New regional advisory committee for progressive transportation strategies

New regional advisory committee for progressive transportation strategies

Story Options

The Regional Advisory Group (RAG), has been established to act as liaison between the community and the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC) in an effort to help rebuild our economy and revitalize Buffalo-Niagara region through progressive transportation strategies seen in other cities across the United States.

As gasoline prices continue to rise, the advisory group is urging transportation officials to bring balance to predominantly automobile-focused regional planning through an increased focus on alternative modes of transportation. This includes such measures as better public transit (with adequate transportation service for people with limited income and/or personal mobility), more bicycle infrastructure, and coordinated planning initiatives such as walkable neighborhoods.

“The Buffalo-Niagara region could become a national leader in sensible, progressive transportation policy,” says RAG member Gladys Gifford of the Citizens Regional Transportation Corporation, noting the region should be doing much more to address unsustainable transportation patterns by focusing more on public transit, transit-oriented development, and walkable/ bikeable, mixed-use neighborhoods.

As we near the re-authorization of the federal transportation bill our country is facing a looming crisis. The federal highway trust fund is scheduled to go bust. Why? It is funded by the federal gasoline tax which is based on volume of gasoline, not cost. So as we consume less gasoline, because it’s becoming more expensive and automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient, we are contributing less to the highway trust fund.

This perfect storm is occurring at the same time as inflation costs for construction are skyrocketing. Frank McArdle, a member of the National Surface and Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission stated that the highway trust fund erodes in value by 10% each year. He went on to further state that for our transportation system to maintain the same buying power as we have today, congress will have to raise the federal gasoline tax by three cents per year each year.

In addition, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) has stated that in the next federal transportation bill less funding needs to be allocated to new or expanded highways until deficiencies in current facilities are eliminated; currently 1 in 4 bridges are structurally deficient, and then only if highway projects show a reduction in Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The only way to accomplish these goals is to enhance pedestrian, bicycle and transit access.

With our current amount of transportation resources in the region facilitating our dependence on the automobile and urban sprawl, the Regional Advisory Group hopes to foster a paradigm shift that would make alternative transportation modes more widely useable and attractive. There are many competing voices at the national level debating over how this will play out; here locally we need to begin to implement progressive strategies as a way to combat this looming storm.

digulios

What Others Have To Say

  1. GDC

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 13:18

    Meanwhile our own council members and Mayor want to demolish structures for MORE parking lots (Grant-Ferrry for example) and when we decry foul to such, others say "parking is needed. Isn't this what many of us have been saying for years? Expand the Metro Rail, have more bus's running.

  2. DJB

    4 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 13:24

    How about some billboards around town to explain the rules of the road - for bikers and drivers alike. If the bikers in the city will ride on the streets and WITH traffic, maybe the drivers will be more tolerant of sharing the road. Certainly we need designated bike lanes, but Buffalo would be much improved with some tolerance and knowledge of the actual rules of the road. As someone who formerly biked to work, I am surprised by how many people ride against traffic and on the sidewalk. It is NOT safer to do so (except for a child being supervised by an adult).

  3. Keith

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 13:35

    What is progressive about old transportation ideas like bicycles and walking? Shouldn't we call this a regressive strategy? I like the ideas, but the progressive buzzword doesn't fit.

  4. blackrocklifer

    2 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 13:36

    Railroads are the future (and past). Reviving the belt line route around Buffalo with spurs to the suburbs would connect all our communities together and make commuting in and out of the city reasonable and possibly a pleasant expirience.

  5. al-alo

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 13:46

    no website?

  6. WholeLottaJibbaJabbah

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 13:47

    I seriously hate when people call out bikers. I ride past more people talking on their cell phones, blowing stop signs, speeding, cutting people off and being generally horrible drivers than most bike riders. So DJB it takes one to know one. Quit blaming bikers and you take some responsibility and be the best damn gas hog you can be.

  7. reflip

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 13:54

    Some questions:

    Who is on this Regional Advisory Group?

    How will they be acting as a liason between the community and the GBNRTC?

    Is this something "regular" citizens can get involved with? If so, how?

  8. thinker

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 14:14

    Another group of self appointed experts to add more layers to an already over-layed fiasco. Everyone wants instant credibility and the easiest way in Buffalo seems to be to start a group made of people with passion but lacking expertise and then saying the sum of the parts is where the power lies.

  9. carl

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 14:15

    let me tell you, if anything has moved buffalo forward, its is defiantly a new "committee"......

    (sarcasm)

  10. carl

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 14:17

    let me tell you, if anything has moved buffalo forward, its is definitely a new "committee"......

