Friday, September 9, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Robert Moses Parkway Scoping Alternatives
Dear Editor,
While the six Niagara gorge parkway options revealed on 6 June by the scoping team hired by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) generally appeared to respond to a variety of constituents and to cover an impressive range, there are several points that need to be made about the way they are being presented.
Since the Niagara Heritage Partnership first proposed total gorge parkway removal in 1997, we have continuously fought two perceptions formulated by the opposition and often repeated by the press in letters-to-the editor and by some politicians. The first of these is that total removal is an "extreme" notion. If we had a dollar for every time we, or the proposal, were referred to as "extreme," we could pay for removal and have money left over. The second is the idea that if the parkway were removed, then all the traffic that it carried would immediately shift to Lewiston Road.
As to the charge of being "extreme," we observe that's a subjective judgement. One person's extremist is another person's conservative. What could be more conservative than restoring our natural gorge rim legacy, an action that would not only save enormous sums in years to come, but has the potential to generate economic benefits for our region? Details supporting this view are to be found at www.niagaraheritage.org. We were disappointed, therefore, to find the proposal for total removal once again characterized as being "extreme," this time by a member of the scoping team, if he were accurately quoted, in a Sentinel article (11 June 2011) titled "Robert Moses Parkway concepts presented, analyzed, debated."
The video presentation of the options made it seem obvious, both verbally and visually, that the result of significant parkway removal would be that "traffic would then use Lewiston Road," as if there were no alternative routes. This is not at all obvious, which this study should have revealed. For the study not to reveal this is to make the scoping nothing more than an opinion poll based on incomplete information. We question, therefore, to what extent these biased perspectives influenced those who might have otherwise, if they'd been properly informed, chosen total removal as the preferred option.
The Niagara Heritage Partnership has in the past attempted to counter the "all-parkway-traffic-will-use-Lewiston Road" argument with the following four points of information: 1) highway removal studies from across the nation, if not around the world, have indicated that traffic patterns seldom follow the patterns predicted prior to removal, dire or otherwise; the tendencies are for drivers to fan out to use alternative routes, and 2) we do, indeed, have alternate routes here, though removal opponents refuse to acknowledge this, and 3) even, as unlikely as it is, if every single car currently using the parkway were to suddenly start to use Lewiston Road, the daily traffic count would still be less than half of the traffic count currently using Hyde Park Boulevard, another south-north route in Niagara Falls, and 4) NHP clearly provided the foundations of this information to the scoping team on 27 October 2010 in the document titled, "The Niagara Heritage Partnership Position Re RMP/Niagara Gorge Corridor Project: Meeting No. 4 for Representatives of Organized Groups." This is now available on the NHP website under Recent Postings. Why it was ignored is puzzling.
Now the "extreme" charge has been revived by those in favor of gorge parkway retention--as seen in a Sentinel article of 18 June, the issue immediately following the one in which the scoping team member characterized the total removal option as "extreme." In that extensive article, County Legislator Richard Soluri declared his motto for parkway retention: "Reject extremism and embrace reason," now the centerpiece of the parkway "Preservation" campaign. Soluri is the one, who at the Open House unveiling of the parkway options, sat behind the Parsons' sign-in table for an extended period of time, smiling and welcoming members of the public as they arrived as if he, long-time and well-known opponent of parkway removal, had arranged the event--or at the very least had an extremely close relationship with the consulting team...and that we all knew how this necessary charade was going to play out.
Unaccustomed to the brazen level of gall practiced by some on the Niagara Frontier, no member of the Parsons team, to my knowledge, suggested to Soluri that it was inappropriate for him to be sitting behind the table and asked him to remove himself.
Further, the options presented were bare-bones concepts without even rough dollar amounts assigned to each option. Could rough estimates have been provided? Even approximations that came within 3-5 million of the costs of each would have revealed that the total removal option is the only one where costs would have been paid for by eliminating maintenance expenses--and the only one with high potential for regional economic gains. Without this level of comparison, the total removal option suffers a disadvantage. (We realize "Construction costs" are part of "Next Steps," but to ask public opinion without at least ballpark numbers seems to be be out of order.) Additionally, the absence of narratives for each option crippled the judgements of those looking at what amounted to a series of map drawings--where was the information, for example, that every option with the exception of total removal would require annual maintenance expenditures of about a quarter million dollars?
The above paragraph cites serious shortcomings that must be put on the desk of OPRHP, whose acceptance of the process and comparison methodology must have been a final step prior to public presentation. Following are two other areas of concern: 1) The distribution of the "Comment" sheets present another troubling possibility: for the sake of clarification, must all votes or endorsements of specific options be made via only this avenue? If, for example, a person wrote and mailed in a brief statement in support of option # 6, would it be counted even though the person did not make use of a "Comment" sheet? 2) What is the target population for this option evaluation? It seems to us that a restricted "local" one does a disservice to a unique State Park that incorporates a natural feature--waterfalls and gorge-- known the world over. If merely local interests are allowed to decide its future, the risk is a parochial result.
