The Riverdale Nature Preservancy has been awarded a grant to investigate the issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Henry Hudson Parkway . Sam Schwartz LLC is working with the Riverdale Nature Preservancy to establish an understanding of these issues. Sam Schwartz LLC is a multi disciplinary consulting firm specializing in traffic, transportation, and urban planning issues. Sam Schwartz served as First Deputy Commissioner for the New York City Department of Transportation from 1986 to 1990 and was New York City 's Traffic Commissioner from 1982 to 1986. Several other staff people have had significant careers at the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the New York City Department of Transportation, the Bronx Borough President's Office, and other city agencies relevant to this report.

This study is intended to outline the major issues related to the Henry Hudson Parkway 's jurisdiction and is not intended as the definitive report on the subject or as a legal document. While the report has solicited the experience of many current and former employees of the New York City Department of Transportation, New York State Department of Transportation, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Metropolitan Transit Authority, the document has not been officially vetted through these agencies. Due to budgetary constraints no ownership survey was done.

The Henry Hudson Parkway Scenic Byway Task Force, associated with the Riverdale Nature Preservancy, is seeking the designation of the Henry Hudson Parkway as a scenic byway. An understanding of the jurisdictional issues is essential to the awarding of this designation. Specifically, the questions include:

• What is a “parkway”?
• What have been the most significant pieces of legislation determining ownership and maintenance of the Henry Hudson Parkway ?
• What are the jurisdictional inconsistencies along the length of the Henry Hudson Parkway ?
• How do these inconsistencies unfold in terms of:
• Design/reconstruction?
• Maintenance?
• Operation?
• What is the typical approval process for changes made along the parkway?
• What are the roles of the various agencies in the approval process?
• What are the particular physical aspects of the parkway that are affected by jurisdictional issues?
• In particular case studies, how have these aspects been affected by the current jurisdictional
• approach to the parkway?

Defining the Parkway

A generation before Robert Moses built the Henry Hudson Parkway , reformers were promoting parks and parkways as critical moral forces that would produce “a desire for beauty and order, spreading a benign, tranquilizing influence over their surroundings.” [1]

In 1904, the New York City Improvement Commission noted that parkways should connect new riverfront parks being built in both the Bronx and in Brooklyn. Soon thereafter, Westchester County began to build the first modern parkway idea, the Bronx River Parkway (referred to as the Westchester County Parkway in National Park Service documents), started in 1913 and completed in 1930.

The Westchester project sparked the National Park Service to begin to define the parkway. In 1938, the National Park Service stated that the parkway (1) was designated for noncommercial, recreational use; (2) sought to avoid unsightly buildings and other roadside developments that mar the ordinary highway; (3) was built within a much wider right-of-way to provide an insulating strip of park land between the roadway and the abutting private property; (4) eliminated frontage and access rights and preserved the natural scenic values; (5) preferably took a new location, bypassing built-up communities and avoiding congestion; (6) aimed to make accessible the best scenery in the country it traversed, hence the shortest or most direct route was not necessarily a primary consideration; (7) eliminated major grade crossings; and (8) had entrance and exit points space at distant intervals to reduce interruptions to the main traffic stream. [2]

The year before the National Park Service defined the "parkway," New York City had already opened the Henry Hudson Parkway , an 11-mile stretch of roadway from 72 nd Street to the Bronx-Westchester county line. While the New York Improvement Commission had recommended the parkway in 1904, it was not until Robert Moses was able to consolidate the authority of multiple agencies, that the New York City parkways were constructed. Today's ambiguity surrounding jurisdiction over New York City Parkways has its roots in the broad powers that were exercised in their conception under the direction of Robert Moses. Moses was sole commissioner of a unified and centralized Department of Parks, a citywide department that included seven separate public agencies, interlocking commissions, and authorities. A city official serving Robert Moses stated,“[It is difficult] for an outsider to tell where the jurisdiction of one organization under Park Commissioner Moses ends and another begins.” [3]

Parklands provided Moses with the “bank” of undeveloped spaces in the city in which to build highways. At the time, parks and edge pieces of land had few champions who would slow his progress. While wearing the hats of many agencies, Moses was also able to avoid the jurisdictional entanglements that may have created bureaucratic snags. He was equally adept at financing projects, raising money for the Henry Hudson Parkway through a combination of federal funds to link the West Side Highway to the George Washington Bridge, funds for creating a “park access road” for Riverside Park, additional money saved by building through the existing Fort Tryon Park (eliminating right-of-way expenses), raising revenue bonds from expected tolls at the Henry Hudson Bridge, and funds from selling the excavated fill. [4] The varied sources by which Moses raised revenue for the building of the road indicated that this project was a complex mix of a major connector for New York City, a park access road, and literally, in the case of Fort Tryon, a “park road.” By 1937, four years after construction had begun, the Parkway was complete. But decades after the Henry Hudson Parkway was completed and Robert Moses was no longer around, even the simplest definition of which agency owned what was difficult to make.

