There’s no doubt that 2008 was a big year for the Punaros. Most of the year centered around the birth of Ariella, but it was also our first full year at the new house in Holland, and as any homeowner will tell you, that’s the busiest year of all as even our move-in-ready-condition house was subjected to some tweaks (hardwood, new standby generator, partial roof replacement, new gutters, bathroom remodel, painting).

Amanda also left her job at M&T in 2008 to take on the new role of Mom. We planned for that in our budgeting, but in 2009 we will be a one income family, which I’m hoping to turn into a new informative series of blog posts.

I dove a bit deeper into photography and there appears to be some payback for that, as I actually sold a photograph for use on a book cover! I’ll have more information about that soon, hopefully.

Amanda and I had our 5 year anniversary in 2008. The time just flew by!

I traveled to India and China for work, which was quite the experience.

Even though we gained one Punaro, we lost another. It’s always sad to see a beloved family member depart.

In my own personal blogging world, I ventured into the world of Twitter, which has helped fill in the blanks between blog posts. The Aquarama was finally extracted from the Buffalo waterfront, then towed to Turkey to be scrapped. The Skyway continues to be a source of controversy, even though there are still no facts to support removing it, and the Central Terminal continues to survive, even thrived in 2008 by tapping into the paranormal investigation market.

So 2009 promises to be another interesting year. We’ll be watching Ariella grow up faster than we can believe. So with that, I leave you with a photo of her enjoying Christmas 2008. May your 2009 be the best year of your life yet!

This Christmas season is proving to be exceptionally challenging trying to get shopping done, cookies baked, the house prepped for Christmas, and everything else that needs to be done while managing Ariella’s eating/sleeping/pooping schedule. Amanda also came down with a sinus infection that’s had her mostly benched since Thursday.

We wouldn’t trade it for anything, though! Well, we could do without the illness, but are grateful that neither myself nor the baby has come down with anything. Ariella’s in constant smiling mode and “talks” in her own language. Sometimes it’s almost like we’re carrying on a conversation.

So, in case we don’t get to blog again until things settle down a bit, from us to you - have a very Merry Christmas! We hope your holidays are as bright and cheerful as ours.

Congressman Brian Higgins recently released a news brief citing a report from the NYSDOT entitled “New York State Route 5 Buffalo Skyway Management Study“. In his press release, Higgins selectively released facts to bolster his position that tearing down the Skyway makes the most sense.

According to the report, presented by the NYSDOT at the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council’s (GBNRTC) Policy Committee meeting today, the long term cost of maintaining the Buffalo Skyway for the next 75 years would reach nearly $125 million. Under cheaper maintenance options, the bridge could be maintained for 20 years at a cost of $42.7 million or for 50 years at an expense of almost $109.25 million. Preliminary estimates place the cost of Skyway demolition between $30 and $40 million.

“If we don’t pay the price to demolish this 52 year-old structure, this community will pay the price in terms of lost development opportunity and future maintenance expenses for years to come,” added Congressman Higgins.

Well, sure then! If it’s only going to cost $40 million to tear it down and $125 million to maintain it for the next 75 years, then of course it makes sense to nix it! Oh, except this is another case of only telling half the story. The missing half is what do we replace it with?

And while the report explicitly states it is not intended to evaluate alternatives to the Skyway, the report’s data supports the conclusion that if it were eliminated, the Skyway’s traffic could be handled by alternate facilities including the Outer Harbor Parkway which is currently under construction, the planned and permitted Ohio Street improvements and Tifft Street Connector, and the Inner Harbor Bridge which is currently under study.

To get a complete and accurate analysis of the maintenance costs of the Skyway vs. an alternative, we would need factor in construction costs for the Ohio Street improvements, Tifft Street Connector, Inner Harbor Bridge, and any additional reconfiguration of the Outer Harbor Parkway to complete the road network. That cost? Undetermined. And don’t forget that the figures reported in the DOT study are for maintenance of an existing roadway, not building a new one, so we would need to figure in 75 years worth of maintenance for these new elements as well. Then, we might have a complete picture of the financial impact of the Skyway.

So, when you know that the numbers don’t give you quite the answer you were looking for, you need some padding. Enter the completely immeasurable “untapped potential” figure.

