Written on Monday, August 11th, 2008 at 12:57pm by Alan Bedenko | 20 Comments
Riverkeeper & the Outer Harbor
Some valid points for sure, but for me they’re overshadowed by a lot of hyperbole that rises almost to the level of misinformation:
20 Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
BfloBlog
Latest: Don Luce Open Thread: Sabres at Senators -
Paul Wolf
Latest: Positive News! -
Alan Bedenko
Latest: Not All Information is Good Information -
Sports Road Trip
Latest: Profiling OKC’s Ford Center – USRT roadie Day 2 -
Chris Smith
Latest: Economic Development 2.0 -
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??? -
Marc Odien
Latest: Calls for Parks Usage Input from Community Groups
-
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 don’t know, the fact that they had the boulevard plan in their original studies and found it to be an acceptable alternative makes the whole thing seem sketchy. Are there thousands of people out there that voiced support for an elevated highway? It doesn’t seem like they had any intentions on listening to the public input, but instead just did it to because they had to.
I don’t understand why they are so insistent on keeping the elevated road. Doesn’t it only save people 5 – 10 minutes of commute time? Big deal, how much does the city need to give up for the sake of residents outside of its boundaries. I think 77 acres of waterfront property is too high of a cost and land the city can’t afford to just give up indefinitely.
I wonder why the need to basically just make shit up out of whole cloth, then? If the Riverkeeper plan is good on the merits, then sell it on its merits – not based on make-believe idiocy.
Those 77 supposed acres are useless to anyone unless and until they’re cleaned up, and frankly right now that bermed highway blocks a view (at ground level only) of hulking, rusting crap across the river.
How much cleanup is necessary for those lands? Does anyone really know? I would hate to see 77 acres of land kept off the tax rolls because people think there might be a chance of some contamination.
Sure industry raged in Buffalo but wasn’t most of the Outer Harbor created (AKA filled in) after the creation of the Welland Canal. Developed as a huge shovel ready site for industrial growth spurred by the opening of the Welland canal but never actually happened, meaning most of it has sat fallow since its creation.
I do agree there sure is a lot of rust and crud on the eastern side of the elevator highway. But that only exists on the norther half of the outer harbor. South has a nature preserve, trees and the Lake Shore Commerce park, all of which would benefit from now being seen as a part of the waterfront on not on the back side.
Lastly maybe if we could actually see the water from the rust strewn areas it would raise the property values of their sites enough to price them out of being able to run junk yards so close to Buffalo’s biggest asset. The elevated highway, I think, has helped keep the ugly businesses viable on land that is long past its industrial purpose.
I have yet to find a reasonable argument for Alan’s position on the matter. Perhaps I missed the blog post, but it strikes me that Alan is just taking the anti-BRO position on this one just to ruffle a few feathers.
Fact: Replacing the elevated roadway with an at-grade boulevard will not significantly affect people’s commutes. Rush-hour loads on the road are far below what is necessary for a four lane divided highway. People fail to appreciate how much a street grid can absorb traffic and how easy it is to change one’s commuting patterns. Sure, you can complain about back-ups over the last several weeks, but I suspect that has a lot more to do il-timed lights and active construction occuring than anything else.
Fact: An at-grade boulevard will open up more land for current and future access, use, and development.
Fact: An at-grade boulevard without a highway next to it will be more visually and aesthetically pleasing, inviting more opportunity for develop.
Fact: The contanimated land in the area will no doubt surely be worth more when it accessible for future development as opposed to being asphixiated by a limited-access highway. Contanimated land that is accessible will get cleaned up a lot faster than contanimated land completly divorced from the rest of the urban landscape.
Fact: The “hulking, rusting crap” you refer to “across the river” are probably in-use grain elevators along the ship canal that are of merit both historically and architectually. Look no further than other areas of the country (e.g. Brooklyn, East Boston) to see that post-industrial landscapes are not an impediment to new development.
Fact: There are no compelling public reasons to keep Route 5 a four-lane, divided, limited access highway. And DOT has never communicated otherwise.
Sbrof, A report was done several years back by I believe the NFTA (but it might have been the DEC) with regards to the amount of cleanup necessary… several different options were suggested- complete cleanup- which required the removal and replacement of several feet, was well over 200 million. There were other options which limited the lands to be cleaned up and designating other lands as rec areas, because they would remain contaminated. I think at the time they designated a $50 million option as the preferred option- which left a large space undeveloped but would allow for development in some areas. I should note that the area of the study was limited to the NFTA lands, but I think it is fair to infer similar clean up will be necessary in the less studied outer harbor lands, that once housed heavy industry.
See what you get Pundit for posting this article,… the BR crowd. As far as I am concerned this is 6 of one half dozen of another. First you can’t see out to the lake from at grade because the Breakwalls are what? 10-15 feet high? Secondly how would going to grade make the water front more accessable? to who? the squirrels in the Tift St preserve. Plus the Preserve and the additional landfill to the south of tift have berms or hills (or garbage covers) which are well over the proposed 11 feet height of the roadway.
As it stands right now, the elevated section blocks the view, looking inland, of the likes of Co-Steel, the chemical company next door and a whole bunch of other delapitated structures. The elevated section actualy improves the look and feel area. As far as access goes, I remember learning how to get around down there as a 16 yr old punk watching the cars race on Furman Blvd (ohio st). Not too tough if you have a brain in your head. So the “inaccessabilty” of the area is a crap argument. I also suspect that the same people who want to tear down the Skyway are the ones who are scared shitless to drive on it. You know, the ones who crawl up and over at 25 mph, causing back ups and accidents because they’re freaked out over how high it is. Maybe if city people knew how to drive we could save a few million tax dollars and not have to screw up a perfectly good roadway.