“Built”-ing and “Unbuilt”-ing the Parkways: Article XII-B

Figure 1: BUILT AND UNBUILT MAPPING
OF THE HENRY HUDSON PARKWAY
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

As a State arterial highway—meaning a highway running through a locality and connecting it to State highways—the Henry Hudson Parkway by definition involves both the State and the local authority – the City. Determination of the responsibility for the roadway begins with Article XII-B of the Highway Law, created seven years after the Henry Hudson Parkway was opened. The article was enacted in 1944 to create a statewide system for the use of State and Federal funds in the construction and modernization of State arterial highways. [5]

Under Article XII-B, the State is empowered to expend State or Federal funds for the purchase, design, construction or reconstruction of arterial routes running through cities, and thereby attains ownership of such roads. [6] When the State attains ownership in this fashion it is considered to be “built.” The road not owned by the State is known as “unbuilt.” The State ownership of the built roads has implications for the design, maintenance, and operation of the parkway. When the State reconstructs a segment of road and makes it “built,” there may indeed be enhancements to the road.

Once State construction or reconstruction of an arterial highway is complete, the State must return “jurisdiction” of the roadway to the City, [7] which generally operates as the State's transfer of all right, title and interest in the highway. [8] In terms of operation, the City is responsible for both built and unbuilt sections. These operational services include such basic issues as setting the speed limits. For instance, when Miller Highway (between 56 th and 72 nd Streets opened to commercial traffic) opened to commercial traffic, efforts by the city kept the Henry Hudson Parkway free of trucks. [A] Responsibility for proper signage on Henry Hudson Parkway within New York City does not rest solely with state; the statute explicitly reserves for the City the right to make its own plans and control arterial highways within city limits. [9]

In terms of maintenance issues, Article XII-B recognizes that the State retains continuing maintenance responsibility for State arterial highways it has constructed or reconstructed. [10] The way this maintenance is implemented has changed since 1944, particularly with the introduction of the Leventhal Memorandum (to be discussed shortly).

In short, while the Leventhal Memorandum clearly establishes a jurisdictional order for the basic level of maintenance responsibilities among City agencies, it does not address the more complex issues that befall Parkways like the Henry Hudson– those that address the complexities involved in balancing the stewardship and preservation of natural resources with the challenge of maintaining road capacity. Rather than creating a more refined over-arching agreement crafted with all relevant agencies' participation, the agencies work together in a case-by-case, ad hoc approach to the more complex issues. An interview with NYSDOT and Parks officials revealed that sometimes the State would seek a Parks permit while in other situations they will not, with no agreement clearly stating when a Parks permit is necessary. The officials also agreed that there is in fact no agreement onwho owns parkway land and no clear right-of-way ownership. They emphasized that the right-of-way is certainly not seen as running from shoulder-to-shoulder. [19] Rather, the issue of ownership, and therefore jurisdiction for issues like maintenance and upkeep, is based on a long tradition of agency-to-agency agreements.

Recognizing the City's Authority
During the drafting of Article XII-B, Mayor LaGuardia wrote to Governor Dewey that he feared the law would prevent New York City from “acting over its own streets.” [11] In response, the statutory Declaration of Policy stated, “it is the manifest intention of the state to recognize and to preserve the powers or rights heretofore conferred upon or delegated to any city to regulate the property, affairs or government thereof, in the modernization and the construction of such arterial highways.” [12] The Memorandum filed with the bills stated, “[t]hese bills meticulously avoid unnecessary infringement upon the local government and local responsibility for local affairs.” [13] As enacted, the statute explicitly reserves to the City the right to make its own plans, acquire its own property, perform its own construction, and otherwise control arterial highways within City limits.

