National group joins Skyway debate

[steven]

The debate over whether to maintain or tear down the Skyway in Buffalo has drawn the attention of a national nonprofit group with a focus on urban planning.

The head of the Congress for New Urbanism, John Norquist, said the organization will include Buffalo as part of a three-city national study to examine the elevated structure that rises above the city's waterfront.

Norquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee, made the announcement following a meeting with Rep. Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, and Mayor Byron Brown, D-Buffalo. Higgins has been steadfast in calling for the removal of the Skyway as part of the effort to develop Buffalo's waterfront.
The Congress for New Urbanism, based in Chicago, is comprised of architects, urban planners, developers, real estate professionals and public officials.

Other cities involved in the study are Louisville and Seattle.

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...ml?jst=b_ln_hl

[Edisonic]

Replacing the Michigan Ave lift bridge, which once connected to the outer harbor, seems like a simple way to circumvent the Skyway. But ADM doesn't want a bridge in that spot, because it might interfere with their grain ships. They can be accomodated somehow, I am sure.

Taking down the Skyway isn't the big deal some people might think; when big highways disappear, drivers tend to find several different routes instead. A new bridge needs to be built to what was once called The Hamburg Turnpike, of course. (Big trolley cars once ran alongside it to Lackawanna, Blasdell, and Erie PA - didja know that? )

[Northshore]

Of course, the big variable is this. The "tear it down" crowd will use current traffic numbers as justification to remove it, and say there is no reason for a replacement. "People will find a way around it". But(!) they will tout the increase, explosion even, in development that will ensue as soon as it is gone, meaning that there will be more traffic.

The Congress for New Urbanism cites cities like Milwauke, Louisville and Seattle as its "sucess" stories. Anybody here ever driven there? I have. It's an unholy mess 20 hours a day and downright inpassable during "rush" hour.

Tear it down? Sure, why not. But how about, just once, we have a plan in place BEFORE we break ground?!

Anyway, this is Buffalo. Someone will declare it a "Historic Landmark" and will stop demolition

[John B]

Of course, the big variable is this. The "tear it down" crowd will use current traffic numbers as justification to remove it, and say there is no reason for a replacement. "People will find a way around it". But(!) they will tout the increase, explosion even, in development that will ensue as soon as it is gone, meaning that there will be more traffic.

You're reasoning for keeping the Skyway is so "Old Buffalo". You're essentially saying that you'd rather keep the outer harbor as it is today, a vacant, non-tax generating embarassment, so people can save a few minutes on their commute to the southtowns. Tearing it down will ensure huge private investment which will make the outer harbor a vibrant neighborhood that thousands of people will call home and put this area back on the tax rolls.

The Congress for New Urbanism cites cities like Milwauke, Louisville and Seattle as its "sucess" stories. Anybody here ever driven there? I have. It's an unholy mess 20 hours a day and downright inpassable during "rush" hour.

If Buffalo could be even 1/2 the economic powerhouse that Seattle is, I would welcome all day traffic jams. Maybe when the roads in Buffalo become insanely clogged with traffic as you think will happen maybe there will be a push to extend the Metro Rail out to the suburbs so people who live in the southtowns won't have to deal with 90 minute commutes to/from the city.

Tear it down? Sure, why not. But how about, just once, we have a plan in place BEFORE we break ground?!

The Southtowns Connector plan which connects the outer harbor to the I-190: http://www.dot.state.ny.us/reg/r5/st...es/stcboh.html seems like a worth plan to calm traffic along the outer harbor

[Northshore]

You're reasoning for keeping the Skyway is so "Old Buffalo". You're essentially saying that you'd rather keep the outer harbor as it is today, a vacant, non-tax generating embarassment, so people can save a few minutes on their commute to the southtowns.


"Old Buffalo". Is that the new equvalent of "Communist sympathizer"?? Save a few minutes? Probably more like half an hour each way, multiplied x 10 per week. Five hours a week, 200+ hours a year, thats the same as 5 weeks of extra "working" time a year. Now we're talking quality of life.


Tearing it down will ensure huge private investment which will make the outer harbor a vibrant neighborhood that thousands of people will call home and put this area back on the tax rolls.

Oh really? Do you have the money in the bank, with statements to back you up? If not, nothing is "ensured", especially here in the world capital of pipe dreams that is Buffalo Niagara. Seems just last year our waterfront future was "guaranteed" by the Adelphia waterfront towers.


If Buffalo could be even 1/2 the economic powerhouse that Seattle is, I would welcome all day traffic jams.

And all we have to do is move Buffalo to the oceanfront, get it to stop snowing, warm it up a bit and move the worlds biggest computer and aircraft manufacturer here and were all set.


