Another highly intelligent citizen has his say: Tear down that (Western Gateway Bridge) wall
The “Mohawk Wall,” which has been constructed on the rehabbed Western Gateway Bridge, should be removed.
We do not know who made the decision to build the solid, sight-obliterating concrete structure, but it was an unthinking mistake.
The Mohawk River is, and has been for over 300 years, probably the best asset that Schenectady and Scotia have to offer. It is the reason both communities exist. To take away the view of the river from thousands of daily travelers is hard to understand.
We need to show that we are proud of what we have — not hide our best.
Gee, on the 11th I was wondering about graffitti removal, and lo and behold, the wall which didn't need to be, has graffiti on it. Another intelligently written letter detailing legitimate concerns. The thing is, if someone had bothered to review this bridge IN THE PLANNING STAGE, as I stated, and Mr. Angiletti more clearly stated, this did not need to be. Changes could have been made that cost nothing, that met the needs of the people the bridge serves. Didn't someone tell us most of the bridge is in Rotterdam? Doesn't Rotterdam have people pretending to know something about PLANNING?
Planning in Rotterdam - you have got to be Fu(king kidding -
Rotterdam prefers over building and pavement and if you must landscape - ROCKS - cause no one takes care of anything
There is also a PDF flyer on his site that you can pass on to concerned parties. He is interested, as many are, in having DOT remove the cement wall and replace it with railings but we must act now by calling local and county officials and DOT expressing that we wish the wall removed. This can be accomplished.
Please make some calls everyone! Let's get this done!
The number for DOT is 457-6195. Ask for the Commissioner and/or the Region One director.
I will make my views known to whatever local people I can get hold of. I get so, so tired of the "anything goes in Schenectady" attitude. It will be difficult to get anyone local to own up to having any responsibility for the bridge, though.
Re the several articles about Western Gateway Bridge’s concrete wall: I use the bridge regularly, but don’t have time to marvel at the beautiful sights up and down the Mohawk River and Jumpin’ Jacks parking lot. I’m always the driver of the car and I’m always preoccupied with watching to see what stunts my fellow drivers are up to.
It will be interesting to see what the Department of Transportation does with snow on the bridge. This is not southern Georgia, but upstate New York, and it does snow here in winter. At times, it snows a lot.
I’m not an expert on snow removal, but I would not think that pushing snow against a concrete wall is the brightest idea. Then get a nice coating of ice on those sidewalks, with no handrails, that slope toward the road. Oh, boy, I can see the lawsuits coming now.
I’m sure that DOT has a plan! Or do they?
Marv Livingston
Charlton
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
Nah. No mistake in building it. No fear, the big cheerleader for the dems, a non-engineer, will explain it all to us.
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
What do you figure it would cost the Taxpayers to remove the present bridge wall and replace it with a railing? A few million$$$ ?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
What do you figure it would cost the Taxpayers to remove the present bridge wall and replace it with a railing? A few million$$$ ?
Probably a lot but putting a safety rail between the road and sidewalk might save money later on for reasons in mickechristine article.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
It doesn't cost the local taxpayers any more than everyone else if it is a State bridge. I don't care, we never should have had this foisted on our area, and we Schenectadians have been footing costs that should have been spread amongst other New Yorkers for decades now. I'm tire of having our city used as a public toilet. Our local officials are keeping silent because they let this happen due to general incompetence and neglect of their responsibilities. I kind of doubt that Roger Hull wouldn't have known what the bridge was going to look like, had he been Mayor. In fact, I know he would have been paying attention, because part of his campaign involved infrastructure. He's studied up on these kinds of things.
It doesn't cost the local taxpayers any more than everyone else if it is a State bridge. I don't care, we never should have had this foisted on our area, and we Schenectadians have been footing costs that should have been spread amongst other New Yorkers for decades now. I'm tire of having our city used as a public toilet. Our local officials are keeping silent because they let this happen due to general incompetence and neglect of their responsibilities. I kind of doubt that Roger Hull wouldn't have known what the bridge was going to look like, had he been Mayor. In fact, I know he would have been paying attention, because part of his campaign involved infrastructure. He's studied up on these kinds of things.
In the past they have just closed the sidewalks for a while after the snow piles up.
Yesterday afternoon, I received your letter dated October 8, 2013, responding to the correspondence and materials I sent you concerning Western Gateway Bridge [WGB]. I asked for your support lobbying DOT to take down the cement wall that hides beautiful scenic views of the Mohawk River and to put up guardrails between the sidewalks and the travel lanes. I also asked that you attempt to determine why no local official alerted the public to the loss of the scenic view and of the guardrail.
Although I am grateful that you or a staffer put in so much time writing a response to me, it seems you have basically repeated to me the very misinformation that I rebutted in my correspondence, and at my weblog, using DOT documents on the relevant Region 1 Project webpage to support my claims of what really happened and when. Believing that you do actually want to know the facts, I will summarize again:
No Opportunity to Comment Before Construction? You say "it was truly unfortunate that the local officials and every day citizens did not have an opportunity to comment on the bridge's details until construction began." However, the switch from DOT specifying steel railing, in its initial set of Bridge Requirements, to instead requiring cement parapets was announced during the proposal stage, in a 2-page document dated May 15, 2012 (Addendum No. 5, May 15, 2012). That was three months before the contracts were awarded, five months before construction began, and perhaps an additional half year before the cement parapet installation began. What is "unfortunate" is that local planners and officials either did not ask DOT about its Requirements and any changes, did not look at the DOT webpage where all the documents are posted to discover the required design, or knew but did not bother to alert the public at a time when changes could have been made.
