The Southtowns Connector
As part of an ongoing series on irony, I present to you the overheated rhetoric on display at Buffalo Rising over the proposed Southtowns Connector along Buffalo’s rusted and weed-infested Outer Harbor.
The people visiting the site that promoted a petition drive to counter litigation to block the construction (by an advertiser) of a condo tower at Gates Circle are now screaming for a lawsuit to block this road plan.
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. The Peace Bridge was blocked due to a lack of an environmental impact study. The lawsuit to block the Gates Circle condos is based on the rights of those in adjacent buildings who would supposedly be harmed by the construction of that new tower. Whether you agree or not, at least there’s a legal pretext for the suit.
So, the first thing you need to do is establish that the DOT is acting in an illegal manner, and force it to go back and remedy its illegal act or omission.
You won’t block the Southtowns Connector by simply bringing a lawsuit.
Wouldn’t it be just awesome if a group of Hamburg commuters intervened in the suit to keep it just the way it is, so that the purpose of the roadway – a connector to the Southtowns – is maintained as a limited-access parkway?
Seriously, the fact that nobody – NOBODY – has brought up a compromise on this is what’s so telling about how crap gets (not) done here.
Let’s see – Hamburg commuters want to maintain a quick way into work that doesn’t involve the 90 to the 190. Assuming the DOT miraculously changes course and embraces the boulevard alternative, then there needs to be a limited-access road along some other route, or else there should be serious talk about extending a commuter rail system down to the Southtowns with handy park & ride plazas.
That, of course, would take years and loads of money no one has, and there’s no political will for it. But at least we could start appreciating the fact that there are several competing interests at stake here, and all of them should be taken into account.
32 Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
Sports Road Trip
Latest: Profiling OKC’s Ford Center – USRT roadie Day 2 -
Brian Castner
Latest: Al Gore as Skeptic -
Tom Schuh
Latest: Hometown News at Noon: Fri 11/20/09 -
The Goose's Roost
Latest: I Blame the Spotlight Guy -
Christina Abt
Latest: Question of the Day.....Jim Kelly for Coach??? -
BfloBlog
Latest: Kevin Maguire Open Thread: Bruins as Sabres -
Marc Odien
Latest: Calls for Parks Usage Input from Community Groups -
Eric Saldanha
Latest: Friday YouTube Nugget -
Bands That Jam
Latest: Phish | 11.18.09 | Detroit -
Colin Eager
Latest: Toilet Tuna
-
Advertisement
You need to log in to vote
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
I’ve argued the necessity of Route 5 and the Skyway for years already. Route 5 does not have the issue that the 190 has, which truly severs the city from the water. Route 5 is set back far enough to allow for plenty of development on either side. Besides, it’s not really severing anything on the inland side, which is populated by only Tifft Nature Preserve and growing industrial parks (both good things). One of the reasons the industrial parks are expanding in that area is the quick and easy access for trucks to get to points in all directions.
Tearing down the Skyway and elevated sections of Route 5 won’t happen. It’s too expensive and will hinder growth and development. Some well planned, minor infrastructure improvements will go a long way.
Is this post about Buffalo Rising or is it about the South Towns Connector or is it about the Skyway?
The way the South Towns Connector is NOT the Skyway. It is a proposed new link between the Skyway and the Thruway and probably is of no concern to residents of Hamburg. Future options for reconfiguring the skyway is a different but related issue. Perhaps you should get that straight before posting.
Marginally, yes, and no, respectively.
No it isn’t. It’s a proposed new link between the Skyway and points south, including Lackawanna and Hamburg. It’s intended purpose is to reconfigure Route 5 as a limited access parkway, and Fuhrmann Blvd as an easily accessible and usable road.
Specifically, as per the DOT:
If you get rid of Route 5 as a limited access highway, which is what it becomes soon after you pass the old Bethlehem Steel plants going north, then I suspect Hamburg and Lackawanna/Blasdell commuters would have quite a bit to say about it, indeed.
Yeah. Maybe you should get your facts straight about what the Southtowns Connector is before hectoring me about getting my facts straight. A link between the Skyway and the Thruway?
It is not a connector between the skyway and points south. You should look at the plan
https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/regional-offices/region5/project-repository/stcboh/stcbase.gif
It is an arterial from the 190 to Furman Blvd. with improvements to Furman. Last I looked 190 was north of the Skyway.
