Saturday, August 25, 2012

Storm and Stress in Stuyvesant

Gossips doesn't usually stray beyond the two square miles of Hudson, but an ongoing situation in Stuyvesant, involving two favorite issues: historic preservation and river access, merits attention. Channel 6, Channel 10, and Channel 13 have all covered the story.

On Thursday, August 30, at 6 p.m., at Stuyvesant Town Hall, the New York State Department of Transportation will be collecting input from local residents about seven alternatives being considered by DOT in the matter of the problematic Ferry Road crossing over the CSX tracks:

  1. The "No Build" alternative will not provide any improvement to the existing conditions and will not improve safety.
  2. Traffic signal interconnected with the crossing gates at intersection of Route 9J and Ferry Road.
  3. Minor realignment of Route 9J to increase storage between the intersection and the crossing.
  4. Major realignment of Route 9J to increase storage between the intersection and the crossing and eliminate nonstandard horizontal curves.
  5. A grade separation carrying Ferry Road over the railroad.
  6. Closure of Ferry Road crossing and construction of a connector road between Ferry Road and Ice House Road.
  7. Closure of Ferry Road and acquisition of the properties west of the tracks.
More information about the situation and the threat to the historic buildings on Ferry Road is available at


  1. It’s worth recalling that one of these Stuyvesant alternatives was opposed by NYS DEC because it would put an ordinary road for light traffic, serving just a handful of residences, through a protected wetland... precisely the opposite of DEC’s position on putting a heavy haul road for hundreds of trucks through the protected wetlands of South Bay.

  2. Great point about the double standard.

    Of course everyone in Hudson must be aware that the causeway haul road was also widened in the act of being resurfaced.

    When the same Region 4 inspectors for Stuyvesant's Ferry Road looked at what O&G had done to the causeway in terms of what was allowed by the DEC's Freshwater Wetland Permit (a permit which Scenic Hudson successfully challenged in court), the inspectors played blind.

    The new road, they concluded, was simply the result of "maintenance."

    This meant that a couple of bureaucrats at the DEC - who are accountable to no one - determined the fate of our South Bay at the stroke of a pen.

    The causeway road was illicitly widened a second time following Hurricane Irene. After the storm spread the road's surface outwards (and straight into the bay's water), O&G quickly took advantage of the gains using graders. And voila! within a few months the road was now even wider.

    The DEC inspectors should have anticipated all of this, especially the mess that resulted at the culverts, but they continue to look the other way (as do local residents).

    Was there a pay-off involved? Are these double standards and seeming deals the result of graft working on unaccountable DEC decision-making?

    Unfortunately the DEC has no internal investigatory capacity, so we must accept these things as our government working for us.