


Rejection of Peace Bridge companion span upsets panel that chose design
By Patrick Lakamp - News Staff ReporterUpdated: 04/24/08 9:21 AM
Disgusted members of a design jury expressed shock and disappointment Wednesday after learning the cable-stayed design they had selected for a Peace Bridge companion span has been scrapped because its height would threaten birds flying along the Niagara River corridor.
Two years ago, they were laughing about birds.
During their deliberations, somebody cracked a joke as jurors weighed the risks of picking a bridge with towers taller than the Washington Monument.
“You think, maybe, we could just put small hotels for the birds about halfway up to rest?” somebody wondered during the November 2005 meeting in the Adam’s Mark Hotel.
A transcript from that meeting noted the laughter.
But jurors aren’t smiling now. “It’s ridiculous to think the Niagara River is the one river in all the world where birds would be befuddled by a cable-stayed bridge,” said Lawlor F. Quinlan III, a Buffalo lawyer.
“I’m so disappointed I could scream,” added Martha Bliss, another juror. “There are huge, tall bridges all over the world. I don’t know why it’s not possible in Buffalo.”
The potential risk to birds arose during the 32-member binational jury’s deliberations more than two years ago –but no expert or consultant warned them the proposed bridge’s height could be a deal-breaker, the jurors said. Instead, consultants said steps could be taken to mitigate potential problems with migratory birds along the Niagara River corridor.
“We were told by the consultants and the Peace Bridge Authority that all the bridges that the jury reviewed could be built,” said Robert G. Shibley, a University at Buffalo professor of architecture and planning who served as cochairman of the jury.
At the time, Peace Bridge officials believed that, said Ron Rienas, the Peace Bridge Authority’s general manager. But the agencies took a harder look at the concept after its inclusion in the draft environmental impact statement, Rienas said.
So now, Peace Bridge officials, citing opinions from federal and state environmental agencies, have announced they are abandoning plans for the 567-foot high, two-tower cable- stayed bridge conceived by Swiss bridge designer Christian Menn. The focus has shifted to a three-arch span — which is 226 feet high.
Some want to fight the decision.
“It’s way too early to pull up the stakes and call it quits,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a written statement to The Buffalo News. “We should be fighting for the world-class signature bridge that the jury chose and Buffalo deserves, instead of settling.”
Others hailed the announcement.
“That’s great,” said Jillian Liner, director of bird conservation for Audubon New York, the state office of the National Audubon Society.
The office had submitted comments opposing the cable-stayed design because of the risk it posed to threatened bird species.
“We’re not opposed to expanding the bridge but had concerns over the selected design because of its height,” she said. “Certainly the height of it increased the risk, not only to the tern, but other birds.”
Monitoring of birds to assess the potential impact “was really inadequate,” Liner said. “There was no concrete information to alleviate our concerns. And they didn’t have any mitigation effort.”
The state Department of Environmental Conservation singled out the common tern. The threatened species nests in Buffalo Harbor but feeds downriver near Grand Island. So terns fly through the corridor daily. Since they fly over — not under — bridges, Menn’s design could threaten their survival because it would force them to fly higher, the department told the Peace Bridge Authority.
“It is believed that this additional barrier may stress them energetically and lessen their chances for survival and their ability to adequately feed their young,” the DEC said.
The DEC also cited a bridge in Melbourne, Fla., where vehicles struck and killed dozens of birds. Others flew into the bridge.
“This very problem could occur in Buffalo if the proposed design, instead of a twin-or low-profile span, is selected,” the DEC said in written comments to the authority. “The common terns, double-crested cormorants, black-crowned night herons and great blue herons could easily have the same problems with bridge height that the birds encountered with the bridge in Melbourne.”
Shibley said he wished agencies would have been so forthcoming more than two years ago, when jurors were deliberating.
“The room wasn’t filled with environmental lawyers,” he said.
Jurors asked about birds striking the bridge, but the authority’s engineering consultants downplayed the risk. “What the bird folks tell us is that, really, they have — there’s really not a lot of literature and a lot of study on the interaction of birds with cable structures, and there is some expectation that there could be collisions,” a consultant told jurors at the November 2005 meeting, according to a transcript.
“But what most of them tell us is that it really has to do with how you light the bridge,” the consultant added. “In other words, we don’t want a bridge with cables to be unlighted so that a bird might not [see it] — there might not be enough ambient light on a very dark night for a bird to see cables. However, if they’re lit, then they can see them. They don’t believe there’s be an issue with collision.”
“They effectively said that was not a deal-killer for a cable-stayed bridge,” Quinlan, the juror, said. “We were not led to believe that any of the designs would be negative from a bird perspective,” said Jeff Belt, another juror. “That’s why all of the designs were left in play.”
“Did I see it coming? No, not at all,” said Ted Ogilvie, a Fort Erie, Ont., chiropractor who also served as co-chairman. “I thought these issues were all handled beforehand. During the negotiations, there was some talk about birds flying into it; but I thought they had it all figured out.”
The three-arch bridge was included among the six finalists selected from the 33 concepts considered by the jury. “I don’t think the low-arch bridge is really going to be iconic,” Belt said. “If that’s what everybody can agree to, I’m fine with that.”
“I think it’ll work just fine,” Shibley said. “It’s not the spectacular gateway to the Niagara River that I hoped for and, I think, what the jury hoped for.”
Linda Figg of Figg Engineering Group of Tallahassee, Fla., which developed the arch concept, said it includes lower-level cables connecting the superstructure to the arches.
“Each one of our bridges is unique and special for its particular site and in harmony with its location,” she said. “This one would be unique and special for Buffalo and Fort Erie.”
The proposed bridge
The offender



CD player but no power windows or locks?
The silver bullet...
This is how I have to roll down the windows...

Manual locks...

A close up...


This one is of her after our jog through some mud.
