NEW YORK SITE FIGHT: WAL-MART TRAFFIC ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED

Topics: | | Community Impact | Traffic/Sprawl | New York | | |

Our View: Walmart traffic issue needs clarification [Tonawanda News (N.Y.)]

There remains an outstanding issue surrounding the traffic study for the proposed Walmart Supercenter in North Tonawanda, though at this point we can’t figure out why.

After extensive interviews with both Frank Budwey and the city’s engineering consultant for the project, Drew Reilly, two very different stories are told.

Budwey and his independent paid traffic consultant, Andrew Wolfe, contend that they have not received some important traffic “output” files that offer insight as to the nuts and bolts of the traffic patterns surrounding the proposed Walmart site.

Reilly — a veteran planner who has worked on behalf of numerous communities where Walmart has sought to build or expand — says NT First has received every ream of traffic documentation on file. Furthermore, Reilly tells our editorial board that the city has instructed him to turn over any document pertaining to the Walmart project to any member of the public seeking a copy.

We see no reason to disbelieve Reilly and his years of experience dealing with Walmart. And if the city’s books are open to anyone seeking to inspect them, we find it difficult to believe — save some miraculous malfeasance that has managed to escape notice during a mountain of public scrutiny — that any such further traffic files exist.

And, if they did, the odds are slim to none that they contain some “smoking gun” that would force the Common Council to reverse course on the project.

Of course, this is all subject to a court of law, should Mr. Budwey and NT First opt to sue. It’s their right and should they feel they’ve been denied access, it would be their most logical recourse.

Before it comes to that though, we’d rather see the traffic consultants get together and make sure everyone is on the same page and working from the same information.

If a lawsuit is eventually necessary, it should be on the merits of the information contained in the environmental impact statement, not on who copied what pages for whom.

Posted by Luke West on Wednesday, October 08, 2008