Unless they somehow were completely unfamiliar with DOT's RFP and contract-awarding process, it seems most unlikely that no local officials knew about the switch to cement parapets, as the switch was made during the time Mr. Gillen was vigorously discussing the community's desire for multi-use lanes and a bike-ped path directly with DOT. And, of course, the information was thereafter readily available on the DOT website. Because this was a design-build project and there was no official public comment opportunity, our local officials should have been more vigilant in monitoring the process, not more oblivious about the design requirements. (It took me less than an hour to review all of the posted documents to see which had sections relevant to WGB.) DOT advises at its Accelerated Bridge Program information portal: "Visitors are urged to check the website regularly, since changes are possible."
Preference for Cement? You also say that "Concrete safety shape barriers or vertical faced concrete barriers are currently the preferred choice of railings for bridges over steel railings because they are easier to maintain and provide better redirective capabilities." However, DOT apparently does not know about that purported preference:
In April 2012, DOT required 4-rail steel railing on WGB In fact, of the thirteen bridge projects contained in the Region 1 DOT Project Requirements document that included WGB, 11 called for steel-rail railings, and the two that did not were spans over I-81, not over a body of water.
The only other document after the initial April 11, 2012 set of requirements on the DOT webpage making a change in railing requirements, was posted only a week before the WGB cement parapet notice. That change, in a bridge on Paul Road over I-490, went from requiring a cement parapet to requiring 4-rail steel railings. (Addendum No. 2, posted May 3, 2012)
Within a few days of the Gazette raising the issue of the lost view, DOT announced it would salvage the eastern view from the Bridge by using steel railing.
No Connection with the Multi-use Lanes? Finally, you assert: "However, I don't believe the choice of concrete was a consequence of expanding the width of the lanes and/or the sidewalks. I believe it was simply a project decision based on the experience and preference of the designers." I would like to know the basis for your belief. The change to cement was announced in the same document announcing the new bridge deck configuration with the multi-use lanes, etc. That change was made three months prior to the awarding of the contract to Best Value Team of Kubricky and VHB, when there was still a Short List of 5 bidding teams for the contract. If Kubricky/VHB somehow had a role in the switch to cement during the RFP stage, it should be noted that they did not ask that any of the other projects included in their Region 1 contract be changed to cement parapets. Furthermore, every bridge pictured on the websites of the designer and the contractor has steel railing.
Only one thing changed in the WGB situation in the 30 days from the April mandate of steel railings to the May 2012 switch to cement parapets: The community, including the Gazette editorial page, asked for the multi-use path and lanes, and DOT acceded to the request. It is illogical and implausible to conclude that the two design factors were not related, or that DOT was sincere when it told the press last month that they simply thought the cement parapets are more attractive.
One of the most unfortunate things about the failure of our leaders to adequately monitor the changes, is that DOT has been most receptive to community input, despite your stressing that the State owns the bridge and makes final design decisions. They changed to the multi-use configuration less than two weeks after the preference was made known. And, within a few days of the Gazette asking how we loss our scenic view to the west, DOT announced that it would switch back to steel railings to salvage the view to the east from the Western Gateway Bridge.
So, again, I ask that you find out who dropped the ball and/or who thought the public need not know about the lost views and lost guardrails. If you or your planning staff were among those who share the responsibility for the lost views and missing guardrails, admitting it is a lot more palatable to myself and the public than your continuing the misinformation campaign in order to appear blameless or avoid the heavylifting of seeking changes at this late date. Working hard to reverse both design mistakes would be the best way to show you wish you and other local officials had been more vigilant and that you are listening to the public's call for a better Western Gateway Bridge. A few generations with unsafe sidewalks and obstructed vistas is too big of a price to pay to avoid the expense and delay need to greatly improve the aesthetics and safety of the Bridge. thanks again for your time,
David David Giacalone phone: XXXXXXXX
This is the letter David was responding to:
This post contains attachments; to download them you must login.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
McCheese had some smart person write that, for sure. "Hey, come up with some excuses, I mean reasons, why the bridge is supposed to be like that, okay?"
This David G. who wrote the letter obviously believes in taking ownership of one's responsibilities, and also one's dereliction of duty. Notice there were crickets chirping on the side of local officials and "planners" when the complaints started after the citizenry realized what had been done to them.
You can't fool all of the people, all of the time. There are still plenty of people living in this area with backgrounds areas that require high levels of education and experience, and when an amateur treads into their field of expertise, they recognize it in a minute. This bridge issue is something that did not have to be an issue, it is because some weasely men did not bother to do their jobs, they were too busy wheeling and dealing and fancying themselves Donald Trumps, to fulfill their obligations to the taxpayers. I'd like to point out that the real Donald Trump has had numerous bankruptcies.
Logged