The Niagara Heritage Partnership also questions the rationale for "Improve transportation" as part of the "Project Objectives." In what sense is that part of the OPRHP mission? We suggest that having "improve transportation" as an objective favors some variation of parkway retention and is, therefore, a built-in bias. We'd like to see "Restoration of natural landscapes without a parkway" on the "Project Objective" list. Is there any chance of that happening? Please help us out here.
From our perspective it's the responsibility of State Parks to live up to its stewardship mandate for the natural park environment here, to rise above and to resist the hare-brained schemes that are in conflict with that mandate. OPRHP should not be expected to, obligated to, coerced into, or otherwise persuaded to maintain a parkway, for example, that is in itself destructive, and at odds with their mission, because some mispercieve this road as the vital connection to other "attractions" in the region, at least one of which is also destructive of the natural environment--the jet boat, for example.
For what it's worth, I believe the use of the word "extreme" was an inadvertent, innocent usage by the scoping team member, who had no idea it was so loaded a term in this context. From our perspective the Parsons team conduct re this scoping has been honest, straightforward, professional, fair--all things good. But it is probable that the use of the word has harmed our advocacy, anyway, how severely, it is impossible to calculate. That cannot be called back, but some of the flawed process and direction of the scoping may be corrected, and we urge OPRHP to take the necesary steps to do so.
Sincerely,
Bob Baxter
NHP Conservation Chair
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Spread the Message - Restore Niagara Fall's Landscape
I’d direct them to www.niagaraheritage.org and ask them to sign the online petition--and then please mail a letter with a postmarked date no later than July 1, 2011, to New York State's Governor Cuomo and to NYS Parks' Commissioner, Rose Harvey. I would ask them to send copies to NYS Senators Charles Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand George Maizarz, Mark Grisanti, to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Assemblyman John Ceretto, to NYS Parks Western Director Mark Thomas, to the Parson's Group consultants, and to the Buffalo News, The Niagara Gazette, The Buffalo Business First, and the Albany Times Union.
I’d ask them to say the following:
1. They want to see the road totally removed between Niagara Falls and Lewiston,
2. They embrace and share the vision for NYS Parks and the Niagara Gorge Rim as put forth and advocated for these last 15 years by The Niagara Heritage Partnership. Tell them you believe it could be funded, and implemented, within the next three years through the Niagara River Greenway Relicensing dollars, through the Niagara National Heritage Area funds, through Federal Administration Funds, by another New York Power Authority sweep, through NYS Park's Heritage and Preservation Grant funds, or through bonds.
3. I would ask them to speak for those who can't: the flora--the native plants, the Old Growth Forest at DeVeaux Woods and Whirlpool State Parks, the ancient cedars growing in the gorge walls, and for the wildlife--the birds that migrate this Globally Significant Important Bird Area (the Niagara River and its shorelines), and for the deer that lay dead for a week against the parkway cement wall that prohibited its access to the natural environment.
4. I would ask each to write he or she strongly believes this vision will economically benefit not only the residents of a financially challenged city, but will also benefit the millions of tourists who come to see Frederick Law Olmsted's unparalleled 1880's vision--NY's first and oldest State Park.
5. I would ask them to promise that they will visit the charming northern villages when they come to see our restored wonder, but they want to do it by alternate routes--the I-190, Route 265, and via Highland/Hyde Park Blvd.
6. I would ask them to mention that they have learned about how other cities around the United States and the world have removed and are removing their highway mistakes.
7. Finally, I would ask them to state unequivocally that anything less than total removal of the gorge parkway and a full restoration would do a disservice to the multitudes that travel to this world destination and to those of us who live in this western New York region.
USA Today: letters@usatoday.com
Albany Times Union: tuletters@timesunion.com
Buffalo Business First: buffalo@bizjournals.com
Buffalo News: LetterToEditor@buffnews.com
Niagara Gazette: mark.scheer@niagara-gazette.com
Governor Andrew Cuomo: (518) 474-8390
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter: Fax: NY: (716) 282-2479, Fax: Washington DC Fax: (202) 225-7822
Senator Charles E. Schumer: Fax: 716-846-4113
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Fax (866) 824-6340
Senator Mark Grisianti: grisanti@nysenate.gov, buffalo.grisanti@gmail.com
Senator George Maziarz: maziarz@nysenate.gov
Assemblyman John Ceretto: cerettoj@assembly.state.ny.us
Rose Harvey, Commissioner, NYS Parks: rose.harvey@oprhp.state.ny.us
Mark Thomas, Western Director, NYS Parks: mark.thomas@oprhp.state.ny.us
Tom Donahue, Parsons Group: thomas.donohue@parsons.com
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Removing the Robert Moses Parkway
Some may not want the road removed for self-serving reasons, but to deliberately ignore the socioeconomic, quality of life facts does everyone in this struggling region and economy a major disservice.
