Buffalo Rising Online

here, here!!!!

So why didn't they speak up when the state was having hearings?

How can you argue with that kind of additional cash. Plus that cash will pay for the change in the plans with a lot left over and it will make the waterfront much easier to access. What is the downside??? Let's get it done!

$500k an acre? Someone should check their comps

Could BR go down at drive time an take pictures of the back-ups? Keep it mind is in a construction zone. Just how much of this traffic in the past got off at Tift and Ridge roads to prohibit any back ups at the first signal in Lackawanna? I can't imagine it to be that large of a number to mitigate backups from forming there. A portion of the commuters could divert to 90 to go south. The rest would actlimate to a road with properly timed signals for rush hour.

This couple mile spur with only 2 notable exits is rediculus to keep. Give Buffalo back at least portion of its waterfront. Right now the waterfront is limited access highway from the Lackawanna border up to the Tonawanda border. Why should Buffalo's waterfront be walled 24 hours a day, 7 days a week becasue of current peak use 2 hours a day 5 days a week, especially on this spur? Why have a small strip to develop when we could open endless posibilites east? A total integration of the nature perserve? Want the grain elevators gone/replaced/reused? Then allow the possibility for development to spread from the lake front out to them. even is it takes 20-30 years, at least it not be walled off.

In the past we could only dream of layouts such as Downtown's streets radiating non-stop right to the water. Here we have an opprtunity to turn a similar dream into reality instead of leaving ourselves to be stuck dreaming for 50+ more years. If we plan for the same old we will be stuck with the same old. Let downtown and S. buffalo connect to the water.

The NYDOT itself called the boulavard a viable option with negligible addition to commute times. City's much larger than Buffalo have removed waterfront elevated highways and replaced them with boulevards to great success (San Fran).

When this was built, like the 190 these highway "hid" industry. Well the industry is gone and we are still left with these walls. Sieze this opportunity to knock one of them down. Best of luck on this effort for actual progress. As for why people didn't speak up sooner, who knows? By time I found out about this the desision was made.

I like the River Keepes vision so much better. Where's Higgins on all of this?

"There's an oft-repeated fallacy that if Route 5 and the skyway don't go away to be replaced with a boulevard that there is no waterfront for people to enjoy."

who said no developmet? what people are saying is that they want construction for long range development. Why settle for 1 block of development from the water before you hit a raised earthen highway wall when you could have the possibility of endless blocks as demand dictates?

I'm pretty sure the city council went on record as being for the boulevard after looking at other cities that did the same. Who knows about the mayor? Higgins jumped on board for the current plan. I guess he tired of fighting ;)

Another example of Albany knowing whats best for Buffalo and Western NY better than the residents who live and work here!

This is completely ass backwards....its our regional transportation department...its supposed to be run and managed locally....but its just a facade...following the dictates of albany

Thats what Buffalonians need to be fighting for....these local authorities are supposed to be local institutions for the betterment of the local economy and the local residents...not albany...and we should be fighting for local control of ALL our institutions.

Alright, Riverkeeper! Way to go keeping up the pressure on this. And what a smart approach, making moot the counter-arguments against the boulevard that the money isn't there, or that with shovels already in the ground the project is set.

This project has implications beyond Buffalo - all over upstate (including here in My Fair City) we have grade-separated expressways that have sliced and diced our urban areas and need to be upgraded (I can't bring myself to use the standard parlance, 'downgraded') to surface boulevards, or even eliminated. This project will set an important precedent - and needs to set the right one.

It seems to me that the time has never been better to regroup the boulevard coalition and press this, especially in light of the positive Esmonde piece in the Buffalo News recently. Link here:

http://www.buffalonews.com/donnesmonde/story/406048.html

There are also several key political advantages at the moment: we have a new governor, so whatever deals were reached in the previous administration to allow the DOT's preferred option to go ahead no longer need hold. We also have an unusually high number of state legislature seats in play, and all the politicians who want to show their bonafedes in standing up to the Albany Bureaucrats on behalf of what their local constituents are making a compelling case for, will be likely to offer their support. At whatever point it becomes clear that the likely 2009 state delegation from Western New York is solidly behind the boulevard option, and opposed to the way the DOT is handling this, there could quickly be a U-turn. Then sit back and enjoy watching DOT officials pat themselves on the back for being responsive to local input...

...and given all the back-slapping that accompanied the opening of the canal harbor project, it's beyond me how some public officials seem not to have gotten the message that Buffalo won't sit still for the future of its waterfront being determined by state bureaucrats.

RonR, what an awesome case you make in your comment - Amen!

