Clearance Rules establish the minimum safety distance various obstacles must be from a bike trail or path (signs, trees, and structures of all types). They have been adopted for bike trails and shared use paths for the safety and protection of all users and persons and property nearby. Etiquette Rules for their use have also been adopted and should be enforced for both the safety and the comfort (sense of safety, security or aesthetics) of trail users.  All major standard-setting guidelines state that a 3-foot clearance is required from a bike path to any stationary objects.

 . .

 Bike Schenectady, our City’s Bicycling Infrastructure Master Plan, establishes such a 3-foot clearance for Schenectady’s bike and shared use paths, as do the relevant federal and state authorities, following the guidelines given in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO Bicycle Guide); the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD); and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines.

• A shorter clearance means a smaller safety buffer for persons on or along the trail, providing less space for emergency and discretionary stops, and a smaller recovery area if pedestrians, cyclists, or others are run off the trail.
• Fast-moving bikes and motorized bikes that are wider and heavier than traditional bicycles increase the risk created by inadequate buffers and clearances, as does the consistent failure of cyclists to alert pedestrians (by bell, horn, or voice) that they are approaching.

 The one-third-mile distance across Riverside Park has about two dozen trail clearances that are below the 3-foot standard clearance from the edge of the Trail to both pre-existing and new stationary obstructions (trees, signs, utility poles, trash cans, curbs, a giant pair of entry pillars, a Cycle! stand, and more). As a result, Riverside Park’s path has become even more dangerous and disrupting than I feared and discussed in detail in 2017, when its conversion to a transportation-oriented Shared Use Path was first proposed, after generations as a leisure-recreational path for low-key park uses.  It is hazardous for users of all ages and skill levels, whether cycling, walking, skateboarding, rollerblading, dog-walking, stopping to chat, viewing sunsets, or using wheelchairs, buggies or strollers.  Indeed, for the reasons detailed in the posting linked above, both cycling and walking advocates have for very good reasons discouraged converting pedestrain paths to shared-use paths.

 . . traditional uses along the Park pathway . .  

The images below show and describe clearance violations along the Riverside Park shared use path. Click on them for a larger image.

. .

• WIDE ENOUGH? We’re assured by local officials that the Bike Trail meets width standards. But, they ignore guidelines in AASHTO (2012, at 5.2.1) stating that, for a two-directional shared use path, “Wider pathways, 11 to 14 ft (3.4 to 4.2 m) are recommended in locations that are anticipated to serve a high percentage of pedestrians (30 percent or more of the total pathway volume).” Unless the shared use path scares away even more pedestrians, they will surely constitute at least 30% of the trail users at Riverside Park, requiring the path be more than its current width of ten feet to meet best practices recommendations. 
  • In a recent Daily Gazette Readers Forum column (March 26, 2026), Art Clayman, president of the cyclist advocacy group Cycle Schenecady, wrote that “12-or 14-foot designs [are] needed to safely accommodate e-bikes, adaptive cycles, and families.”
     

 

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? Is there a remedy for the many safety hazards along the Riverside Park path? Most of the hazards cannot readily be removed (e.g., majestic shade trees, massive entry pillars). Given the great risk a shared use path creates to the nature of this treasured Park and the very minimal benefits even to cyclists (i.e., a few moments along the river and two or three fewer blocks on historic Front Street), the plan should have been abandoned long before it was publicly proposed. At this point, I suggest that bikes, scooters, and skateboards be walked across Riverside Park, as is required on the Jay Street Walkway and Stratton Plaza pedestrian pathway in downtown Schenectady. Cyclists can enjoy the Park and River while walking across the Path, or by staying awhile, or can use any of the streets that deadend at the Park to ride back to shared traffic lanes and the Empire State Trail.  

Click on the thumbnail to the right for other quotes explaining some of the serious reservations that Victoria Walks has about shared use paths.

. .

. .

Sorry , Mister Mayor:

You won’t convince us that Schenectady is a Smart City nor in a Renaissance as long as you keep our Lady Liberty Replica in such shabby surroundings and condition. Why not swallow your pride and announce that the two-year experiment at Erie Boulevard and Union Street has proven the wisdom of the original decision in the Gateway Plaza Comprehensive Plan to return Lady Liberty to Her home of 67 years at Washington Avenue and State Street.

The main sculpture base at Gateway/Liberty Plaza is at approximately the original location of The Statue and empty. Please, have the Liberty Replica moved back Home, ASAP.

 See, “Letters for the Lady” for the many letters to the editor and opinion pieces arguing for the return of Lady Liberty to Liberty Park. (Both James Wilson [to the Left] and Lance Jackson have written several times to the Gazette on behalf of Lady Liberty.) And, see “Lady Liberty is Timeless” to understand how Mayor McCarthy and Mary Wallinger created this avoidable civic and aesthetic crisis in Schenectady.

• Step-Child Treatment: The posting “Our stepchild Lady Liberty” shows how poorly Lady Liberty is being treated compared to nearby, far less significant locations in downtown Schenectady. And, “Will civic pride save Schenectady’s Lady Liberty” detailing how much better the 100+ Boy Scout Liberty replicas existing around the nation are being treated, especially the others located in Upstate New York.