Yep I do have my facts straight . I will not hector you however because that is not what I do.
By the way I think it is quite quaint that you think the residents of Hamburg and Lackawanna should have any say in what Buffalo would like to do with its water front. Perhaps if they would agree to a consolidated government that would not sound so ridiculous. For God’s sake you can not even enter Hamburg’s waterfront park unless you are a resident
Pundit, you forget that the people of Hamburg elected a body to speak for them, the Hamburg Town Council, which unanimously voted in favor of supporting the Boulevard Alternative and removing Route 5.
Paul–would that be the same group that passed the law saying you can’t enter the Hamburg Waterfront Park without proof of residency?
Sounds like a group of elitists to me.
No, Steel. You don’t have your facts straight.
The Tifft Street / 190 connector might indeed be a swell alternative to the Skyway, but that’s not what we’re all talking about. That roadway is not the “Southtowns Connector”. It’s the 190-Tifft Street Arterial.
Since the DOT is a state agency that is managing state highways on state rights of way, I think that Hamburg, Blasdell, and Lackawanna people have a right to comment on it. That’s probably why the DOT opened this project up for public comment back in the late 90s and again a few years ago, and again in 2006 when the DOT announced its preferred project. That’s also probably why the DOT set up informational materials in Buffalo, Lackawanna, and Hamburg.
And PF: The Hamburg Town Council’s vote, like the Common Council’s, is high on symbolism but accomplishes exactly nothing.
I wonder how many of the people now opposed to this project actually spoke up during the public comment period about it?
“The Modified Improvement Alternative preferred by NYSDOT would maintain Route 5 as a four-lane roadway to serve commuter traffic, while Fuhrmann Boulevard would be converted to a continuous, two-way, four-lane parkway on the west side of Route 5, adjacent to the waterfront. This would facilitate local vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian access from Tifft Street to Michigan Avenue. ”
This is pretty much what I said except it leaves off the new arterial. What facts am I getting wrong? How does this improve anything for the south towns ? I did notice that they will be eliminating some on /off ramps. That means the waterfront will possibly be even harder to get to.
I think the “maintain Route 5″ is the part people have a problem with. Maybe when the good citizens of Hamburg vote to make changes to their own waterfront they should include a super highway as an alternate.
I noticed they had 6 public meetings with only 2 of them being in Buffalo. Interesting that the place most affected by the project had the least exposure to participation. Still don’t know why the people of Hamburg get to decide weather Buffalo’s waterfront gets plowed under by a highway or not.
Amazing that when other more progressive cities are tearing down highways Buffalo is making projects to fortify and maintain highways.
As a cost-saving measure, perhaps the roadway could be renamed. No actual work need be completed, just change the name to something pleasant like Lakeside Pkwy. Win-win. Solved.
Actually, as a former Hamburg resident who lived on Lakeshore Rd / Rt 5 for almost 20 years, the change to a more scenic and accessible roadway into Buffalo would be kind of nice. I don’t see the downside of making this road an at-grade parkway, unless some might be concerned that it’d add an extra 45 seconds to their commute.
No, Pundit, the Hamburg Town Council, the South District Councilman, and the Lackawanna Councilwoman whose district includes Route 5 are all speaking loudly that the Higgins Highway Plan stinks. The Boulevard is the way to go. It’s having an impact and the DOT and Higgins are running scared. High five to them for making a big, big difference on this issue!
Drive on through to downtown Toronto and there’s the Gardiner Expwy to channel through traffic. Then there’s Lakeshore Blvd, an at grade six lane highway to channel local traffic. Their waterfront looks very pretty and accessible with all sorts of amenities. Somehow both these roads coexist jut fine. So why can’t an elevated Rt 5 and an at grade Fuhrman do the same?
Stil TBD… how do you get traffic across the Buffalo River from both high speed Rt5 and at grafe Fuhrman once the Sjyway is gone. It is disappointing that this key element of the plan is not being built along with the rest of this plan, but left for another funding cycle.
I would like to identify myself as the ONLY person who does like the Skyway/Rt 5 configuration the way it is. The Skyway has a great view from the top. And anybody with half a brain who knows how to read signs can get around Furman Blvd ok. Focus should be on building “it”, not the road to “it” before “it” is even built.
I have to admit that I am now utterly confused. I have no idea what road anyone is talking about or where it might be accessed.