    (sarcasm)

  11. wizardofza

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 14:22

    "I seriously hate when people call out bikers. I ride past more people talking on their cell phones, blowing stop signs, speeding, cutting people off and being generally horrible drivers than most bike riders. So DJB it takes one to know one. Quit blaming bikers and you take some responsibility and be the best damn gas hog you can be."

    Thank you! I can't stand the hypocrisy of selfish motorists who whine about cyclists "inconveniencing" an extra minute onto their commute times while they roll stop signs and exceed the speed limit on a daily basis.

    Though bikes riding on the wrong side of the street is a huge pet peeve of mine, it puts themselves, pedestrians, and other cyclists in danger.

  12. Buffalopundit

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 14:39

    So, because motorists break the rules, it's ok when cyclists do it. The "two wrongs make a right" rule FTW.

  13. PaulBuffalo

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 14:56

    Aren't all of us who comment on BRO a regional advisory group?

  14. TheWhyNotGuy

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 15:06

    If I join the Regional Advisory Group will I be on the rag?

    I tried to resist. Really I did.

  15. BuffaloNY

    3 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 15:32

    here's a solution, raise the federal gas tax. The current federal gas tax is 18 cents per gallon. that is way too low. kick the federal gas tax up to $1 a gallon and you'll curb consumption (coerce people into using public tansport) and rasie funds to expand our under developed public transportation network.

  16. carl

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 16:58

    wizardofza,

    people who call out cyclists, are usually too "rounded out" (trying to be polite)....to ride a bike them selves, especially in the home of the chicken wing, you probably shouldn't pay much attention to them...

  17. carl

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 16:59

    wizardofza,

    people who call out cyclists, are usually too "rounded out" (trying to be polite)....to ride a bike them selves, especially in the home of the chicken wing, you probably shouldn't pay much attention to them...

  18. carl

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 17:03

    br really has to fix this double posting thing....

  19. magnum

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 18:09

    Go to Syracuse and see. Greyhound, Amtrack, local bus all in one building - duh.

  20. jsk1983

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 23rd 2008, 23:27

    ^Keep in mind that the rail right of way used by Amtrak bypasses the downtown area. I know there is a station on Exchange street but that only serves certain routes. The Lake Shore Limited which runs between Buffalo and Chicago never enters the CBD instead going through South Buffalo and into the east side where it passes the Central Terminal.

  21. sonyactivision

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 00:52

    I was thinking how cool it would have been if Buffalo had an elevated rail line going into Downtown. They should have built one a century ago. Building one now would be crazy -cool, but crazy.

  22. chrishawley

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 01:05

    Keith, ironically, nearly all progressive planning ideas are based on ondoing modern day errors and resurrecting traditional urban transportation and design.

    So, yes, in effect ideas about walking, cycling, streetcars, highway un-building, street narrowing, etc. etc... are all quite progressive.

  23. buffaloweiner

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 05:10

    sonyactivision, Buffalo had an elevated rail line that went through downtown and it was at the DL&W Station.

    BuffaloNY, as far as raising the gas tax to $1 a gallon you should check out this statistic. The road, bridge and highway system is financed by the gas tax which was more than sufficient when there were few roads and lots of consumption of cheap gas. Now there is so much infrastructure that the gas tax has to increase 5 cents every year just to keep from going insolvent. Now couple the maintenance of all those roads, bridges and highways with the cost of expansion and the increasing cost of fuel plus inceasing fuel taxes....and very quickly...street cars, light rail and high speed bullet trains are cheap cheap cheap!!!!

    Buffalo has one thing that Rochester, Syracuse and other cities dont and that is good bones. Buffalo can accept trolleys and street cars and light rail and high speed rail along with our airports and highways because our city was built to incorporate all of them.

    Buffalo was founded as a transhipment center merging goods, services and transportation. 100 years later....transportation is getting expensive again and if Buffalo is smart it will have use its 100 year old infrastructure to provide cheap transportation. Its really one of the few things Buffalo can offer on the cheap other than greasy food

  24. sbrof

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 07:31

    It will be interesting so see how this group fits in with the current system and whether or not it will have some real powers or not. Who gets to be on this group? Can I join? Is it paid? Volunteer? Are they basically a community voice to the GBNRTC (which I agree is a bit disconnected from most citizens).