77 acres is several times the existing Waterfront village, it is a lot of potentially taxable land. Some 40% of buffalo's land is nontaxable.. those are not just all churches. This would end up costing the city money is lost revenues in perpetuity. Who freaking cares about an extra 5 or even 10 minute commute time. Not city tax payers, so why the hell do we have to compromise our own future because of some perceived desire of southtown residents and commuters? But then again even the Hamburg mayor think the current Route 5 plan is wasteful.

I don't see Amherst, Clarence or Wheatfield doing anything that compromises their tax roles or livelihood for the benefit of city residents, why must we?

Maybe Buffalo needs to learn its place in the world and just accept any crap that is foisted onto its citizens

"In my opinion the ONLY thing broke in WNY is the mindset of those who live here and their voting habits. Everything else just needs a little common sense and an ounce of vision."

Dito that!

Just curious but what did our elected officials say was the "best alternative"? Also for the record, while the sentiment is nice, but no parcel on the outer harbor has ever sold for anywhere close to $500,000 and acre, further, if your assume such a price due to the endless possibilities of development- think again, the outer harbor is one of the most heavily polluted areas in the region. The complete cleanup of the outer harbor was estimated to cost over $200 million (there were other options that allowed for development on some of the land in the $50 million range). Connected, unconnected, elevated or un-elevated- no sizable development is going to take place until we deal with the elephant in the room, the one that is actually hindering development.

1)of coarse the current set-up is too curvy. It's a detour. The new boulevard would follow the current path of the elevated highway. 2) of coarse Toronto makes do with their highway there. There is enough land pressure there for people to be wlling to deal with living next to an ugly elevated highway next door. 3) If shrinking is your plan, then it makes sense to make this area urban and dense so the county can shrink back in on itself. Buffalo should not be dsigned as a highway pass-through while we question why eveyone is passing right through. 4) If we are worried about costs, look at the long range costs of maintain two roads, brdiges etc for the next 50 years when we could just build one now with no bridges to maintain etc with some slightly higher up front costs.

I agree to do it right or not at all, why blow our money on a half-a55 job? but we can see they already started spending it so fight to do it right.

Well said all around RonR

and you could pry add that that half of any acreage that remains after roads and buffers is accounted for would be surface lots because everybody would have to drive there coming off the highway. It also does not take into account land available on the otherside of the boulevard that would also be within eye-sight of (connected to) the water instaed of walled off from it.

Defer everything that can be deferred, except for a basic at grade road. This should help compensate for any cost increases.due to alterations in the plan.. Then , in the futue, as money become available phase in the landscaping, sidewalks, and other amenities.

Since the project IS being done it should be done right weather Buffalo is shrinking or not. The economy of Buffalo is irrelevant in this subject. The road IS being built why not do it so that it is most advantageous and less wastfull of resources. Spending money to make 2 roads at this site instead of one is indefensible.

As for not opening up prime land for development because of a shrinking metro population - funny how that argument is never made when each new suburban subdivision is planned

Fantastic visuals.

It's never too late to do the right thing. This compromise could be a great victory announcement for Congressman Higgins, if he is so obliged. He'd be a hero!

This sounds like a horrible idea, let me get this straight. We shut off convenient access from the south by closing off Route 5 and the Skyway. We take out convenient access from the east by closing off the 33, and from the north by taking out the Niagara Section.

This sounds like a very myopic and ill conceived plan. I am confident that this will give future generations of Buffalonians a single focal point for the further demise of our Business District. Don't get me wrong, in the short run we may see some people move to Buffalo, probably fill in some areas of the city and buy out the waterfront condos or other residential projects. I am sure that this will put the government in the good graces of the developers, and will pay off some overdue debts and favors owed.

I am confident that this angle will be bled dry by our Mayor, and Congressmen, as a saving grace for Buffalo, but in the end it will result in further migration of business from the area and the next nail in the coffin for the City of Buffalo.

Im not so sure this is the end of the story....Brown and Higgins just want the money spent ... its as simple as that...

the bigger picture is that the money will get spent whether its an expressway or a boulevard.

The difference is that there are alot of people in Buffalo that do not want the expressway anymore than Lackawanna and Blasdell and Hambuirg wanted an expressway.

The right stand would be to stop rimming Albanys ass and make albany work for Buffalo! These institutions were created for local control and for local projects not albany's dictates over us. If Higgins and Brown wanted high popularity, then they would stand up for local control and the will of the local people.

RonR,...one of the Railroad tracks along Niagara Street is the old Beltway and the other is the CSX to Niagara Falls.

on a side note with the growth of the Seneca Niagara and positive devlopments in Niagara Falls....a regional project would be a commuter rail between Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Lockport, Medina and Rochester on some of the rarely used freight tracks that follow 104. Integrating Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Rochester would go along way towards taking the next step in our regional development.

