Comments on: The Peace Bridge Expansion is Dead

By: Harvey Garrett

Harvey Garrett — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:54:43 +0000

Couldn’t agree with you more Alan. Excellent summary of existing circumstances and best possible solution.

Harvey

By: hank

hank — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:02:43 +0000

Just where I figured I’d find him.

By: iNdAbUFF

iNdAbUFF — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:58:55 +0000

Regional planning? What is that?

By: MIke

MIke — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:36:26 +0000

Hudson is extra funny today, but click the link and see Mike’s current home.

By: starbuck

starbuck — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:31:54 +0000

A second bridge at Lewiston sounds much more sensible, but what’s the basis of your prediction the Peace Bridge expansion is dead?

Doesn’t the PBA still have strong backing of Brown, Spitzer, Hoyt, Higgins, Schumer, et al? Homeowners around there don’t seem to have much power to stop it.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:01:18 +0000

mr. hudson — Take. Your. Xanax. And let me know when the ribbon cutting is going to take place…Pan Am House, New Home for the NF Reporter.

By: Jeff Brennan

Jeff Brennan — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:57:24 +0000

Most of us know we don’t have enough regional planning and cooperation. And it only occurs to some of us now that planning border crossing infrastructure holistically and strategically for maximum efficiency of existing infrastructure and lowest cost is a good idea! Duh. The fact that there are two competing bridge authorities that will compete for funding, traffic and local negative impacts is appalling. Wouldn’t it be nice if traffic could be managed regionally??? To minimize negative impacts and maximize positive ones? Sounds downright smart – not that we would ever do such a thing. Protecting ones turf is more important here. Can’t you imagine a scenario where the Peace Bridge expands and the Lewiston-Queenston does as well just to steal traffic back (or vice-versa)? Neither bridge authority could allow a reduction of it’s toll revenue due to an expanded crossing at the other one. Call it a crossing arms race that only costs a lot of money and might bulldoze tax base for that end (as on the West Side). A zero sum game is completely possible.

And I agree that a welcome center should be a much bigger priority at each crossing. Pathetic that it doesn’t exist.

By: mike hudson

mike hudson — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:52:14 +0000

“Nobody wants traffic — that’s a given,” says steve. heck, with that attitude, buffalo should retake its place as a suburb of black rock quicker than you can say “let’s drive away what little remaining business we have!”

By: mike hudson

mike hudson — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:48:55 +0000

you are right, one solution. something does need to be done about the grand island bridge tolls — they need to be raised to $5! that should put the final nail in the coffin for buffalo, “the city located at the end of a canal that doesn’t exist anymore.”

By: mike hudson

mike hudson — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:45:47 +0000

you are correct sir! the lewiston-queenston bridge has been where this expansion should have been proposed in the first place. the bridge commission headquarters are located there, it is minutes away from the niagara falls international airport expansion project, the falls, the seneca niagara casino and the factory outlet mall are far bigger attractions than the darwin martin house or the recently looted albright knox newseum and there aren’t as many nitwit preservationists and self-appointed architectural arbiters here ready to hurt business at the drop of a blueprint. bass pro should be located here as well since everybody knows the fishing in the upper niagara and lake erie sucks in comparison to that of the lower river and lake ontario, and we’ve already been in negotiations with sen. coppola to move the glorious pan am house here so i can live in it. (hope my announcement hasn’t come too soon al!)