Whither the Parks?
Because of the relationship of the Henry Hudson Parkway to surrounding parkland, Article XII-B also addressed the relationship between the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, affirming that The Henry Hudson Parkway from the Westchester county line to Miller highway excepting the Henry Hudson Bridge [B] , provided that no portion of this route from West Seventy-second street to the Cross Bronx expressway shall be constructed or reconstructed so as to encroach in any way on or over any land mapped or used for park purposes except for such temporary encroachment of no more than ten feet in width from Seventy-third Street to Seventy-sixth Street as may be essential during and for the purpose of reconstruction or repair of the existing roadwayfollowing which there shall be full restoration of park land. [14]

The protection of parkland laid out here holds today, except in the case of a land swap that maintains the total amount of parkland or adds to it.

Clarifying Responsibilities: The Leventhal Memorandum

The definitive agreement to make jurisdictional issues more explicit is a 1983 memo from Nathan Leventhal, then Deputy Mayor for Operations, which assigns jurisdiction for the cleaning of certain city properties. By definition, however, this memorandum leaves the responsibility for great swaths of the Henry Hudson Parkway ambiguously ascribed to Parks or NYCDOT. There are parts of the parkway that neither Parks nor NYCDOT is required to clean or maintain. For example, regarding NYCDOT, the memorandum states:

The Department of Transportation shall clean those properties regardless of surface, on or along arterial highways (excluding those portions which run through parks which are deemed not to be the responsibility of the Department of Transportation) including those which are part of exits and entrances to an arterial highway, extending outward from the roadway until they reach: a) a fence or other barrier designed to limit access to the main road; b) the curb of a City street, service road, or other roadway which is not an arterial highway; or c) a cliff or steep embankment which restricts passage beyond that point. [15]

The NYCDOT maintenance work includes sweeping, striping, and sign and guardrail maintenance. Given these duties, replacing any roadside elements typically means that they come from the NYCDOT stock, as opposed to the stock that NYSDOT may use. [16] The NYCDOT has taken the lead in maintaining the Henry Hudson Parkway , both in built and unbuilt sections. The City is paid $0.75/square yard by NYS-DOT to maintain built sections, but this total does not cover the true cost. The City absorbs the difference, and they simply “deduct” the State's contributions from their costs. There is a separate accounting to track the State's contributions, although these costs are only clearly quantifiable when it comes to such instances as re-paving, where there is a clear understanding of linear foot costs. General maintenance and cleaning are not budgeted as linear foot costs, but by hours. The City does not differentiate how they maintain built and unbuilt sections, unless there is a special agreement with the State to use materials that the State has in stock but the City does not. There are possibilities for finding additional funding for the parkway through such programs as the State Arterial Maintenance Program (SAMP). The design of Route 9A has called for a special arrangement given the materials and items used in its recent redesign. [17] In addition, the State will frequently use what is known as a “where and when” contract to perform such works as repaving. These contracts are frequently performed at the end of the budget year to make use of remaining capital that will disappear at the budget year's conclusion.

As noted in the Memorandum much of the Henry Hudson Parkway roadside falls under the last category of steep embankments for which the NYCDOT is not responsible. The State will retain certain maintenance responsibilities not detailed in the Leventhal Memorandum, particularly as these responsibilities relate to potential liabilities. Most recently, these responsibilities have included the State's stabilization of fallen rock areas on the Henry Hudson Parkway . [18] In some cases, these responsibilities are delegated to the City under an ongoing maintenance agreement. But recent decisions regarding the stewardship of some of these areas have produced conditions like the State-installed rock stabilization barriers that challenge the aesthetic quality of the roadway. In addition, under the current maintenance agreement, the State reserves the right to perform its own sign installation and replacement, for example, with the City hired to maintain any signs installed by the State.

Figure 2: OWNERSHIP/MAINENANCE SECTION DRAWING OF THE PARKWAY

 The Metropolitan Transit Authority owns the stretch of Parkway from Dyckman Street , the last exit in Manhattan to Kappock Street , the first exit in the Bronx . Contained within this stretch of Parkway is the Henry Hudson Bridge , a six-lane, one-mile, bi-level arch bridge serving 14 million vehicles and collecting $17 million in tolls annually. [20] The MTA receives no funding from the State or the City for design, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of this stretch of the Parkway. [21] In the MTA stretch of Parkway, by practice, the right-of-way is considered to be close to the paved surface, extending approximately five feet on either side. Beyond this defined area, the land is seen as Parks' land. Given these understandings, MTA can operate independently: managing the toll operations, putting up signage, fixing the guardrails, and reconstructing the roadbed as they see fit. [22] But beyond the strict right-of-way, liability extends to the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation. The MTA has expressed concerns to Parks to remove part of the rock outcroppings and to anchor the remaining outcroppings.