Bravo! We should look to alternate forms of transportation in order to plan for the future. We must move away from the outdated modes of transportation that exist today and look instead to a time when cars will only be used as a necessity. I am all for the plan to renovate this entire area to create a slower boulevard that is conducive to bicycles, pedestrians, retail shopping, dense residential, and small industrial. A boulevard that you could access by boat or vehicle.

The one piece that I would like to see is a solid plan for rapid transit from the southtowns. I believe that the return on investment would be even greater if mass transit was included in the plan.

We are going to reach a time when it is no longer feasible for people to live in Holland or South Boston and commute to the city. These residents are going to need to move somewhere very close to work when gas prices hit the $20.00 per gallon. They will also need to move closer to the city when the only cars available are small commuter cars that cannot handle the ice and snow of the southtowns. Add global warming to that mix and people will flock to the city and first ring suburbs.

We must prepare for 2020 and beyond!

There really isn't a need for through trucks to travel in this part of the city. They should take the 290 to the 90 for east, west, and southbound traffic. It is the needs of the people that should prevail over the needs of greedy companies that are looking for shortcuts wherever possible. This section of beautiful waterfront is one of those shortcuts. Let's return the waterfront to the people.

I also think that we should bring more subsidized housing to the waterfront. All people need access to the water, and I am afraid that it will be reserved solely for the rich who can afford the property or the drive to get there. If you visit the New York City area you will see the Long Island Sound dotted with huge estates that limit the public to a few unattractive morsels of beachfront. I have seen the same in South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. We need to ensure that the waterfront is open and accessible to even the most unfortunate of residents. This is one reason that I believe we need to add mass transportation to the area, and make it free like it is along Main Street.

We can pay for this out of the profits of the greedy corporations like Exxon Mobil and Proctor&Gamble. It doesn't make sense for a select few to get richer while their fellow citizens suffer. It just isn't morally correct and my hope is that Buffalo can lead the fight on changing this injustice.

This is the exact reason why everything takes year upon years to finish in this city.That is if it finishes at all. There was a time and place for these people to voice opinions and ideas. People like this hinder the progress being made. It's ridiculous, all they want to do is hear them selfs talk. "Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper" has never been heard of until yesterday, please go back to where you came from. I can't believe these people even got the press that they did. It back fired and makes them look like fools anyway.

This is the exact reason why everything takes year upon years to finish in this city.That is if it finishes at all. There was a time and place for these people to voice opinions and ideas. People like this hinder the progress being made. It's ridiculous, all they want to do is hear them selfs talk. "Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper" has never been heard of until yesterday, please go back to where you came from. I can't believe these people even got the press that they did. It back fired and makes them look like fools anyway.

Your server STINKS!

I agree with you Sambo but I also believe that the process is for the people and it is their right to intervene when they believe that a project, any project, is not in the best interest of the citizens.

This project is being pushed by a government entity without full consultation from the people, at least as far as the riverkeepers are concerned they have not had their say. I feel blessed to live in a country that honors the desires of the people.

Excerpt from Saturday's Buffalo News:

'...Riverkeeper’s plan calls for leveling the elevated roadway, creating an at-grade four-lane boulevard. The plan also calls for eliminating the low-speed parkway boulevard that, under the state’s plan, would run along the lake side of the highway. That would open 77 acres for development, said O’Neill, who added the state could sell those development rights and more than make up for the cost of changing the plan during construction.

“It’s been a long time to get us to this point,” Carrier said. "We feel the approach that is currently under way was the parkway that was envisioned by the community after a more than 10-year process." '

Whole article: http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/niagaracounty/story/410585.html

How is Riverkeeper's plan really better in the ways being claimed here if it eliminates the planned new low-speed parkway in favor of a one wide Niagara Falls Blvd style higher-speed heavy traffic at-greade street where all traffic must mix together (commercial, commuter, and those who would have chosen the low speed parkway)?

Heather, true there probably wouldn't be anywhere near as much retail (or other) development as has NFB.

I think the intended comparison isn't to the building density, but to the amount and speed of traffic. Why isn't NFB a good comparison for that? Don't a lot of cars travel between Buffalo and the southtowns? Maybe some other high traffic street would be a better comparison than NFB. Any suggestions?

PaulBuffalo - You are absolutely correct! Let's turn the waterfront into a low - to - middle income neighborhood and give the most deserving a chance at a prime view of the lake. A community park with public beach front would center the community in much the same way that beach ties together the ocean front communities all along the Eastern shoreline. We have to do this right if we ever stand a chance of reuniting Riverside and Blackrock with the waterfront. If we take it one step further and relocate the development of a new international crossing for commercial traffic, then we could effectively build the new Buffalo from the water inward towards the suburbs, instead of the other way around.