Looking through the Environmental Assessment I have to date found only one letter that specifically opposed the inclusion of the path on the Scudder Falls Bridge. Ironically it came from the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission. In a letter on August 5th 2008 Executive Director Ernest P Hahn. wrote "While we support the goal of increasing pedestrian access in the vicinity of the Canal Park, because the impacts associated with the construction of the path pedestrian path we do not support its inclusion in the design of the new bridge."
Really? You are not opposed to a 9 lane highway crossing the canal's path but are opposed to the path that connects the trail to the canal towpath in Pennsylvania. Perhaps it should be rewritten to say "While we support the goal of increasing pedestrian access in the vicinity of the Canal Park we are opposed to the most effective strategy that would achieve that goal."
I would suggest that the Commission reconsider their opposition and work with the DRJTBC to come up with suggestions to minimize canal impacts, much like they did for the rest of project.
This is the legacy blog of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. It is an archive of posts from 2003 to 2014. Making your ride better since 1972. https://www.bicyclecoalition.org
2 comments:
In their defense I could see access being moderately difficult to provide on the Jersey side but I still don't see it as being cause to actually come out against the idea.
Bad call on their part.
Their statement is not grammatically correct: "...because the impacts associated with the construction of the path pedestrian path we do not support its inclusion in the design of the new bridge."
Is there supposed to be an 'of' in there?
Also, what impacts? Just economic?
Post a Comment