Figure 3: MTA OWNERSHIP/MAINTENANCE SECTION DRAWING OF THE PARKWAY

The relationship between Parks and the MTA has often been complicated. In 2000, Parks sued the MTA's contractor for $6 million due to the contractors' removal of six trees, which were said to be trees from colonial times. In research done on the case, old photos revealed that 70 years ago the hillside was bare, and that MTA Bridges and Tunnels had in fact installed the trees. [23] More recently, according to the MTA Bridges and Tunnels newsletter Crossings , the “crew of the Henry Hudson Bridge and members of the New York City Department of Parks and recreation teamed up…[to take] down an 85-foot tall dead tulip tree before it could pose a hazard to vehicles entering the Henry Hudson Parkway from the Henry Hudson Bridge.” [24]

It should also be noted that in the last four years, the MTA section of the Parkway was completely reconstructed. The MTA used a new technique for rebuilding the road, involving a more expensive approach that involved a layer of asphalt beneath the concrete road surface. This method of reconstruction, according to a former MTA official, has a much longer lifespan of up to 50 years. [25] [26] It is clear that the construction and maintenance of the Henry Hudson Parkway has variation along its length, depending on its ownership and its built/unbuilt status.

While Amtrak does not own any of the Parkway, it owns much of the property on which the billboards that affect the scenic views in Harlem have been erected. In recent years, the billboards have spread north and south through the corridor. In terms of jurisdictional issues, the removal of the billboards represents a significant challenge to the NYCDOT as well as to those parties interested in turning the Parkway into a scenic byway. In recent years, the NYCDOT challenged a Fairway billboard at 125 th Street that was extremely bright and was deemed a safety concern. The sign was on land leased from Amtrak. NYCDOT was unsuccessful at getting the billboard removed, although they did put accident victims in touch with the NYCDOT law department for potential suits against Fairway. As the process revealed, NYCDOT had no authority to affect these leases. If 9A were federally funded in any way, then it might be possible to reform the aesthetic condition of the road under the Lady Byrd Johnson highway beautification act. [27]

Changes to the Road: The Approval Process
While we have discussed in much detail the agreements regulating ownership and maintenance, the process of making changes to the roadway before a reconstruction or rehabilitation project demands the involvement of several entities beyond the NYCDOT and the NYSDOT. When a roadway needs to be widened, road curves need to be straightened, or the road alignment needs to be shifted to accommodate other needs, property designations change.

Eliminating roadway to create additional parkland is simply a “demapping” process. But when land is converted from parkland to roadway, it can only occur through state-enabling legislation unless in some cases when a land swap evens out or gains parkland. Assuming that state legislation is not necessary, there is a general set of sign-offs from NYCDOT that must occur for the State to get approval. The set includes the NYCDOT Commissioner, DOT Chief Engineer (Design issues), and NYCDOT Assistant Commissioner for Permits (Maintenance). Before NYCDOT signs off, they are required to coordinate within the City with the Department of Environmental Protection for drainage issues [C] , Department of Parks and Recreation for parks concerns, and the Department of City Planning for environmental. While involved in various studies and review process, the Department of City Planning rarely initiates change.)

Connecting the DOTs: Roles of the NYC agencies, commissions, and community boards

Other agencies that may be involved with the process include the Art Commission, the Borough President's Office, Community Boards, the Landmarks Commission and the Art Commission. The Art Commission is the New York City agency that is responsible for the review and approval of works of art, architecture, and landscape architecture on City-owned property. [28] The Commission will get involved in a State project if invited into the process by a city agency. The Borough President's office holds all relevant records and maps, and any changes to maps are filed here. In addition the Borough President is frequently a useful “lobbyist” in promoting or objecting to particular changes. The Community Boards participate in a yearly meeting with the City Executive Budget Committee. The committee controls agency budgets and hearings are held to determine their spending. Community Board representatives can make their concerns heard at these hearings.

