Posted on September 2, 2010 by Frank Dito

Goethals Bridge as Dangerous as the Verrazano

It looks like the Verrazano Bridge isn't the only bridge that presents a danger to Staten Island commuters. Newly released data from the Port Authority shows that a whopping 2,400 accidents, or 55% of the Port Authority total, happened last year on the Goethals Bridge. Many of the accidents were rear end collisions and sideswipes, caused by the bridge's narrow lanes and the lack of a shoulder.

The lanes on the Goethals Bridge are only 10 foot wide, compared to 12 foot wide on newer bridges. In fact, AAA voted the Goethals Bridge as the 3rd worst bridge in New York because of the narrow lanes and the presence of deep grooves in the pavement from the heavy car and tuck traffic that the bridge experiences. With a replacement years, possibly a decade, away, the Port Authority is scrambling to find a temporary fix.

Recently, the lines on the bridge were repainted from dashed to solid, which prohibits lane-changing, in an effort to reduce sideswipe accidents. However, it seems that the change has not brought about any reduction in the amount of accidents that happen on the span. Besides the new solid lines and an eventual resurfacing of the roadway, the only real fix is the construction of a new span, with 3 wide lanes that will enable traffic to move safely across. Until the time that a new bridge can be built, drivers need to take care when driving across the bridge. Don't switch lanes unless its an emergency and take care to leave enough space between you and the car in front of you so that you can safely stop in an emergency. Be prepared when driving over the bridge because for the next 5 to10 years, we are the only ones that can protect ourselves from this dangerous bridge design.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on August 4, 2010 by Frank Dito

Port Authority Exposes Workers to Toxic Dust

A recent report brings to light the waste of money that has occurred in the reconstruction of the Goethal's Bridge administration and maintenance complex. In these cash-strapped economic times, the cost of the Port Authority construction project ballooned from $17.9 million to $28 million. The 56% increase in the cost was blamed on a work stoppage necessary when numerous Port Authority worker's complained of exposure to toxins.

The move was not contemplated as the Port Authority tried to save money, at the worker's expense, by leaving them to work at the facility while construction went on around them. The construction was necessary to upgrade the building's HVAC and replacement of the fire alarm system and sprinklers. The areas under construction were blocked off by plastic tarps and fans, but worker's still complained that their uniforms would have dust all over them just from walking down a hallway.

More than 12 Port Authority workers have already filed workers' compensation claims for respiratory illness caused by their exposure to asbestos, lead and other toxic substances released into the air during the construction. About 80 civilian and police employees work out of the facility, which means that there is the potential for many more claims to be filed. Many employees feel that the Port Authority put money ahead of their safety, a charge with the Port Authority denies. Unfortunately, in this current economic climate, the risk to employees is no longer going to be at the forefront of any conversation. It is all too clear that the Port Authority tried to cut corners in this project and placed its workers in a position of danger, unnecessarily exposing them to potentially life-threatening diseases. Ultimately, the true cost of this project won't be known for many years to come.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,