|
Letters
Preservation of the Rector Street Bridge
Dear Community, The Rector Street Bridge is the second item on the agenda of Community Board 1’s Transportation Committee on Tuesday January 7th at 6pm at 1 Centre Street, Room 2202A. It may be your final chance to take a stand for the preservation of the Rector Street Bridge. You are welcomed to attend. You may also email your thoughts and opinion to rj_schneck@yahoo.com which will be forwarded to electeds and decision-makers. Finally, you may add your name to the on-line save-the-bridge petition at http://chng.it/5Vyjt4dk. To date, there have been a total of 2,459 signatures. Wishing all good fortune in the New Year!! Bob Schneck ————————————————————————————-
Rector Street Bridge
Things Change
To the editor:
Proposed Removal of Rector Street Pedestrian Bridge I oppose this removal, it is a daily amenity and convenience, and the reasons for removal are not sufficient, under the usual ‘balancing of the equities’ tests of competing interests; and the stated reasons are simply not credible, so are there unstated reasons? We are looking at $4M, surely this money has better use. Maybe a rebate to residents? I walk this bridge multiple times daily and surely hundreds of others. Stated reasons include recovery of footprint on the Battery Park side of West Street, for expanded athletic fields, yet such expansion can ALSO be by compromise (1) remove the long ramp north side, not handicap accessible anyway, for years, since the east side elevator was disabled years ago, so the handicap argument fails and there is the new bridge; (2) leave the stair tower south side, a minuscule footprint in comparison, proposed to be replaced by shrubbery planting area 50 sq ft?, NOT expanded athletics, a bad balancing, minuscule, plantings, vs hundreds of people and pedestrian access WITH expanded playing field access northerly. (3) Leave redundant cross-highway pedestrian access, always a plus. (4) The hypothetical need for city-side West Street subsurface infrastructure access seems a newly discovered even contrived issue, this applies to any structure anywhere. (5) Sidewalk pedestrian traffic congestion city-side West Street, is also contrived, the footings are a minimal bottleneck, there is minimal sidewalk level pedestrian traffic or destination there; my daily experience is NOT of congestion. And again, balancing of equities, residents/ bridge vs transients/ sidewalk favors retention. (6) We are told NYC Economic Development Corporation conditioned the new Thames bridge on this removal; if so, let us see the documents and then have a discussion with EDC; this temporary post 911 bridge has become quite permanent in daily usage. Things change. (7) Then there is the matter of this midwinter haste, I doubt RFPs exist for demolition or new playing fields, so this will likely take years beyond planning, as did the Thames bridge, so at least leave the bridge until there is actual readiness. (8) This of course goes to litigation, and I am told. “the law abhors a waste.’ ie unneeded destruction. Martin Heilweil
|
|
|