Rocks and Roles: Catchment Netting in the Bronx

Figure 4: PHOTO OF PARKWAY CATCHMENT NETTING

The Henry Hudson Parkway passes through the Riverdale community of the Bronx , one of a handful of Special Natural Area Districts designated by the City Planning Commission for special zoning protection for its unique natural resources. In 2000, NYSDOT began installing heavy steel fencing and mesh nets on the rock outcrops along the parkway in Riverdale. After public outcry, NYSDOT met with the Community Board and agreed to lower the height of the fence slightly in one area, eliminate the mesh, and provide landscaping mitigation. While DOT did lower the fence in one area, and painted the stanchions beige, the fences and the mesh went up. Clematis and ivy were planted at the base. The community remains unmollified, as evidenced at the public meeting in July 2003. [29]

People within the community began to question why the community board had not been consulted and what the decision-making process had been. As was stated to the community, a rockfall incident on Route 287 in Tarrytown had resulted in a death and lawsuit against the State. According to NYSDOT Regional Environmental Manager Robert Laravie , who came to a meeting of parkway advocates in June 2002, the project originated in the legal department of NYSDOT, which made a request to the design department to review all potential rockfall areas. [30] The liability of the State drove this project. The State is held accountable for liability suits brought in the different regions. The maintenance money to erect these catchment nets would most likely have come from the NYSDOT region unless there was a specific State program to do this work. In either case, the work would be done as a result of a “central” State directive. As a former NYCDOT Asst. Commissioner, Bureau of Permits and Construction Control summarized, “Governments ‘react,' they don't just act.” The directive in this case would most likely be followed up by a survey of areas that would be likely places for treatment.

Figure 5: PHOTO OF PARKWAY CATCHMENT NETTING

If the State feels that rockfall treatment is necessary, no community approval process is required and no series of design options need be presented. The NYCDOT would only be involved in the process so far as granting permits for lane closures while construction was underway, although they are now responsible for maintaining the area. The State can also act without Parks involvement (except for protecting trees) in this case.

Along the length of the Parkway owned by the MTA, similar embankments were not treated at the time the State was erecting the catchment nets. Parks would have been responsible for installing the nets there and, in the case of an accident, Parks would have been liable.

Rehabilitating the Historic Overpasses

Figure 6: OVERPASS BRIDGE JURISDICTION DIAGRAM

Riverdale's population is densely clustered along the corridor of the parkway. Seven historic stone bridges that were built as part of the parkway serve as local roads and walking connectors to the community's business district, churches and synagogues, parks, and waterfront. They are major aesthetic features of both the parkway and the local neighborhood, which includes numerous landmarks and historic districts. The bridges were built with federal funding for park infrastructure. The bridges are under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT, and the upstairs decks, which are local roads, are under the jurisdiction of NYCDOT.

In 2001, the NYCDOT presented Community Board 8 with a rehabilitation plan for five of these overpasses that would involve the reconstruction of parapets and fencing for pedestrian protection on the overpasses. The local committee of volunteers on the Traffic and Transportation Committee asked for assurance that the stone facade of the bridges would not be altered. NYCDOT promised that they would use where necessary a molded concrete that matched the original. NYCDOT's first plan called for replacement of the stone facade on the outside of the bridges with a fake concrete, which was rejected by the Art Commission. The second proposal preserved the stone facade on the outside of the bridges, but installed concrete jersey barriers on the inside parapets (topped with chain link fences). Before obtaining approval of the new design from either the Community Board or the Art Commission (whose approval is required), NYCDOT put the project out to bid and selected a contractor. Nevertheless, the Art Commission, backed by strong public support for preserving these historic bridges, ordered NYCDOT to come up with a design that preserved the stone both inside and out. It further directed NYCDOT to use an alternative to chain link more sensitive to the context of the neighborhood. It urged NYCDOT to consider NYSDOT's treatment elsewhere in the State -- to install a concrete core within the stone parapet and mount a steel picket fence on top. NYCDOT rejected the NYSDOT technology, citing concerns with the safety of using pins to anchor stone to concrete. It agreed to leave the stone parapets alone, and install highway-style metal guiderails on the curbs of the sidewalks across the overpasses. When asked if these guiderails could be NYSDOT-approved wooden parkway type, NYCDOT said they did not stock these elements. [31]

The installation of guiderails appeared to have been a compromise. They may have been performed by NYCDOT not because this was a standard situation for their application, but as a way of preventing the stone facing from being altered. There are existing examples of places where guiderails are used to shield pedestrians.

