Peace Bridge
The construction of our current Peace Bridge was approved on August 6, 1925 and the completed span was opened to the public on June 1, 1927.
The antiquated span is 80 years old this year, and we need a new one.
In fact, we’ve needed a new one since 1997, when the announcement was made that a second bridge would be constructed. It’s now 2007, and not one step has been taken to begin construction of a bridge whose design was finalized in 2005.
The last few years’ worth of the holdup had been due to the federal government’s unwillingness to abide by Canadian law with respect to a shared border management plan. Under the proposed scheme, inspections for US-bound travellers would have been conducted on the Canadian side of the border, but the US insisted to maintaining the right to fingerprint - not just detain and question, but fingerprint. The Canadian government would not permit that to happen, so we’re back to finding the best possible inspections plaza on the US side of the river.
Predictably, the uncertainty over the new span and the inspection plaza has threatened and harmed the community adjacent to the bridge.
Either way, the delay in adding a second span between Fort Erie and Buffalo has reached comical proportions, and people want to see some progress. Buffalo fought hard to guarantee that the new bridge is a nicely designed one, and the new Canadian plaza is complete. We have a glorified Thruway toll booth for an entry plaza and there’s no end in sight to the delay. Let’s get moving.
Tatonka Says:July 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I think we should do a study of the issue.
mike hudson Says:July 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
i was in marotto’s on the morning in 1999 when the judge’s ruling came down in favor of stopping the twin span in order to conduct evironmental impact studies. progressive attorneys were high-fiving each other in triumph at their victory. i wonder if they feel the same way today. clearly, those who envisioned a sleek, modern environmentally sound bridge didn’t have a clue about how to get it done once they’d succeeded in stopping the previous effort. happens here all the time. it’s a way of life.
had the twin span proposal been allowed to proceed, it would be carrying traffic today and would have alleviated much of the congestion currently experienced at all of the niagara region’s border crossings.
incidentally, the brooklyn bridge opened in 1883 and the manhattan bridge in 1909. in all the years i lived in new york city i never once heard them referred to as antiquated and in need of replacement.
Buffalo Blood Donor Says:July 16th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
The lack of a second span does not, to me, seem to be the major reason for traffic snarls on the existing bridge.
The lack of an efficiently-run (and staffed!) customs inspection area, to me, seems to be more related to the congestion problem.
Nonetheless, in true Buffalo fashion we *should*, as Tatonka states, do another study or two. Make sure that the public is involved EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, and for good measure, let’s throw in a referendum that may or may not be constitutional, so that the lawyers and judges can go at it as well.
Is the air over the Niagara River a historical/heritage site? It should be.
BBD
jwalker Says:July 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I wonder how many of those lawyers are now living in Miami?
Dan Says:July 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
> I think we should do a study of the issue.
Not so fast! First, there should be a preliminary feasibility study to determine whether such a study would be really necessary or not.
Howard Goldman Says:July 16th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I think we should do a study and see how many vehicles can move over two lanes of a bridge at a steady 20 mph.
If the answer turns out to be at least three times as many vehicles as the Peace Bridge moves over it’s two busy lanes, than we may not need a new bridge, we may just need better support infrastructure.
mike hudson Says:July 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
you know, thinking about it now, it was a morning in 2000 that i witnessed that scene in marotto’s. march or april, i should think. just thought i’d get that in before some lawyer corrected me.
Bridget Says:July 16th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
“clearly, those who envisioned a sleek, modern environmentally sound bridge didn’t have a clue about how to get it done once they’d succeeded in stopping the previous effort.”
Mike, explain how “those” who sought a signature bridge fucked up and couldn’t deliver?
Isn’t the PUBLIC Bridge Authority supposed to deliver what the people want?
Tell me why we should settle and force two, non-matching bridges into a historic park and neighborhood. Tell me why we should continue to be a doormat for trucks that pass through our area leaving nothing but toxic fumes and toll dollars to an authority that hasn’t invested in the west side in 80 years.
Higgins should work HARDER on resolving the issues with Shared Border Management instead advocating for a 60 plus acre truck stop. Higgins has great momentum going on the waterfront – but his ego is getting beyond himself by not advocating a more practical approach to jump starting stalled discussions. We’ve waited this long, what’s the rush? (Numbers are down at the bridge, btw).
Now, Mikey, we all know what Higgins and Authority promote is the Mickey Mouse approach that “happens here all the time. it’s a way of life.”
mike c Says:July 17th, 2007 at 9:43 am
While it does not relate directly to current debate about construction of a new bridge, I’d like to clarify a fact. The International Joint Commission was the final approval agency for construction of the Peace Bridge in 1925. Its order was written and handed down on October 6, 1925. Construction proper did not — could not — start until then. The hearing was held August 11, 1925 in Niagara Falls, Ontario, where the two commissioners who presided said they would recommend approval. At that time they said it would not be “lese majeste” if the company went ahead and started tendering contracts. A groundbreaking photo opp was held August 17 at 2 p.m in Fort Erie.
jen Says:July 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Too funny, all the comments.