News story, 2/17/96: ‘Waterfront gets fairly clean bill of health’
Link: http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8302/nfta001kg8.jpg
Old data. Ancient actually. What was concidered safe and normal practice in the 40’s didn’t cut it in the 70’s (Love Canal) Those democrat types you people keep electing keep toughening up those environmental laws to the point that if a former brownfield isn’t as clean as a newly plowed field, guess what, keep cleaning. ($$$$$$)
ZZZZZZZ, oh, i’m sorry, did someone say anything of consequence?
Is five years ago ancient? 100 acres are off the NYSDEC registry:
The Buffalo Outer Harbor property is owned by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) and was listed as a Class 2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site in the early 1990’s. To characterize environmental conditions at the Buffalo Outer Harbor property, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed by the NYSDEC. Based upon the results of the RI/FS, in 1997 the NYSDEC removed over 100 acres of the property from the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites The RI/FS also concluded that 100 feet by 100 feet area in the southeast corner of the property in the vicinity of NFTA’s radio communication tower was found to contain a significant and consequential amount of hazardous waste. This area, commonly referred to as the Radio Tower Area, remains on the State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites and requires remediation.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb2003/20030129/not9.html
Way to address the issue at hand, buddy:
Ridiculous. If you want to engage in some masturbatory rhetoric, isn’t it always the suburbanites who can’t deal with traffic and can’t parallel park for the life of them?
Again: Please address the facts of the case. Not who is saying what or your stereotypical views on urban yuppies. Is there any solid reason to keep the four-land divided highway?
As for this:
Are you unable to grasp the simple fact here? Eliminating the four-lane divided highway would allow for easier access to the waterfront amenities (Small Boar Harbor, Tift Farm, Union Ship Canal, Gallagher Beach, etc.) without having to get off a highway and onto a boulevard.
I find it interesting that the Skajquata (sp?) handles much more traffic and has no traffic jambs and is in the early phases of planning to be downgraded to slower city friendly traffic and access points. There is no logic to the current route five plan.
If I were to read into this issue I would say that the state blew off the logical boulevard option because they do not really want to ever remove the Skyway bridge and if they did build a boulevard they would be admitting that the bridge was not necessary virtually locking in its removal.
So in typical NYS mode you build 2 roads were one would work in oder to retain a bridge that will cost more to maintain than constructing a new at grade lift bridge. GO NY!
@rover–It’s OK you don’t know your history.
That bridge was built for a purpose–unfortunately with the Welland Canal and St.Lawrence Seaway, that purpose was moot before the bridge was finished.
When the Bridge WAS finished, so was Grain Milling and transfer from steamer to rail car in Buffalo. So the bridge has been used for over 50 years for a purpose that didn’t exist the day it was opened.
And it needs to be maintained, painted, and resurfaced because after 50 years, the Welland Canal is going to close now? Grain milling, processing and Transfer to rail for overseas shipment will begin again soon?
You guys get better drugs than all these NC meth labs apparently can make.
“Eliminating the four-lane divided highway would allow for easier access to the waterfront amenities (Small Boar Harbor”.
To be honest I have no problem getting to the small ‘boar’ harbor as is. It doesn’t take a PHD in rocket science to follow the signs. By the way ‘Boar’ hunting season is not until december.
rebuttal time I guess……
wcp, your artical is dated from 1996, which I think was 12 yrs ago, but what do I know, I’m not from the city. Might be time for a new Hilary calendar.
“N” “masturbatory rhetoric” good term, I’ll bet you have first hand experience with that. What “fact” says it’s difficult to get around down there? Waterfront amenities are already quite easy to access using the service roads where traffic would flow very nicely if there was any traffic on those same service roads. Perhaps signage could be a bit better, but other than that I think everything is fine. The elevated section walls off the blight to the east, which I think can help, not hurt the area. Also, maybe I’m wrong but I always thought a blog had some room for opinions, of which mine are developed from experience, like driving on the Skyway. And finally Mr/Ms “N” here is a fact I think you should grasp; call me buddy again and I’ll find you, I’ll take your mocha latte and pour it over your pin shaped head.
Thank You…. and have Great Day!
And Hank, yes I do know and understand the history of the Skyway. Sure it was outdated the day it opened and it is a maintenence nightmare, but I like it. As I said a few days ago in a different post it gets me downtown quickly but more importantly when the bullets start flying it gets me out of Buffalo in a hurry.
And finally, high fives to Frieda. She gets it and knows how to drive!
Funny. As I’m actually a suburbanite, never having lived in the city. Nor do I drink coffee. And, shocker, I commute to my downtown job over Route 5 pretty regularly. I’ll call you whatever I deem fit, buddy.
A lot of people are on here arguing that the outer harbor is accessible enough as it stands now with a duplicative highway/boulevard system. Speculation is fine, but the proof is in the pudding. Look at any city that had dismantled its highway system in favor of at-grade access to the waterfront and you will see resulting increase in human activity and land values. To say nothing of the cities that never built the damned things in the first place.
But forget about anything else. The maintenance costs of carrying both a highway and an at-grade boulevard would have to warrant a one-road system.
The whole “tear it down to improve access to the waterfront” thing works with the 190. It’s moot for Route 5, since it just separates one side of the road from another.
Improving access is only one benefit. It will also improve the area as a place to be and open up more land for development. But why do that when you can have 2 roads where one will suffice? That is the NYS way after all.
Is the Pundit on vacation?