Congressman Higgins noted that opportunity cost must also be factored into a cost/benefit analysis of Skyway removal, and by conservative measures, maintenance of the existing structure would impede an estimated $47.5 million in private sector development along the approximately 25 acre stretch currently occupied by the Skyway. “With the recent opening of the Erie Canal Harbor commercial slip we, as a community, can visualize the great untapped potential for the acres of unused land under the Skyway. Opening up this area has not only an immediate economic impact as a result of new development on this property, but has a multiplier effect in terms of the new jobs and sales tax produced at commercial sites and new property tax collected through residential development,” said Higgins.

Well there you go - we’re missing out on $47.5 million dollars if we DON’T do this project - an estimate that conveniently is just a wee bit more than the stated demolition cost. And of course there is the “immediate economic impact” of opening this wee bit of land up. Question - what was the measurable immediate economic impact of releasing the existing outer harbor land from the grasp of the NFTA? Answer? $0 Because as with any project in Buffalo, the land wasn’t sold off to developers that might actually do something with it, it was turned over to a politician-selected group of people to begin studies, make renderings, and begin the required 20 years debate and despair period before everyone gives up and we end up with McDonald’s-on-the-Lake.

So, what else does the actual report say that Mr. Higgins might have left off?

• The Skyway is currently in good condition.
• The Skyway is protected by a moisture-curing, urethane paint system and, with a typical life expectancy, would not require “spot and zone” repairs and a maintenance overcoat before 2020.
• With the completion of the Ohio Street reconstruction and the Fuhrmann Boulevard reconstruction, the average number of vehicles daily using the bridge is forecast to increase only marginally. (Emphasis mine - I’m assuming this does not take into account any new development along the outer harbor)

There’s a ton of great information in this report, such as how often is the Skyway is closed due to weather?

• Over a three-year reporting period, from October 2003 to December 2006, weather closed the Skyway in both directions four times.

Read that again - over three years there were only 4 weather related closings. The full report does not indicate if there were general travel bans during these times.

And what about accidents? We all “know” that the Skyway is like super dangerous!

• Over a three-year reporting period, from October 2003 to December 2006, accidents closed the Skyway in one direction 12 times and shut down a single lane 15 times.
• Over a four-year reporting period, from December 2002 to January 2007, the Buffalo Police documented 94 accidents on the Skyway.

Wow. Sounds like a lot! How does that compare with other roads in New York State?

The first segment (Segment 1) extends from the west (south) end of the Skyway (MP 302.7) to I-190 and had an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 40,931 in year 2006. A total of 49 accidents including those with sufficient information to locate them and those with insufficient information to locate but assumed to occur on this segment, took place over this segment during the four year and one month period. This reflects a rate of 1.00 accidents per million vehicle miles of travel (acc/mvmt). This rate is approximately 32 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt for a fully access controlled, 4 lane divided urban highway.

That’s the data for the bridge itself. People are not freaking out being on the top of a tall bridge and suddenly careening into the concrete side walls. Where might there be actual problems? Where people have to enter and exit and merge!

The second segment (Segment 2) is located between the I-190 interchange (MP 303.6) and the east (north) end of the Skyway at MP 303.9. It extends 0.3 miles. A total of 8 reported accidents occurred during the study period. This total includes both those located specifically on this section of the bridge and those assumed to occur here. Using a 2006 two-way AADT of 13,338 over this section yields an average accident rate of 1.34 acc/mvmt. This is approximately 9 percent less than the statewide average rate of 1.47 acc/mvmt for a fully access controlled, 4 lane divided urban highway.

An exit ramp diverges from inbound Skyway to southbound I-190 at MP 303.55. A cluster of accidents occurred at this location. It is identified as cluster 1 on Figure 4-3. During the study period, a total of 13 accidents were reported at this location. This total includes both those located specifically at this location and those assumed to occur here. An average accident rate of 0.40 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev) occurred at this juncture. This is approximately 2.5 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.16 acc/mev for diverging 1 lane urban off ramp.

The second cluster of accidents (cluster 2) is shown on Figure 4-3 and occurred where the southbound I-190 exit ramp joins the outbound Skyway. During the study period, a total of 24 accidents were reported. These included both those located specifically at this location and those assumed to occur here. An average accident rate of 0.75 acc/mev occurred at this juncture. This is approximately 6.8 times greater than the statewide average rate of 0.11 acc/mev for a merging 2 lane urban on ramp.

The big problem is not with the Skyway at all, but with the fact that the I-190 South does not provide adequate room for traffic merging onto the I-190 S from the Niagara St. ramp and merging off onto the Skyway to coexist. While the illustration in the full report only circles the ramp to the southbound Skyway (cluster 2), anyone that travels that section on a regular basis knows that all the accidents occur in far right merge lane between the two ramps, not on the Skyway itself.