I thought I knew until this post and the comments. Let them build whatever, as long as I can still get to the Botanical Gardens via rte 5 and Ridge.
“That means the waterfront will possibly be even harder to get to.”
How often does a guy who left Buffalo to live in Chicago actually “get” to our waterfront?”
Its pretty easy to get to now and will be with this new plan…
Just do it and don’t let the crazy BRO folks stand in the way of the progress they say they want….
it sounds almost like Bflopundit and crew are for the DOT, just forget about it for one minute and realize the multiple cons that are an issue here with this project. Team this is BS. Sure the plan has been out there for however long but that doesn’t take away our right to try and change and complain about the plan. Take a look at the rest of T.O. its not anything like Blo city, we need this boulevard.
if Rt. 5 & the Skyway were no barrier to development, then we would have a developed watrefront to prove it.
For one second, lets just consider the amount of traffic carried by Rt. 5. Rt. 5 and the Skyway carry a whole 44,000 car a day. That really isn’t very much. Main Street in Williamsville, Transit Road in various locations, William Street in Cheektowaga/Lancaster all carry similar if not greater traffic counts. Now, I know I have not heard that an expressway is needed or should be built in these areas. Why does an expressway need to exist for all of about a mile along the waterfront. The DOT plan will remove the elevated expressway section from Lackawanna by the Steel Plant to Ohio Street. From Ohio Street to the Skyway, they are for some unknown reason keeping the expressway. It makes no logical sense. The traffic does not dictate it especially when you consider that there will be a four lane one mile long limited access expressway with a four lane “parkway” next to it. Completely unnecessary. This whole project is a waste of $60 million. Just everyone take a step back and maybe put together a development plan for the whole Outer Harbor including transportation. Maybe then we could actually get somewhere considering the piece meal approach has done us so well up until now. I’m sorry but this just goes back to our lack of comprehensive planning in this area.
Yes, the fact that DOT had a “process,” such as it was, is by no means a reason for the community to step back and no longer fret. This “process” was poorly advertized and insulated. DOT aggressively sought out the usual suspects at BUDC, ECIDA, NFTA, and the now thankfully defunct Uniland/Opus dream team for the Outer Harbor. This project was designed explicitly in response to the Uniland/Opus proposal which is no longer, and never was, moving forward. That proposal is history yet DOT is moving forward like we’re stuck on stupid. A few public meetings at which five people showed is not a sign of the apathy of the public but in the deliberate shadowy approach of DOT, which wants to keep Route 5 here forever and knows the public disagrees. It’s definately not in DOT’s best interest to overly engage the public if DOT has no intention to listen to them. And, by the way, the citizens that did show to these public hearings overwhelmingly supported the boulevard option.
The DOT is delaying this project because, yet again, DOT failed to do its due diligence and has screwed up the environmental review. We want to get this project underway as soon as possible and finally get a boulevard on our waterfront just as Chicago, San Francisco, Milwaukee and perhaps soon Seattle will do. We deserve better than to be the only city in the country that is actually *expanding* its highway infrastructure on the waterfront. This isn’t Detroit – I hope!
Congressman Higgins will be on WNYM to discuss this issue around Noon today (depending on todays voting schedule)
http://www.wnymedia.net/podcasts/WNYMlivefile/listenlive.m3u
Email any questions to admin@wnymedia.net
Podcast archive will be available later today on frontpage
One correction, Chicago has a highway on its waterfront.
To Size Nine…….Rt 5 and the Skyway are not barriers to the waterfront. The waterfront is not developed because it has been in the hands of the “Bus Company” for the past 50+ years. Yes, your “Bus Company” that favorite dumping ground of all the useless democrats you elect who come to office with no ideas and leave with even less. The waterfront should have been and still needs to be put into the hands of private developers in order to make something happen.
Chicago’s waterfront highway is imperfect, but it’s at-grade.
TheRover, name one great waterfront anywhere in the world that has an elevated, noisy freeway hurtling down alongside it. I challenge you!
Then I’ll name name several cities that have, or soon will, dismantled waterfront highways and have witnessed hundreds of millions of dollars of new development come underway there.
Chicago’s at-grade waterfront highway is a huge pain in the ass to cross! Since it’s like 10 lanes wide, you get to cross it half at a time. You know what would make a lot more sense? Elevating the stupid thing and putting a pedestrian walkway that goes right underneath it.
