel so entitled to the shortest commutes possible. Commute time comes with working in a city and living in its metro. And let’s be real here, compared to commute times nationwide, 25 minutes is quite short.

          • bettybarcode

            Have mercy on me, people, for I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Ricchiazzi.

      • DB

        Yea. That’s the goal.

        • Randy503

          Foiled again!

      • SKOTTI

        What are you talking about?

  • TV62

    Put it all underground. It’s a smaller project than the Big Dig, and now they can rely on experience from that immense project. That way everyone is happy: Drivers, who rely on it. The preservationists, too. It would make the whole setting more peaceful and more quiet.

    • Matthew Ricchiazzi

      That would be most ideal, but obviously a heavier political lift given the price tag. That being said, Boston had Tip O’Neil, and now we have Chuck Schumer — who has a lot of newfound political capital. It’s not out of the realm of possibility, depending on how Schumer plays his hand in the midterm elections.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2d9bac5f5c4543dc1dcf8eca6ed8ebe4bf480cefb50a8d4d42670e073b5af43.jpg

    • Matthew Ricchiazzi

      That would be most ideal, but obviously a heavier political lift given the price tag. That being said, Boston had Tip O’Neil, and now we have Chuck Schumer — who has a lot of newfound political capital. It’s not out of the realm of possibility, depending on how Schumer plays his hand in the midterm elections.

      • FreedomCM

        Of course, Boston is also a thriving metropolis with ten times the population and 30 times the wealth of Buffalo.

        Are the drivers in the area going to pay the $10 tolls to cross the city?

        • Matthew Ricchiazzi

          I prefer tearing the highway down rather than rebuilding it underground. If we could secure those billions, they would be better spent removing the elevated Route 5 on the outer harbor, adaptively reusing the skyway, restoring the hum bolt parkway, and reconfiguring the 190.

    • Josh Robinson

      You wouldn’t need an expensive tunnel or anything, just dig about ten feet down and put up some retaining walls similar to what you see with the cross-park roads in Central Park. RaChaCha described a similar solution in his Scajaquada series and I think it would work quite well for all sides – no risk of a car going through a barrier and hitting park users, and less visible traffic/easier bridge crossings for pedestrians). https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d6cd439af0bc17ba02d4f9862dc854283f355acf7cb1ae6b9eb68bb654a6067.jpg

      • 300miles

        I bet when they first pushed to have the 33 sunken freeway built, they spun it as a perfect way to plow a highway through a neighborhood by semi-hiding it from sight. And we know how that turned out. It ain’t pretty. There’s a huge design difference between something like Central Park cross-streets, and a sunken freeway like the 33 (and probably 198 would be)

  • tanklv

    The first picture is not right for the location. Look to Hyde Park in London for the “right” size for the walkway. It should be a broad promenade with benches lining the way occasionally, not the 4 foot “sidewalk” that is shown. Make it about 30 to 40 foot wide. Even consider to “meander” it a bit. The benches could even look out away from the walkway as well as inward, to give passers by the option of the view from the bridge.

  • Bagunce Mcgavera

    Given over time, no resident will miss the 198 when it is gone, but will be proud of and appreciate a beautiful “WELL planned” park and boulevard. We drive down the 198 without any appreciation for our environment and only care about the convenience at the sacrifice of aesthetics and safety….and for what??…to save a few extra minutes in driving somewhere? It is what we call the “lazy american” that chooses this convenience over something that is more proactive and beneficial to people and the environment.