The full report also has a key bit of information in it that is counter to the main argument of most anti-Skyway orators, but it doesn’t come flat out and say it - you need to read between the future traffic projection colored lines (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). While the Skyway itself is underutilized, the I-190 is currently near capacity and is projected to be over capacity by 2030. The tear-it-down advocates postulate that since the Skyway is under utilized, it’s not needed and people can just use the I-90 and I-190 instead. However, the reverse is actually true - an overcrowded I-190 might actually drive traffic TO the Skyway. Isn’t this was planners are supposed to take into consideration? You know, planning for the future? Should we eliminate an under capacity roadway to cause an at capacity roadway reach over capacity quicker? That doesn’t make a hellovalotta sense.

If you just read the Higgins press release, you might think that the Skyway really isn’t needed. That’s what happens when you’re given half the facts.

Courtesy of Mr. P

With Stampede Friday and Shop-At-Work Monday now behind us, I thought it opportune to reflect on some of the frequently frenzied purchases consumers “need” that I don’t.

• Nintendo Wii - Perfectly happy pulling out my old school PS2 once a month to play Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Offline. We just don’t game enough to justify buying another console.
• iPhone/gPhone - My Treo 650 that I’ve had for about 5 years does everything I need it to. Yes, a better mobile web browser and a faster network would be nice, but I don’t need the bills of additional hardware, monthly costs, and seemingly required application purchases to make the current generation devices usable.
• iPod/mp3 player - My Treo functions as an mp3 player, and gets used rarely. If I’m listening to music it’s usually in the car.
• mp3s & CDs - I’m odd - the musician that doesn’t listen to a lot of music. But when I do, it’s usually courtesy of the XM receiver in the car. Technically, it’s Amanda’s, but since she’s not commuting, I usually have it. The XM subscription is discretionary spending, but we find it to be a better value than purchasing music.
• DVDs - Even though I don’t have one at the moment, I found a Netflix membership to be a far better value than buying movies. Why should I pay to store movies when I can have someone else house my library for me and send me one when I want it? And we all know that we’re quickly moving towards that entire collection being available on-demand, so even the extremely-impatient-I-can’t-wait-2-days-to-see-this-movie crowd will be placated soon enough.

You won’t find me lined up outside a store at 4am the day after Thanksgiving. No deal is worth risking your life over. It’s bad enough a store employee would get knocked down as people try to get in for a bargain, but to have 2000 people walk on or over them for a good buy says to me that consumerism has gone awry - well beyond simply buying unneeded products to putting price before life. I’ll take a raincheck.

In case you missed it, you can listen to Aunt Fran’s appearance on Buffalo Style radio talking about the Broadway Market.

(Click on the photo to bring up the slideshow full-sized)

The Buffalo Ruse has a farcical look into the future of the Skyway…

The New York State Department of Transportation has issued a dramatic proposal to eliminate the Buffalo Skyway by the year 2019. Instead of demolishing the structure, as a recent urban renewal commission has suggested, The DOT’s plan calls for raising the City of Buffalo itself to match the highest point of the 110-foot tall Skyway.

“This is not a new idea,” stated Jonathan Manly, a NYS DOT spokesman. “The city of Seattle was raised dramatically 100 years ago to eliminate the flooding issues that regularly destroyed parts of that city. In Buffalo we’re not seeing floods. What we’re dealing with here is a brutal ugliness that has taken generations to achieve. But that problem would be eliminated in a mere decade simply by raising the municipal area up to the same altitudinal grade as the Skyway.”

State DOT Engineer Evan Brady says that according to the current architectural drawings, the top floor of virtually every tall structure in downtown Buffalo would serve as the first floor after the City is raised. “We would have a dramatic underground network of Grade A office space absolutely unique in the entire nation.” The major exceptions to this are City Hall and the HSBC towers, whose entry floors will be the 14th and the 21st floor respectively.

At a hastily convened press conference held under the aging span, Congressman Brian Higgins and former ambassador to Malta Anthony Gioia both sounded enthusiastic about the proposal. “We’re talking about an engineering feat that would bring tourists from around the world,” said Higgins. “What other city in the world will be able to claim that it eliminated a towering eyesore by raising itself to the same level of that very eyesore?”

Read the full article