Figure 7: NYSDOT PARAPET DETAIL

In addition to the jurisdictional issues related to bridge structures (it should be noted that there are many bridges over built roads that are in the City inventory), the conflicts over this reconstruction show a process that lacks clear guidelines. In the best case scenario, the absence of guidelines can allow for flexible results and negotiations between NYCDOT, concerned citizen groups, and agencies such as the Art Commission. In the worst-case scenarios, the lack of guidelines results in ad hoc solutions, which may result in costly change orders, legal entanglements, and aesthetically-compromised designs. For instance, guidelines may have promoted a special maintenance agreement with NYSDOT to use their construction methods and their materials without costing the city extra money.

It should also be noted that this project also involved the replacement of signs installed on the outside of the bridges. Because current NYS parkway guidelines avoid installation of signs on historic bridges, in favor of ground mounted signs that preserve the view of the bridges, the community asked NYCDOT if it could do this on this project. The NYCDOT said they had no problem with this, but the request would have to be made to NYSDOT. This request is in the process of being made.

What's a Park? Defining Parkland in the Parkway Context

When the Henry Hudson Parkway was built, it was routed through existing parks and newlycreated parks. Included in the construction was substantial parkland in the low-density residential area between Riverdale Avenue and Broadway. For many years this parkland was used as a walking path and as a passive park by local residents, and in 1962, the Parks department planned a walking path that would be a safe alternative to walking in the adjacent road, which has no sidewalks.

While this path was not built, the land is still considered by some to be viable parkland. Yet with the transference of maintenance responsibility of this parkland to NYCDOT, changes have occurred. About 10 years ago, a six-foot chainlink fence was installed by DOT to prevent dumping in the area west of Fieldston Road, and in the process, restricted public access to the land. When volunteers offered to clean it up and landscape it, even with $40,000 of grant money obtained from the J.M. Kaplan Fund for the purpose, neither NYCDOT nor Parks was willing to provide consent. On the eastern side of Fieldston Road, which is not fenced, volunteers received permission from Parks in 2000 to make the “Endor” community garden. The Parks Department built Greenstreets that extend across the overpass, which it maintains, along with the planted pots, and installed a cobblestone entrance to the garden. The current Parks commissioner, however, refused to extend this permission to volunteers and refused to accept money from the Kaplan Fund grant earmarked for the Parks Department, stating that the land was under the jurisdiction of NYCDOT. The NYCDOT similarly declined to give permission, citing safety reasons. [32]

While the standard road section shown earlier indicates that Parks owns the embankments in the Parkway right-of-way, their “ownership” provides them with little means to exert authority over the land. If this land is “parkland,” what right does the surrounding community have to access the land? With NYCDOT performing the maintenance on this land, the land is not treated as parkland, and access can be restricted. The Bronx situation is also in contrast with the parkland along the Parkway in Manhattan, where volunteer-tended gardens line the Henry Hudson Parkway and the Riverside Park Fund provides funds and stewardship assistance to the Parks Department.

The parkways are uniquely engineered arteries, delivering commuters from the suburbs to the city under a leafy continuum, achieving a poetic economy of natural and civic infrastructure. At their historic best, the parkways are beautiful, pedigreed roads, realized as great civic works by the likes of Frederick Law Olmstead and Robert Moses. At their contemporary worst, the fragile integrity of these resources is endangered by the needs for increased capacity and by an entanglement of jurisdictional responsibilities managing the resource.

The jurisdictional complexity of multi-layered agreements impacts the quality of the Henry Hudson Parkway, perhaps even threatening the historic and scenic integrity of the road. The potential for preserving aspects of a road like the Henry Hudson Parkway is also jeopardized given the limited budget and similarly limited maintenance capabilities of city agencies.

One option for preserving the Henry Hudson Parkway's cultural and historic heritage is to apply a New York State Scenic Byways designation to this roadway. Scenic Byway designation would require an act of legislation and would qualify for State and Federal funds. Management agreements between State and local agencies would have to be negotiated, as these will not be determined legislatively. Scenic Byway designation would require developing a management plan – an agreement laying out the responsibilities of each agency involved – between Federal, State, and local authorities. Ideally, an innovative compromise would be crafted such that each agency is satisfied with what they are committed to and comfortable with what others are responsible for.

[A] City Assemblyman Blumenthal, through the city review process, was responsible for maintaining the prohibition of commercial vehicles on the Henry Hudson Parkway (from 72 nd St. to the Bronx-Westchester border. (Interview with William Hirsch, former Assistant Commissioner of the NYC-DOT)
[B] Article XII-B excepts the Henry Hudson Bridge because of its ownership by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). The relationship between the MTA and Parks will be discussed further.