The principals guiding our Niagara Falls National Heritage Area and the Niagara River Greenway list the natural environment first, yet it is the last one being addressed. I expected better, great things, from both Commissions, from their consultants, from people I elected.
Compromise, as many propose it, is nothing more than politics. It clouds the scioeconomic impacts, benefits and opportunities for our residents. Those opportunities can infuse billions into our economy, keep our young people here through career employment, keep tourists here longer, and protect our botanical wealth, our visual and natural heritage.
Those are all of the issues I’ve heard lamented since I’ve lived here, 26 years.
When was the last time anyone asked you to create or do something great? I'm asking. I’m asking you to create something magnificent with the Niagara Gorge Rim. I'm asking each of you to stand up and actually fight for our City. I’m asking you to read the articles and website listed below.
We could go from being the Love Canal disaster story to an ecological and economic innovation, a rebirth, just through the removal of a section of redundant road. It would lift our city from its tainted Love Canal identity and transform us into a leader in ecological restoration. Removal and restoration would advance a green economy, the trajectory of the future happening around the globe.
Removal and restoration are significant. It’s never been done in the east." Those statements are from a woman Wild Ones Niagara brought to the City two weeks ago, an ecological restoration expert, retired from the Federal Highway Administration. Everyone wins with Removal and restoration, including State Parks.
Here are some facts and resources.
If you haven't seen Fading in the Mist. Ask co-producer Bob Borgatti, a Niagara Falls National Heritage Area commissioner, to screen it. It changed my perception about the waterfall and the city.
To learn about the benefits of nonmotorized trails, see the Rails-to-Trails website. It includes a Federal funding source:
http://www.railstotrails.org/ourWork/advocacy/activeTransportation/campaignForActiveTransportation/index.html
Here are three articles detailing what others have done with road removal and one about the benefits of Urban Parks:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/48838 How an inner city freeway disappeared.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/45909 Freeway Teardowns A Prudent Choice
http://www.planetizen.com/node/35185 Top Freeway Teardowns
http://www.planetizen.com/node/45380 Reviving Struggling Urban Areas with Parks.
We can become world recognized leaders, ho hum followers, or remain as the uninformed status quo, getting out of everyone's way, run over, another missed opportunity.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Native Plant Restoration - The New Standard
A ten minute film from the University of Rutgers may be viewed here.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Niagara Community Forum Guest View
Image via WikipediaThe Robert Moses Parkway presents an almost continuous barrier between the city and its waterfront. So egregious has been the intrusion that the most important planning efforts of the last two decades have all suggested ways to mitigate the impact of the Parkway. These include the Niagara Falls , Waterfront Master Plan by Sasaki Associates (1992), the Citizens Map of Niagara Falls by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (1997), the Jerde Partnership development plan for Niagara Falls Redevelopment Corp. (1998),and the Main Street Plan by the City of Niagara Falls. (2001).
A range of treatment options should be considered to reduce the negative impact of the Parkway on the waterfront environment and as a barrier between city neighborhoods and the river, falls, and gorge. These should include elimination of lanes, removal of sections of the highway, reduction of speed limits, and introduction of at-grade intersections with the intent of reducing or eliminating automobile traffic and increasing pedestrian access. The issue requires a great deal of additional technical work, design study, and public discussion. It will almost surely involve different approaches in different locations and contexts. But given the Parkway’s limited value for transportation and its substantial conflicts with the goals of waterfront redevelopment in Niagara Falls, a systematic reconfiguration of the Parkway is an absolute requirement of this strategy.
This nonsense is approaching 20 years and it has been almost 40 since the city was cut off from its waterfront. Business districts have failed, neighborhoods have been lost, neighborhoods continue to deteriorate and taxes are on the rise.
How long must we wait for our State to get on board and do what is right for the County of Niagara? The scoping process on the sections of Robert Moses which cuts the city off from its resources should have been completed years ago--not started on October 27th 2010.
The citizens of this city should not be required to continually repeat what has been studied upside down and sideways for what seems like eternity. If the city's application for a $52 million grant, countless references in its Comprehensive Plan and countless study results, are not enough, what is?
End the scoping and start planning for our economic future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)