Comments on: The Southtowns Connector

By: Amused

Amused — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:10:49 +0000

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.

By: Derek J. Punaro

Derek J. Punaro — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:24:38 +0000

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.

By: Paul Francis

Paul Francis — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:33:51 +0000

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.

By: TheRover

TheRover — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:32:57 +0000

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?

By: Jeff Brennan

Jeff Brennan — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:58:23 +0000

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.

By: Buffalopundit

Buffalopundit — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:53:38 +0000

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?

By: Derek J. Punaro

Derek J. Punaro — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:44:47 +0000

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.

By: Paul Francis

Paul Francis — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:13:26 +0000

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.

By: Paul Francis

Paul Francis — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:10:11 +0000

Chicago’s waterfront highway is imperfect, but it’s at-grade.

By: TheRover

TheRover — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:54:32 +0000

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.