Our lament last year, decrying the 1st Year of Exile, had no effect on Schenectady City Hall, here in the land of bad faith and bad taste along the Mohawk. Maybe this year’s protest will finally succeed. 

The numbers are in for September 2018, and the scary “slotsification” process continues:

For the eight months since the first anniversary of Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor, all of the increased gambling revenue over the same 8 months of operation in 2017 has been produced by Slots/ETG revenues. Slots/ETG gambling is up significantly, while both Table Game and Poker Table revenues are down.

Here are the totals for February through September 2017 and February through September 2018 (compiled using figures from the Rivers Casino Weekly Website Report):

 Slots are the most addictive form of casino gambling, and draw many of the most vulnerable members of our community. If the County and City of Schenectady are receiving more gaming tax revenues from the State because of the “improved” revenues during its second year of operation, those added receipts are coming from Slots Players alone. As we like to say around here, Grandma and Aunt Tillie are paying for your (measely) property tax reductions related to Rivers Casino.

• “Slot Machines Are Designed to Addict” (New York Times, October 10, 2013, by Natasha Dow Schüll).

A few thoughts on what Rivers is doing for Schenectady:

1. Non-Gambling Revenues. Rivers Casino is attracting large crowds for many events, with the Mohawk Harbor Marina and other amenities, and the Landing Hotel. But, those customers are earning money for Rivers Casino and Mohawk Harbor’s owners and tenants that is taxed locally — sales, food and drink, room occupancy, etc. — at a far lower level than gambling revenue. All the publicity and boosterism Rivers Casino and Mohawk Harbor garner from our business and development “leaders”, and our Convention and Tourism Bureau, is profiting Rush Street Gaming, Galesi Group, and their associated businesses, far more than local property tax payers.
2. Substitution/Cannibalization Effect.Non-gambling revenues at Mohawk Harbor are clearly taking dollars from other local businesses in the entertainment and leisure markets, surely leading to job reductions and business closing. [see a Casinos are Good for Business Poster used in Ontario, Canada]
3.  Problem Gambling Prevention. The County and City are still not acting to help reduce the incidence of Problem Gambling through Education that prevents gambling disorders by helping to make gambling a safe, occasional leisure activity, not an obsession or addiction. If Rivers Casino and soon Sports Betting are here to stay, we must educate our youth, and help adults learn to recognize the signs of problem gambling in themselves, their friends and loved ones, their employees, and co-workers. [More information on Prevention, here.]
4. More Information Needed. When will our local media companies start demanding numbers from the County and City on things such as the effects on other local businesses; the number of Schenectady residents getting jobs at Rivers Casino, and the kinds of jobs; and extra expenses paid for by City and County and State taxpayers that should be paid for by Rivers Casino and the Galesi Group.

• • Sad follow-up: On August 28, 2919, Mayor McCarthy left our Liberty replica in exile at Erie Boulevard and Union St. See photo on right.

• prior update (May 22, 2019): It is eight months since our first Photo-Rally, but not only is Lady Liberty not yet Home at Liberty/Gateway Park, Mayor Gary McCarthy has not bothered to make his decision known as to the future location of our Replica of Statue of Liberty. We are given vague talk of expensive repairs that are needed, but no details or timetable. Therefore, we are again calling for a Rally at Gateway Plaza to ask for the return of Lady Liberty, calling it GROOVIN’4LIBERTY. Click on the “recycled poster” inserted on the Right for a larger version. Please come, and bring a friend or two.
  •  Mary Wallinger, original designer of the Gateway Plaza Plan, who started this problem be deciding to send Her elsewhere, does not want to be blamed for shunning Lady Liberty at the Plaza, although she could surely convince the Mayor to follow the original Plan, and use her skills to design a suitable location for Lady Liberty at the expanded version of Liberty Park. Click the following link to see the many reasons Ms. Wallinger has given for exiling the Lady: https://tinyurl.com/WallingerExcuses

ORIGINAL POSTING

• The two dozen photos below were taken Friday evening, September 28, 2018, at Liberty Park [a/k/a Gateway Plaza], when a small, protest “photo rally” was held, centered on a Silhouette of the Statue of Liberty. The Silhouette Lady was a poor, two-dimensional stand-in for our missing replica Statue of Lady Liberty. The Statue had been standing in Liberty Park since 1950, and was removed for its protection during construction, in August 2017, due to the re-design of Liberty Park and its expansion into Gateway Plaza.
• The Final Report of the City of Schenectady Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan called for the return of Lady Liberty after the completion of construction, which was accomplished in Spring of 2018. (Lady Liberty was even shown in the Plan’s cover sketch.) For a full discussion, see https://tinyurl.com/TimelessLiberty .

kids with views and dry shoes

Downtown Schenectady Improvement Corporation and Schenectady County cancelled their event “Groovin’@Gateway” [page removed by DSIC], with no public statement that it was being cancelled. Nevertheless, a dozen lovers of Lady Liberty and Her Park gathered at Liberty Park around 6 P.M. on Friday, September 28, 2018. DSIC’s Executive Director Jim Salengo called me on his own initiative for the first time late Wednesday morning, September 26. Salengo told me they had, despite all of the hard surfaces at the Park/Plaza for vendors and the public, already decided to cancel the event because he feared the grass/lawns/field would be too soggy. (DSIC has been cutting the grass at the new Plaza, according to Mr. Salengo.) It did rain on Thursday and for much of Friday morning, but the forecasted sun did a great job drying out all the grassy areas.  Jim also told me he had not heard I was planning a Rally for Lady Liberty until I mentioned it during that phone conversation.

