Back to the future: 80 years of green growth, gone
The bridge in 1930; see inside for 2008 matching photo
July 25, 2008
by Christine Yeres
Local architect and resident Chuck Napoli unearthed the above photo of the Route 120 bridge taken when it first opened in 1930.
As you can see, eighty years ago the new bridge was a stark presence on the landscape. Napoli, a staunch and vocal opponent of the New York State Department of Transportation project to rebuild the Route 120 bridge, slated to begin in September, has most recently spotlighted the first victims of the project, the mature trees on either side of the bridge.
During Saturday’s “Family Fun Day” in downtown Chappaqua, Napoli and the “Concerned Citizens of Chappaqua ” will raise awareness of the trees’ precarious predicament by encouraging residents - adults as well as children - to tie bright plastic danger ribbons on the trees targeted for removal (see Photo Gallery). This old-fashioned protest, Napoli suggested, will demonstrate “what it looks like to love where you live.”
An old-fashioned protest, the ultimate in tree-hugging
Napoli has invited residents to gather on Saturday at 11:30 a.m. at the flagpole on the triangle in the center of downtown. From there, each participant will be assigned a tree to mark with the plastic ribbon. Protesters will also take pictures and pass out flyers.
Napoli’s campaign to persuade town and state officials that the bridge ought to be more tailored to the Chappaqua Hamlet’s needs and small-town look has taken him from town board meetings to appointments with officials in Albany and back again to town hall. His point: the bridge need not be so wide – wider, he says, than the Route 100 bridge to Somers. The Route 120 bridge is currently 40.7 feet wide while Route 100’s is 54 feet; the new Route 120 bridge is just shy of 60 feet. Moreover, he insists, the extra lane to be added to the bridge will do little or nothing to resolve the hamlet’s traffic problems. (See the three measurements in photo, below.)
Both town and state officials argue that the additional width is necessary in order for two-way traffic to be maintained throughout the estimated two-year construction process of the $17 million bridge.
Click here for a printable view of this article.
Click here to read more Government articles.Click here to read more Town articles.
Click here to send a copy of this article via email.
We're interested in your opinion. Click here to submit a comment on this article, or any other.
