BRIDGE PANEL STILL AWAITING DETAILS ON PLAZA OPTIONS [CITY Edition] Buffalo News -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Print Media Edition: Financial edition Buffalo, N.Y. Jan 21, 2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Authors: PATRICK LAKAMP Pagination: A1 Personal Names: Tauriello, Joseph A Abstract: Seven months after a citizens panel was established to reach a public consensus in the Peace Bridge debate, its members still don't know how much it would cost to move the U.S. plaza -- or whether it should be moved at all. Members of the Public Consensus Review Panel on Thursday were given outlines for three alternative plaza locations and the existing plaza, detailing impacts and constraints. Maps showed which city blocks would have to be razed to accommodate the alternatives and where new ramps would probably have to be built. The Peace Bridge Authority in 1998 selected a twin design for its bridge expansion project, which would add three new traffic lanes to help the bridge compete for North American Free Trade Agreement commercial traffic. But in October, after lawsuits and political resistance, the authority said it would participate in the independent binational review panel looking at alternative bridge designs. The authority has said it will accept the panel's recommendation. Copyright Buffalo News Jan 21, 2000 Full Text: Seven months after a citizens panel was established to reach a public consensus in the Peace Bridge debate, its members still don't know how much it would cost to move the U.S. plaza -- or whether it should be moved at all. Nor do they know how long it would take to build the plaza elsewhere. Members of the Public Consensus Review Panel on Thursday were given outlines for three alternative plaza locations and the existing plaza, detailing impacts and constraints. Maps showed which city blocks would have to be razed to accommodate the alternatives and where new ramps would probably have to be built. The panel also learned it has more time to sort through all the options as it works to recommend the right bridge between Buffalo and Fort Erie, Ont. State Supreme Court Justice Eugene M. Fahey this week said he would delay until March 27 a ruling on a lawsuit involving an environmental challenge to the Peace Bridge Authority's twin-span plan. Fahey has urged all sides to settle so he doesn't have to rule on the case. The judge initially intended to rule by next week, but he granted a request for more time after being convinced the Episcopal Church Home and Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy -- which sued the authority along with the city of Buffalo -- were participating in settlement talks between the city and the Peace Bridge Authority. The bridge authority and the city are both participating in the independent, binational review process to pick the right bridge design and plaza location. The Peace Bridge Authority in 1998 selected a twin design for its bridge expansion project, which would add three new traffic lanes to help the bridge compete for North American Free Trade Agreement commercial traffic. But in October, after lawsuits and political resistance, the authority said it would participate in the independent binational review panel looking at alternative bridge designs. The authority has said it will accept the panel's recommendation. Guy J. Agostinelli, the attorney representing the parks conservancy and the Episcopal Church Home, attended Thursday's panel meeting. Mayor Anthony M. Masiello said he expects a decision from the independent review panel by the judge's new deadline -- and he added he doesn't want to see another delay. What's more, if the panel chooses an alternative plaza location, Masiello said he will want to know where the money will come from to pay for it and how long it will take to build. "I don't think this thing can be open-ended," Masiello said. Masiello said he has been briefed on the four plaza locations now under consideration, and he's gathering information on details -- like how many homes and businesses would have to be razed if the plaza is moved. But he said he couldn't comment on the alternatives because he hasn't seen enough information. "I don't have any cost or price estimates, so I can't comment on that," he said. Members of the panel also want to see more details, primarily the cost estimates. "What we saw today helped us visualize the physical locations of the alternatives," said Natalie J. Harder, director of regional development for the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, who sits on the panel. "But we are very anxious to get some figures related to cost and scheduling. We want to get the details." More detailed information on the plaza alternatives is expected from the binational team of engineers by next month. So far, the panel has pared only a few proposals from the wish list with which it started. At the moment, the advocates for dramatic six-lane bridges -- both curved and straight -- that include new plazas to the north or south still have their proposals in the running. In Thursday's developments: The panel agreed to study another alternative, suggested by the Peace Bridge Authority, to move the U.S. plaza northeast of the existing plaza to accommodate a companion span. Some 165 homes and businesses now stand where the authority suggested moving the plaza, the authority has said. The panel eliminated one alternative: a companion span bridge north of the existing Peace Bridge that would land in a new northern plaza. The authority's favored twin-span plan calls for a companion span south of the existing 1927 Peace Bridge. The panel also preserved an alternative to locate the plaza south of the existing plaza, despite one member's attempt to eliminate it from consideration. Under that alternative, the plaza would be moved south to accommodate a single, architecturally dramatic bridge of six lanes as called for by SuperSpan Upper Niagara. Harder said she doubted moving the plaza south would be practical or affordable. So she suggested devoting the panel's time and money to studying the northern alternatives, which she said hold some promise, and also the existing plaza. "I think we need to throw it out," Harder said of the south plaza alternative. But almost everybody else on the 20-member panel voted to keep the south plaza alternative under consideration, including those backing a northern plaza alternative. Moving the plaza south presents problems, said Mark Mitskovski, who represents the Peace Bridge/Columbus Park Association on the panel. "But it's not a wasted effort," Mitskovski said. "There are novel ways to solve problems." To some, moving the plaza north presents other obstacles, such as the fate of the Episcopal Church Home. The Episcopal Church Home operates a nursing home on Rhode Island Street near the bridge. The nursing home, with its mission and the jobs it provides, is a vital asset to the West Side, said Joseph A. Tauriello, a former state senator who sits on the Public Consensus Review Panel representing the surrounding neighborhood. It would be a blow to the West Side to see the nursing home razed to make room for a new U.S. plaza, he said. "This is like going to Hamburg and knocking down the Ford plant," Tauriello said. "I'm not a technician. I'm a politician," he added. "This will be a hard sell in this community." Edward C. Weeks, president and chief executive officer of the Episcopal Church Home, said having to relocate "would be traumatic. . . . We've been on that site since 1868." "We're also realists," he said. "We'd be in worse shape if we stayed and a bridge was built around us." Caption: Chart/Buffalo News Plaza alternatives for peace Bridge The impact of four U.S. plaza locations under consideration: SEE MICROFILM FOR CHART Credit: News Staff Reporter