The Southtowns Connector plan which connects the outer harbor to the I-190: http://www.dot.state.ny.us/reg/r5/st...es/stcboh.html seems like a worth plan to calm traffic along the outer harbor

Outstanding. Fund it, get it through the inpenetrable maze of BS that the friends of the Buffalo River, friends of the Old First Ward, friends of the Grain Shovelers Heritage Foundation, friends of the darting catfish louse and whatever other whackos will stand in it's way, as well as ADM which is already on record as being opposed to it, build it and make it work, then give me a call.

Better yet, if this is such a great deal, build a tunnel.

[300miles]

If Buffalo could be even 1/2 the economic powerhouse that Seattle is, I would welcome all day traffic jams.

And all we have to do is move Buffalo to the oceanfront, get it to stop snowing, warm it up a bit and move the worlds biggest computer and aircraft manufacturer here and were all set.

Seattle is not even on the ocean. Seattle's rainy weather is definitely not a selling point. And Boeing relocated it's headquarters to Chicago a few years ago.

Seattle's success is hardly out of reach for us.

[SolarEclipse]

Why anyone thinks that tearing down a roadway is the key to waterfront development is beyond me. There hasn't been any private investment on the waterfront because the NFTA has been sitting on the land for 50 years! There needs to be improvements to pedestrian access from downtown which is accounted for in the plans that have been announced already.

There is no point in tearing down the Skyway at this time. If in the master plan it makes sense, then plan to have it done right and implement it when it makes sense. It is a busy roadway that provides access to the city and points north from the Southtowns and saying that traffic will find another way is shortsighted. "I would welcome all day traffic jams."?? Give me a break. Planning to accomodate the traffic flow will help the success of waterfront development. Planning to have traffic jams will surely keep it from being successful.

[speaker]

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to remove the Skyway. But people have made up their minds and, on this board, write whole lot rationalizations for doing it. It's beautiful, functional and doesn't "cut off" downtown from the waterfront.
But Brian Higgins is determined that it should come down. He went out of his way to find John Norguist, who is not neutral--far from it, and it's really not fair to hire him to objectively analyze the situation. He's not objective.
If many people had their way, the Skyway would have been torn down years ago, with nothing to take care of the traffic. Wait until these people get a lift bridge. Then there'll be grumbling.
The usual dumb mistakes when so many other things need attention.

[300miles]

There are pros and cons to removing it or keeping it. Some are more opinion than fact. But there are facts to support both sides.

My view is that a decision must be made very soon whether it stays or goes, because once new development starts building underneath it then tearing it down is no longer an option and we should then focus on improving the skyway's appearance from below (which currently is crap... while it is impressive to drive on and view from a distance, anyone that says the skyway is beautiful from the ground has not walked around the base of it during daytime).

I'm assuming that tearing the thing down will take years of studies and demolition work and will actually slow down the harbor development significantly. If that's true, then we waited too long for this discussion on it's removal and we just have to live with it now and improve it.

[speaker]

No doubt about it. The underside is dreary and wastes space. Building could go up under it.

[citymouse]

[QUOTE=Edisonic]Replacing the Michigan Ave lift bridge, which once connected to the outer harbor, seems like a simple way to circumvent the Skyway. But ADM doesn't want a bridge in that spot, because it might interfere with their grain ships. They can be accomodated somehow, I am sure.

QUOTE]
Actually they don't want that bridge back because they use that dead end piece of Michigan as their own private parking lot, loading and unloading zone for tractor trailers, and to cross from one plant to the other.
In addition to that there are a number of well used rail tracks that cross that street. Heavy vehicular traffic may interfere with setting up the mill. (placing and pulling empty or loaded rail cars).

[TUBE]

I agree with Speaker. I have not heard a good enough reason to tear down the skyway. Higgins has done more chanting than he has done explaining. The bridge looks fine and the skyway experience is spectacular. Buildings and functions can easilty be located under the skyway.

[steven]

I agree with Speaker. I have not heard a good enough reason to tear down the skyway.

How about the maintenance costs?

[Edisonic]

The Skyway was built to carry cars over the many large ships which were expected to come our way, once the St.Lawrence Seaway was complete. Instead, ships have disappeared from Buffalo. How many large ships ventured underneath it, last year?

If a new lift bridge has to be raised once a month, that'll be a surprise. The skyway is a relic; tear it down.

[SolarEclipse]

How many large ships ventured underneath it, last year?

According to some things I've read, quite a few. And there's apparently also a large number of tall-masted sailboats that use that passage that would require the bridge to be raised and lowered.

As for the maintenance costs, there isn't (as far as I know) a study as to how much it would cost to maintain, repair, and staff the required lift bridges to replace the Skyway. Lift bridges are quite a bit more complex than a simple elevated roadway, so I'm wondering what the cost differential would really be.