    My Ideas for Transit Expansion: View Larger Map

    of if that doesn't work: Transit Expansion Along Existing Railroad ROW

  25. wizardofza

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 13:46

    Pundit,

    Unfortunately the rules for autos don't apply to bikes very well. Cars are multi-ton steel beasts (as opposed to a 15 lb bicycle) with very impaired maneuverability and driver visibility. Special laws were created to ensure they don't cause mayhem crashing into one another, killing innocent people. Before the proliferation of automobiles there was no need for traffic signals.

    Thanks to those vast differences in visibility and maneuverability, at a non-busy intersection a cyclist can safely treat a red light as a stop sign and treat a stop sign as a yield sign. When was the last time you rode a bike in mixed traffic?

  26. wizardofza

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 13:47

    "Fortunately" that first line should really say. "Unfortunately" for the sake of your argument.

  27. buffaloweiner

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 13:58

    The reality is that there are only two possibilities in the near future:

    The previous consultant recommendation for extending the light rail named the airport as the most profitable route and this is even more true now with the growth at ECC downtown, the larkin district, central terminal, walden galleria, airport and transit road (lancaster). One could probably even make a case for some feasibility study all the way to Darien Lake and Batavia because there is alot of growth in that area as well.

    The previous consultant also recommended UB and Niagara Falls but the dynamics of these two routes have changed drastically since the previous report. The Niagara Casino with 6 million people did not exist in the previous report which changes the dynamics entirely. UB didnt have its 3rd campus downtown in the previous report either.

    So there Airport is going to get the highest priority build and the easiest funding and then probably because UB is a state university they will get the second priority but if there are any problems with Amherst not wanting light rail then look for Niagara Falls to replace it as the priority. Niagara Falls and all the riverside communities woudl benefit greatly (as well as the senecas) from having direct access from the Buffalo Airport to Niagara Falls.

    If any one, two or three get built....then the bigger long term picture is reviving the beltway and commuter rail to Rochester most likely along the Niagara Falls-Rochester rail corridor since much of it is rarely used versus the rail lines that run along the Thruway which are heavily used.

    Longterm connecting Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Rochester via light rail and commuter rail could change the entire dynamic for our region. Rochester has never looked to Niagara Falls or Buffalo and honestly not even to Syracuse....the business dynamic of our entire region could change if the these three cities integrated together. The change could be most dramatic in Albany....if Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Rochester started speaking as one economy.

  28. sonyactivision

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 14:25

    An elevated rail line at the DL&W station? Wow. How incredible.

  29. georgethomasapfel

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 22:57

    There's a great set of photos of the DL&W terminal when it opened in 1917 on the Western New York Heritage Press Website. The second floor of the terminal was the passenger concourse. Nice job on the maps, sbrof! After WWII, there were 700 miles of track in Buffalo inside the city limits alone, and a good deal of the right-of-way remains today.

  30. buffalo339

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 23:28

    I would love for more train lines, but I think the odds are pretty low for a city of our size. The major shift towards public transportation we all hope will happen won't occur for quit some time, and I bet by then it will be too expensive to do. It will be a great what if not just for buffalo, but all of america.

  31. PaulBuffalo

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 24th 2008, 23:58

    Just today, Governor Paterson said that the state is ignoring economic reality. From today's Buffalo News: 'To Gov. David A. Paterson, the state’s multibillion-dollar deficits and a faltering economy present monumental problems. But something worries him even more. Nobody is listening to his warnings.'

    Unless the next president, regardless of party, ushers in a massive infrastructure spending program, there will be no money available for any train service expansion in a city of Buffalo's size. Buffalo has the shortest car commute of any major city. If money were to be available, it would go to highly-populated cities and major travel corridors.

    There are plans here in California to implement high-speed rail from SanFrancisco to SanDiego. Check out http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. It's a great website.) I think New York State should at least prepare a plan for high-speed rail from Buffalo Niagara to New York City, so that they are prepared for the future.

  32. sonyactivision

    1 ratings12345
    Jul 25th 2008, 00:28

    Where's Barack Obama on high speed rail? On mass transit? On anything other than wind and solar? Whoever gets elected this fall will apparently have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. We need a $2 trillion investment in alternative transportation and Buffalo ought to be a part of any comprehensive scheme. To prime the pump, the city and the state need to develop a master plan for high speed rail so that NY can get the jump on this priority. And nobody better talk about a "system that pays for itself" : since when have the heavily subsidized freeways and interstates paid for themselves? This is a huge national obligation to future generations, not some cheesy "business".

  33. sonyactivision

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 25th 2008, 00:41

    Oh, and georgethomasapfel, thank you for that link. What a treat, not only to see the old DL&W as it was, but to see the 1936 aerial shot of Buffalo. It always stirs the imagination to think of buffalo in full fugue!

