Congressman Higgins’ Statement about the Southtowns Connector
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN HIGGINS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
in response to the
Design Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
for the
SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARBOR PROJECT
Submitted to:
Alan E. Taylor, Regional Director
New York State Department of Transportation
General William J. Donovan Office Building
125 Main St.
Buffalo, NY 14220
Background
Two tasks are fundamental to the redevelopment of the waterfront: the first is to create excitement and vibrancy at the water’s edge by constructing generous public open spaces, including a broad greenway hugging the shoreline with bicycle and pedestrian access. The second task which is fundamental to the redevelopment of the waterfront is the elimination of barriers to vehicular access to the Outer Harbor lands. If we address these two fundamental concerns, we will, as a community, have a choice of viable private development opportunities for the waterfront.
While the former concern of pedestrian and bicycle access to the water’s edge is being addressed by other initiatives, the Southtowns Connector Project provides an opportunity to address the latter concern, that being the problem of vehicular access to the Outer Harbor lands. The problem, however, is that given the limited availability of funding, and the overwhelming public demand that we see construction in the very near term, none of the alternatives laid out in the DEIS is entirely satisfactory.
Another Alternative - a Grand Waterfront Parkway
There is not enough money presently, nor will there be enough money in the next two years, for a wholesale reconstruction of the Route Five/Fuhrmann Boulevard complex. And a staging, through which only a small portion of the Route Five/Fuhrmann Boulevard complex is immediately reconfigured, will fail to provide the maximum amount of access to the Outer Harbor in the least amount of time.
I submit that there is another way - an alternative which is immediately doable, given the financial constraints of the project. This alternative is the conversion of Fuhrmann Blvd. into a grand, two-way, urban parkway, in the tradition of the City of Buffalo’s Olmsted parkways. This parkway would have high-end lighting, consistent with the Central Park lighting used on the City’s Olmsted Parkways. It would have generous green space providing a pastoral feel similar to that of the Niagara Parkway on the Canadian side of the Niagara River. It will be elegant and functional and will convey promise and vitality to those who travel it.
A total of $22.36 million has been appropriated for Outer Harbor Access improvements. $9.36 million of this came from my work as a member of the House Transportation Committee and was contained in the Transportation Bill which the President signed this week. That legislation contained an additional $8 million which was secured by Senators Schumer and Clinton. We also have access to an additional $5 million which was secured by Senators Schumer and Clinton in the Fiscal Year 2004 appropriations process.
Rough estimates from the City of Buffalo suggest that Fuhrmann Boulevard, from the Coast Guard Station to Tifft Street, can be rebuilt in the manner I have suggested at a cost of $12 to $14 million dollars - making the completion of this project entirely feasible from a financial perspective.
I would like to see the design and engineering work for this project done this Fall and Winter, with the commencement of construction next Spring, and the completion of construction in Fall of 2006. I cannot stress enough the overwhelming public demand that waterfront access be improved immediately. The conversion of Fuhrmann Bouldvard to a grand waterfront parkway fulfills that pressing mandate.
When you rapidly take a project from planning to design to construction, it dramatically increases your ability to raise funds from other decision makers in Albany and Washington. I will use my position on the House Transportation Committee to aggressively pursue funding for subsequent waterfront access improvements, but we first must demonstrate viability and progress in the very near term.
Route Five can be reconfigured later. The The public is demanding that the waterfront be developed immediately, and vehicular access is necessary to attain that end, and the grand waterfront boulevard will achieve that goal with the funds that are available and in the immediate time frame which the public demands.
Removing the Skyway - The Next Steps for Improving Waterfront Access
Opening up the waterfront for development while facilitating traffic between the Central Business District and the Southern Suburbs are the stated goals of the Southtowns Connector study. It is not sensible for the DOT to have conducted this study while leaving options for the replacement of the Skyway off the table.
Replacing the Skyway only seems prohibitively expensive when one does not consider the costs of leaving it as-is. These costs include decennial painting which costs in excess of $15 million, the impending need for substructural repairs and redecking which may cost in excess of $100 million, and the economic costs associated with frequent closures and a high accident rate. In 1993, Erdman, Anthony and Associates prepared a study, commissioned by the City of Buffalo, which suggested that a tunnel could be built to replace the skyway at a cost of $94.6 million (1993 dollars). Given inflation multipliers, this would, of course, cost considerably more today. However, it shows that the cost of replacing the Skyway can be in the same range as the cost of maintaining it as-is.
The new link between the Outer Harbor and downtown which replaces the Skyway need not be a tunnel at all. I very much prefer the notion of a series of bascule lift bridges, landing perhaps at Erie Street, Pearl Street, Delaware Avenue, Main Street and/or Michigan Avenue, which would distribute traffic efficiently throughout Downtown, in stead of dumping it at the foot of Delaware Avenue, as the Skyway does currently.
While I am reluctant to avocate for spending money on further studies, the failure of the Southtowns Connector Study to address the Skyway means that the removal of the Skyway will require its own environmental impact study because of the requirements of state and federal law. Using some of the funds which Senators Schumer and Clinton and I have secured, we need to commence a Skyway EIS immediately. This EIS would consider the tunnel option, and the various bridging options, and would definitively compare the costs of these options against the cost of maintaining the current infrastructure.
Former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, who is credited with the revitalization of his City’s waterfront, was in Buffalo recently giving an address to a group of concerned citizens at Nichols School. A participant asked him, if he were charged with improving Buffalo, what is the first thing he would do. He stated, without hesitation, that his first priority would be replacing the skyway. That the Skyway is ineffective and inefficient is obvious to Buffalonians and to visitors alike - we must begin the work now which will allow for its eventual removal.
After Fuhrmann Boulevard is turned into a grand waterfront parkway, and the skyway is replaced with a more suitable link or set of links, then we can address the issue of how to reconfigure Route Five. It is less pressing then the problem of waterfront access which the parkway will solve and the larger problems posed by the Skyway.
Conclusion
I am interested in making the greatest impact possible on waterfront access in the shortest time possible. It is for this reason that I decline to support any of the design alternatives in the DEIS, and instead prefer another alternative - a grand waterfront parkway.