Rational Skyway redevelopment

Craig links to a Buffalo News editorial of someone that’s actually speaking rationally when it comes to redeveloping the Skyway.

The majority of people going to the waterfront will drive there. So what is the difference if you drive over a bridge, which blocks the river, or over the Skyway, which does not? The problem is not the Skyway but the confusing roads after you get off of it. We simply need a better system to get from the south end of the Skyway to the waterfront area.
…
Once there is enough development to justify it, a tunnel under the river could be built to replace the Skyway. It could carry car traffic and an extension of the rapid transit line for pedestrians, with several stops at strategic points along the waterfront. That way the goal of getting car and pedestrian access to the waterfront could finally be realized.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Skyway that are as commonly repeated as “There’s nothing to do in Buffalo.” It’s dangerous. It’s always closed. There isn’t any more ship traffic. It’s expensive to maintain.

The facts are that it’s no more dangerous than any other roadway of it’s size. Personal experience says that in fact it’s safer. I see far fewer accidents on Route 5 and the Skyway than when I travelled the 290 every day. Always closed? In the three years I’ve been commuting using the Skyway, it’s only been closed maybe three times, and it’s usually when there are widespread driving bans. I decided to keep track this year of how many times I get rerouted, but I have no ticks in that column as of yet. Granted this winter has been mild, but we’ve had several days with extremely high winds and the yellow lights haven’t flashed yet.

The writer of the editorial disputes the lack of ship traffic, claiming that there is a lot of recreational boat use. I’m not a boater, but I would tend to believe that’s probably the case. In the fair weather months I do see a lot of sailboats in that area, and I know from my former daily commute over the lift bridge near the Museum of Science in Boston that any sailboat of significant size can’t clear a lift bridge when it’s down. And it’s interesting that the commonly voiced “solution” to replace the Skyway is to do so with lift bridges. I can’t understand why this is considered such a great idea. The maintenance on lift bridges is cosmetic AND mechanical. When they were refurbishing the lift bridge on South Park near Smith Street it was completely closed for six months. They can’t be plowed like a normal roadway can, and tend to be more slippery and treacherous during the winter than an asphalt roadway like Skyway. By no means am I a bridge construction expert, but my own observations lead me to believe that lift bridges aren’t the answer.

The tunnel idea makes the most sense, but of course now you’re talking about a significant upfront investment. This is still probably the best idea because this is New York, and it’s going to take at least 20 years to actually begin construction anyways. If we take the amount of money that would be spent on lift bridges today and invest it smartly, by the time the last environmental impact study is complete we’ll have enough to build the tunnel.

The Skyway has not hindered development of the outer harbor, the NFTA has. Any plan that involves developing the outer harbor is obviously going to need to involve redesigning the access roadways accordingly. At the moment the Skyway provides easy access for vehicular traffic from the 190S and from downtown. Improved signage and road repairs would ease the headache of getting there from the 190N. You only need to exit to Seneca and turn right on Michigan or Louisiana (or follow the signs to the casino. 😉 ). Pedestrian traffic isn’t going to follow the path of the Skyway, it’s needed to go from the Marina and Naval Park areas over the river to the area near the Coast Guard station and The Pier. Do what other cities do and add a free water taxi service to operate during the months when people will be enjoying that area. Long term, we can extend the light rail out towards the Tifft street region via our new tunnel to connect it all into downtown.

I have no great love or disdain for the Skyway, but as someone that uses it on a daily basis I understand it’s value. If we are serious about properly developing Buffalo’s waterfront, then let’s take the time to do it right, not push through a half-assed solution based on the emotional responses of a few people who likely aren’t the ones that rely on the bridge they’re so quick to tear down. There is plenty of opportunity to leverage what we already have until such time that it becomes prudent to replace it. Crippling access into the city [that’s trying to grow] to improve access out of it [to an area that hasn’t even begun to] is not a solution.