I will never understand why at-grade crossings are the love of all urbanists. They directly put the pedestrian in harm’s way. Walkways over or under main roads keep people safe and traffic moving.
Someone explain to me how a 6-lane boulevard with a median cuts “people” (who are these people? Where are the “people” on the east side of Route 5?) off from the waterfront any more or less than the proposed DOT hybrid Route 5 / re-worked Fuhrmann Blvd?
Why do the urbanists want the 18-wheelers going to and from the business parks and warehouses in the remediated brownfields on that 6-lane boulevard?
Until the DOT recently chose their “preferred alternative” we didn’t know what the plan was definitely going to be. So we are late to commenting. So What? The reality of waterfront development has changed drastically in recent months and years. The boulevard is just a better plan for that development than the DOT “preferred alternative”. It is not as if we are trying to close a road or prevent the first road from being built there. There are already two roads there. We are fighting for an option the DOT also considered and said would do the job just fine!
Pay attention to these key points: side-by-side roads is stupidly costly and redundant. It also eats up more develop-able land. Most people would consider that a bad idea on what is likely to be a very valuable tax revenue producing bit of real estate. The current plan deprives the City of Buffalo of additional property tax revenue – weird how residents of other municipalities and the desire to not have their commute time lengthened by 2 minutes supercedes the authority of Buffalo residents to utilize space in the city to the fullest extent. What is the legal viewpoint on that? Additionally, how on earth is an elevated highway on the waterfront going to be useful once the skyway is torn down like Higgins himself claims is necessary. It will be an orphaned highway with regular access roads at both ends. The proposed lift bridges (by Higgins himself) to replace the skyway sure don’t make sense as the connection to an elevated limited access highway. So Pundit et at., please make a cogent argument to address these inconsistencies in the current plan. We sure can’t get these answers from Higgins or the DOT.
Mr Francis, answer to your question is Cleveland, more precisely The Flats. In fact there seems to be a Skyway type bridge soaring over the whole area. Nobody seemed to notice it but me, since it dawned on me that while it works there, people like you keep whining that it can’t work in Buffalo. There also is alot of private enterprise around the Flats, something that a state run agency won’t make happen. So my challenge to you, Mr Francis, is this: once your waterfront is “developed” with “bikepaths” and “greenspace” just what is it you expect to do there in mid February?
Derek Panaro: a fan of the dark, dank, used-needle paths under elevated highways. Oh wait… NYSDOT is calling it an “Eco-Path Underpass.” George Orwell, you haven’t left us!
Pundit, ever think that the people might want access to the hundreds of waterfront acres the elevated Route 5 consumes in sheer space? Eliminating the highway in favor of the boulevard frees up 300+ acres, effectively doubling the size of the Outer Harbor. Keep the highway there, and assessed values for that property effectively remain less – yes, they are now less – that the citywide average, despite being alongside the water’s edge. The right infrastructure will add value to the city; the highway never has and never will, no matter how many well-placed shrubs Higgins says will be there.
Oh come on, Paul. You’re telling me that the masters of design and planning can’t figure out how to put a few bright lights in a pedestrian walkthrough? The fact that you equate a simple underpass to drugs and crime in your mind speaks volumes.
The assessed values for old abandoned brownfield industrial sites along the water are lower than say, Elmwood? Go figure. Must be that damn road.
Re: Toronto: ver get off the Gardiner too early and be stuck on the lakefront boulevard during commute hours? Not at all fun.
Anyone besides me remember when the DOT rebuilt rt 5 thru Lackawanna a few years ago, and restriped it to 4 instead of 5 lanes? Remember the screaming over the newly introduced traffic jams? Anyone notice how the speed limit thru there is 40 but if you’re going less than 50 at commute hours you’ll get rear ended? And we’re going to slow this down to 30 at the city line?
And the lovely car recycling plant on Ohio street, or Advanced Metals need to be visible to and from the waterfront? This is what we’re blocking from the outer harbor? Or the Buffalo River Improvement Corp pump house (established to flush the toxic Buffalo River back when Buffalo Color and Republic Steel poisoned it)?
Too many commentators with nary a clue what they are talking about. Nary a complaint against the more obtrusive 190. Or are many confusing the two? If you actually read the DOT proposal, it in no way precludes doing something about the Skyway and is a doable-sized project vs. the rip-it-all-out-snd-start-over dreams that have no reasonable chance of occurring. Think small, doable projects instead of these magic bullets.