. . 

. . above: [L] Silhouette Statue of Liberty with sign bearing the theme of the Photo-Rally (click on the image for a larger version); [R] Silhouette standing at the center of the Park’s still-empty Modern Sculpture fixture, which was the approximate original location of Schenectady’s replica Statue of Liberty. The Silhouette is only 76″ tall, and has no pedestal. The replica Statue is 100″ high, and had a pedestal 7′ tall.

above: Silhouette Lady stands at the location designated by the Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan for the return of Lady Liberty, along State Street, near the CDTA bus shelter. To the right is a detail from a Final Plan rendering depicting Lady Liberty returned at that location.

. . share this post with a shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/LLPhotoRally

. . . For a larger version of an image in the Slideshow below, pause on the photo, right-click, and choose View Image in a New Tab. 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

.

As you can see from the Slideshow, it was a lovely early-autumn evening at Liberty Park, and everyone seemed to be in a good mood, including the friendly patrolman. As happens whenever I speak with strangers in Liberty/Gateway Park, there was enthusiastic support for our position demanding the return of Lady Liberty. More than once I heard, “but there’s so much room here for the statue.” My handout photo of Lady Liberty in her Park in September 2016 was much in demand at the bus stop:

BTW: Happily, the largest and grandest tree survived the redesign of Liberty Park.

Had the Groovin’@Gateway event been held Friday evening, we would have celebrated the new public space, and done some gentle advocacy on behalf of Lady Liberty. Whether Plaza patrons and revelers were warmed with craft brews or not, I have no doubt “conversions” to our cause would have come readily, AND no one would have come up with a reasonable excuse for not returning Lady Liberty to her Home.

Frankly, because designer Mary Wallinger no longer wants the Statue in “her” Plaza; or because the Mayor and Chairman Gillen want to please Mary; are not good enough reasons. Common sense, public support, historic preservation principles, and the integrity of the public planning process and the City Council review and approval process (Resolution No. 2013-206), all cry out for the return of the replica Statue of Liberty to her home of 67 years.

 In a Time Union article last March: Schenectady Mayor Gary McCarthy told reporter Paul Nelson:  “I’m sure whatever decision I make that Mr. Giacalone will be opposed to it.” The article also stated that the Mayor “will soon make his final decision public.” Six and a half months later, Mayor McCarthy is still saying he has no statement on Lady Liberty’s fate, but “has something in the works.” Of course, with no engineering or other safety issue, and no financial crisis to blame, there should be no decision to make: Execute the Plan, don’t kill it.

Mr. Mayor, you can make Mr. Giacalone and many others very happy by simply saying, “Of course, we will fulfill the Implementation Plan and return the Statue to Liberty Park, her home.” What he should “have in the works” is some funding for the Veterans Memorial at Steinmetz Park, and an apology to the good people of Goose Hill for raising their hopes that a City-wide treasure would be moving to their Park.

 The cardboard Silhouette Statue was a pale representation of our real Lady Liberty Friday evening, but seeing it at what the Plan called the “Central Sculpture and Seating” area, on or very close to the Statue’s original location, makes it clear to me that the Lady would look and feel fine at that location.  Last March, we noted at this website:

1. Every public comment about the Liberty statue was positive for keeping her at the Plaza (App. G, at 94, 110 of the Final Report), with notable support to make Her more prominent, keeping Lady Liberty at her original location in the renovated “urban plaza” area.

Mary Wallinger or DSIC staff should have noticed that for much of the day, there are CDTA buses blocking the view of the spot next to the Bus Shelter from State Street. So, putting Lady Liberty on the still empty sculpture fixture, which should feel like Home, should be fully considered, to give Her the prominence she deserve. The replica is 100″ tall (Lawrence the Indian is 66″) and could command that space, even on a pedestal shorter than her original 7-foot pedestal.

• A portion of the funds saved not buying another “modern sculpture” piece (the three rusted girders apparently cost $20,000) could surely be used for the Steinmetz Park Veterans Memorial.

Finally, as has been said before at this site:

The excuse that Lady Liberty is not contemporary enough for that Plaza is simply silly. Designer Wallinger embraced keeping the Statue in the new Park/Plaza throughout the design process. There is no symbol that better fulfills the Implementation Plan’s goal of “celebrating our past, present, and future.” Lady Liberty is Timeless.

p.s. Does anybody think the youngest and eldest members of the Schenectady community want Lady Liberty exiled for her failure to ooze the contemporary spirit? “Contemporary” often means “temporary,” but — as we like to say — in America Liberty is timeless.

. . above and below “contemporary enough Plaza fixtures” . .