Comments on: About those barriers on the Bronx River Parkway

By: Walter Barrett

Walter Barrett — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:46:29 +0000

After I read the article in the paper, I see that the barriers are not automatic, and need to be deployed manually. From the description, they sound like the kinds of temporary fences they use at construction sites, that orange mesh stuff. True, there are always idiots who move cones and sawhorses out of the way and drive into a flood, but what’s to stop them from doing that with this setup?

Maybe they should use the money to dredge silted-up parts of the Bronx River, so that it can handle higher water volumes, and do more proactive cleaning of the storm sewers.

Just a thought…

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:31:14 +0000

Are kidding me? This is just another example of Andy Spano and the Democrats growing the county government to expand their political machine. Lola hit the issue on the nose, the $2.65 million bond should be used for flooding control. Here is the cold hard reality, over the last decade as Democrats took control of county government and many local governments, they have jumped in bed with all the major developers and have allowed them to pave over most of Southern Westchester and add so much more concrete and so many more people and so much more traffic, that flooding has reached the crisis level. It is incredible that Democrats act like the party of the poor and are now in bed with every developer. Look at New Rochelle, where Cappelli has practically taken over the downtown, overides all local zoning laws, and builds whatever he wants despite objections from residents. Cappelli is in charge of the development in New Rochelle, not the elected officials, while all the Democrats on the City Council just let him get away with it.

By: Lola

Lola — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:55:13 +0000

How about spending the $2.6M on something like, I don’t know, maybe- FLOOD PREVENTION!

This new scheme is akin to closing the GATE after the horse is out of the barn!

Mr. Kaplowitz, correct public safety would be utilizing MY MONEY on storm water aleviation, better drainage, flood barriers, etc, not stupid state of the art barriers that will fail when CONED has an outage. Oh yeah, did you forget about all those outages during the storms?
How will the gates close then? Guess we would have to send workers out to use the saw horses that cost how much each?

And even if the County spent money on temporary variable signs, when there was a workable storm water solution at least they could be reused throughout the County for other purposes.

This scheme is just an outright waste of money.
And the SMART legislators are the ones who are thinking about the costs vs benefits and long term solutions rather than rubber stamping ineffectual bandaids.

But I am only the TAX PAYER. What would I know?

By: From Westchester

From Westchester — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:17:31 +0000

Glenn,

You may want to mark your issues index. When the time comes to buy those million dollar barriers who will be the manufacturer? Will it be part of the Spano administration’s China connection? Will a big Democratic contributor be enmeshed in the process as was the Spano plan for 450 Saw Mill River Road?

It seems to me that le Schwartz doth throw the mud quickly so that you won’t look behind the curtain. In short, cherchez la loot.

Cheers/ww

By: Walter Barrett

Walter Barrett — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:14:04 +0000

Sawhorses and cones are certainly a lot cheaper, but how long does it take to round up the highway crew, and send them out to set up the cones? Remember that they need to get paid, maybe at the overtime rate. On the other hand, would the high tech barrier work any better than cones? Could it be actuated remotely, or would you still have to dispatch someone (who also needs to get paid) to the location to turn it on? One benefit to a remotely actuated gate would be that the highway crew wouldn’t have to take time from, say, clearing clogged storm sewers, to deploy the barrier.

Yes, the public deserves to be safe. The public also deserves to have their tax dollars spent wisely. Attempting to stifle debate about spending responsibly by impugning the motives of those who are not ready to rubberstamp every proposal sent their way is wrong.

This fancy gate may be a great thing. However, if it gains the public no tangible benefit over the current way of closing the road, then questions NEED to be asked before committing taxpayer dollars to pay for it. If it’s so great, tell us why.