[C] DEP would be involved whenever there is a need to understand drainage. On the roadway, water “belongs” to DOT;” once in the sewer system, water “belongs” to DEP.

[1] Boyer, Christine. Dreaming the Rational City. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 1983. p. 39.

[2] National Park Service. “ Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s: Administrative History.”Online citation (http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/unrau-williss/adhi4j.htm)

[3] Gandy, Matthew. Concrete and Clay. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 2002. p. 127.

[4] http://www.nycroads.com/roads/henry-hudson/

[5] Highway Law § 349-b.

[6] Highway Law § 349-c and § 349-d.

[7] Ibid

[8] Highway Law 345-a.

[9] Statute's legislative history recognizes city's responsibility (Nowlin v New York (1993) 81 NY2d 81, 595 NYS2d 927, 612 NE2d 285).

[10] Highway Law 349-c[7]-[9]

[11] Letter from Mayor LaGuardia to Governor Dewey dated March 23, 1944 recommending disapproval of A Int:2052, Pr: 2428

[12] Highway Law § 349-b

[13] Memorandum dated April 1944 filed with A Int: 2052, Pr: 2428; S Int: 13, Pr: 1994
[14] NY CLS High § 349-f (2002)

[15] Memorandum from Nathan Leventhal from Commissioners Ameruso, Davis, and Steisel, January 17, 1983, City of New York, Office of the Mayor.
[16] Meeting with NYSDOT and Dept. of Parks and Recreation (Jan. 30, 2003).

[17] Interview with William Hirsch, former NYCDOT Asst. Commissioner, Bureau of Permits and Construction Control (May 2003).
[18] Contract # D258648 http://www.dot.state.ny.us/reg/ r11/r11glance/r11glance.html.

[19] Meeting with NYS-DOT and City of New York Parks and Recreation Department (Jan. 30, 2003).
[20] Interview with Caren Gardner, former MTA General Manager, Henry Hudson Bridge from 1993-1995 (Sept. 2003).
[21]
Interview with Harris Schechtman, former MTA Bridges and Tunnels (Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority) Vice President of Operations, 1992-2001 (Sept. 2003).  
[22] Interview with Harris Schechtman, former MTA Bridges and Tunnels (Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority) Vice President of Operations, 1992-2001 (Sept. 2003).   

[23] Interview with Harris Schechtman, former MTA Bridges and Tunnels (Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority) Vice President of Operations, 1992-2001 (Sept. 2003).   
[24] MTA Bridges and Tunnels, Crossings, ed. Frank Pascual, Sept./Oct. 2003, p.7.

[25] Interview with Harris Schechtman, former MTA Bridges and Tunnels (Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority) Vice President of Operations, 1992-2001 (Sept. 2003).   

[26]

[27] Interview with William Hirsch, former NYCDOT Asst. Commissioner, Bureau of Permits and Construction Control (July 2003).

[28] Art Commission website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/intro.html.

[29] Information related to the catchment nets are based on articles in the Riverdale Press , including: July 19, 2001 “Activists decry fences going up on parkway;” May 30, 2002 “Drive begins to put park back in parkway;” October 30, 2002 “Residents say DOT broke promise not to mess parkway with mesh. ”
[30] Information based on correspondence between Hilary Kitasei and Robert Laravie.

[31] Information related to the bridge overpasses are based on articles in the Riverdale Press , including:

February 14, 2002, “Residents strive to save parkway's bridges;” November 28, 2002 “Critics say City overlooks appearance of overpasses;” December 4, 2002 Letters to the editor from Damian McShane , Traffic & Transportation Chair, CB 8; January 30, 2003 “Art Commission calls parkway plan ugly;” March 13, 2003 “Fieldstone saved on overpasses;” and meetings: June 29, 2001 Meeting of Traffic & Transportation Committee CB8 regarding West 254 th St. Overpass; February 10, 2003 Hearing of Art Commission of NYC and Correspondence between Amman & Whitney and Grace Belkin, manager of Bronx Community Board 8, June 15, 2001; February 11, 2002.

 
[32] Information related to the bridge overpasses are based on Correspondence, faxed memos and emails between Hilary Kitasei and NYC Parks dept. (former and current borough commissioners, Partnership for Parks, Greenstreets, and Parklands Office) and NYC DOT (Arterial Maintenance & Adopt-a-Highway)