  34. sbrof

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 25th 2008, 09:53

    Thanks for the kind words GTA, there was many months of planning and thought with a couple other people that went into that map. There is are also many more details as to what could happen along the rail lines and background information about the plan. 10% of the city's parcels are rail parcels. That is how pervasive the routes and systems where here and why it would be CHEAPER to build such rail expansions here than almost anywhere else. That 10% of our land connects just about every neighborhood and school to an easy couple minute walk to a potential line. The west side and parts of north buffalo aren't as easily served but you can't win them all. Since land acquisition can be a huge cost when building these systems our already available land would mean at least a 10-25% cost reduction when compared to other city's light rail expansions.

    There also exists a huge potential for development along the rail lines. That was one of the main focuses of studio was to determine what else could be done with these rail lines. Well often the ROW for them are so wide that you could fit homes, businesses, linear malls etc along the lines. Something to help both the use and fiscal stability of the system.

    A last option that I think we really need to start to investigate more is incremental expansion. We have a vision, a goal of what a regional transit system would be like.. (or at least I have an idea) but building the whole thing at once isn't feasible or responsible. There should be the ability to small baby step expansions of our system. Existing line could be and connect to the Casino Site, then Larkin District, Then Central Terminal... Next thing you know the Galleria is right there and the airport one more step. This is how Toronto, Portland and to some extent Seattle build their systems. They go 1 mile at a time following the plan but paying for it in reasonable increments. Places like Washington who try and build a WHOLE line to service one main point never get the funding or support for the huge costs associated with it. Building in smaller steps takes less approval and less money upfront to start.

  35. PaulBuffalo

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 25th 2008, 10:01

    Sonactivision, Barack Obama supports mass transit and high-speed rail and co-sponsored a bill for new investment in passenger rail service.

    McCain has been a major critic of Amtrak. In 2002, McCain said that 'Amtrak should be restructured to eliminate its reliance on the American taxpayers and to allow for its privatization'. The problem was that Amtrak was underfunded anyway, so his criticism of its service was unfair.

    As I mentioned earlier, New York State should at least prepare a plan.

  36. sonyactivision

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 26th 2008, 23:15

    "Sonactivision, Barack Obama supports mass transit and high-speed rail and co-sponsored a bill for new investment in passenger rail service."

    I've seen a weak nod to mass transit but little evidence of any substantial commitment to high speed rail. When you think of the opportunity out there, anything less than a full-bore commitment to a high speed network makes little sense. This is big stuff, visionary stuff, and at a time of escalating fuel prices, what's holding barack (or anybody else) back? We need to get moving!

  37. bfloboy86

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 27th 2008, 00:37

    This is great news.

    The thing I hate about traveling to place like Amherst and Cheektowaga is that you MUST have a car to get around. And then some of the freeways that pass thru the city ripped up the landscaping (especially Humboldt Parkway).

    It's time we are reminded who owns this city: The pedestrian.

  38. PaulBuffalo

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 27th 2008, 18:25

    Sonyactivision, I don't know what you mean by Obama's 'weak nod'. On this issue, which of the two presidential candidates is more likely to support mass transit issues? Obama co-sponsored a $15 billion Amtrak funding bill that passed the House on 09 July. Meanwhile, John McCain has been a consistent critic of Amtrak for years. I think it's quite clear who has had commitment on this issue.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- McCain's agenda on Amtrak

    By Derrick Z. Jackson

    The Boston Globe

    July 1, 2008

    TRAIN TRAVEL is finally becoming a third rail of politics. The first one to fry over it might be John McCain.

    For years, McCain, in the comfort of cheap gasoline for autos and airplanes, made Amtrak a personal whipping boy. Despite the fact that governments in Western Europe and Asia zoomed far ahead of the United States by supporting high-speed trains to relieve congestion, promote tourism and now as we are coming to know, save the planet, McCain has spent considerable capital in denying the passenger rail system the capital to modernize.

    In 2000, when he was chairman of the Senate Science, Commerce and Transportation committee, McCain killed $10 billion in capital funding for Amtrak. He denounced Amtrak as a symbol of government waste, claiming, "There's only two parts of the country that can support a viable rail system - the Northeast and the far West."

    He made these claims though Amtrak investment had the support of several notable Republicans. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi warned that Amtrak "is guaranteed and doomed to failure if we don't give it an opportunity to succeed. If you don't have modern equipment, if you don't have the new fast trains, if you don't have a rapid rail system, it will not work."

    Tommy Thompson, the secretary of Health and Human Services during President Bush's first term, was Amtrak chairman when McCain blocked the funding. Thompson said, "The traveling public are sending a distress call to escape our nation's endless traffic jams and airport gridlock."

    Although Thompson claimed "remarkable progress in turning Amtrak around," despite a past where "it was not run like a business," McCain ignored the distress call. In 2001, then-Amtrak president George Warrington said the funding of rail in America was so bad, it was comparable to similar funding in Estonia and Tunisia.

    McCain said, "Amtrak needs to make more progress before any further funding schemes are enacted," while at the same time calling any money for progress a "multibillion-dollar blank check." In 2002, McCain declared that "Amtrak should be restructured to eliminate its reliance on the American taxpayers and to allow for its privatization."

    In 2003, McCain allowed that new Amtrak president David Gunn "increased efficiency rather dramatically." But McCain continued in years afterward to fight the capital improvements needed. McCain became a self-fulfilling prophet, making sure that Amtrak remained exactly what he feared it would be, "the albatross blocking the development of a program that actually meets the needs of the traveling public."

    Suddenly, the traveling public is demanding the development of commuter and high-speed intercity rail. According to the American Public Transportation Association, light rail (streetcars) was up 10 percent in the first quarter of this year, commuter rail was up by 6 percent, and subways were up 4 percent (Boston subway travel was up by 9 percent).

    The House and Senate have passed bills calling for new investments in passenger rail, creating the same federal incentives for states to invest in rail service, offering 80 cents for every 20 cents spent by the states. Barack Obama is a cosponsor of the Senate bill. Noting on his website that he is committed to the development of high speed rail, Obama said, "In many parts of the country, Amtrak is the only form of reliable transportation."

    In the section of McCain's website called "reforming our transportation sector," there is no mention of rail. There is only his clean-car challenge to automakers, his $300 million prize to design battery cars, and enforcing only existing gas mileage standards. When The Washington Post reported on how President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget did not include a subsidy for Amtrak, would kill both $20 million for the next generation of high-speed rail, and $250 million for railroad rehabilitation, it quoted McCain as saying on television, "I'm glad the president is coming over with a very austere budget."

    The luster of austerity is gone. Public transportation is becoming a real issue for the campaign trail. If so, McCain has all but handed Obama a golden spike to beat him over the head with.

  39. sonyactivision

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 27th 2008, 23:17

    Thank you Paul Buffalo but a $15 billion support package for Amtrak is not the comprehensive national high speed rail strategy that we need to get off the ground. In Europe, $15 billion paid for one 30 mile rail tunnel under the English Channel. In the U.S., a national high speed rail network would likely cost well over $1 trillion, especially with trains going over 200 mph. This massive investment for the future is what's missing from Obama's agenda, and it would necessarily be a centerpiece, not a band-aid. Obama should be out there raising the expectations of the public on this issue. And while slipping billions to Amtrak is more that that entity has had in its history, that funding and the continuation of Amtrak as the failed quasi-public rail service that it's been for 40 years falls far short of what's needed. To do high speed rail right, you have to throw the Reagan Era textbook on public/private partnerships away and just do it. Obama won't make that leap. Do ask him why.

  40. PaulBuffalo

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 27th 2008, 23:51

    Sonyactivision, we all know that rail will cost more than $15 billion. My point, simply, is that Obama is the one candidate interested in rail.

  41. sonyactivision

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 28th 2008, 21:09

    "Interested" isn't enough. I'm "interested" in sending an astronaut to Mars. This is about a sea change in how people in this country move. Doesn't anyone challenge Obama on this stuff? And no, I'm not voting for that Republican dinosaur, but I expect much more from a candidate that trades on his "new vision for America".

  42. PaulBuffalo

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 28th 2008, 21:35

    Sonyactivision, would any candidate adopt your $1 trillion rail spending plan in an era of tight budgets caused by the Bush administration? No. Is Obama more likely to promote a long-term strategy regarding rail? yes.

  43. sonyactivision

    0 ratings12345
    Jul 28th 2008, 22:44

    $2 trillion is what's needed. And you do it over a 10-20 year timeframe. On one hand, that $482 billion deficit will stop a lot of ideas in their ( tracks ), on the other hand, an economy in dire need of stimmulus could only benefit from such a massive investment in infrastructure. Another part of the equation is what's happening to the airlines. If any more go ( belly up ), the resulting squeeze on capacity and superhigh fares could well have the railroads doing some sort of passenger rail on their own.

    ...sorry about the bad puns.

Would you like to subscribe to this conversation?

Enter your email below, and you will receive an alert each time someone leaves a comment on this post.

What Do You Think?

Text Links