The truth of this adage is demonstrated over and over in Hudson, the most recent example being the efforts of the Common Council ad hoc Truck Route Committee.
At last night's meeting of the committee, Councilmember Margaret Morris (First Ward), who chairs the committee, started off by presenting revisions she had made to the letter she proposed sending to the NYS Department of Transportation. The revisions transform the letter from a request for changes to a request for information regarding the process of effecting "changes being considered." The red line version of the first paragraph is reproduced below; the entire letter can be found here.
Morris also presented a chart of mitigation ideas. That chart appears below. Click on the image to enlarge it, or click here to see the chart on the City of Hudson website.
Some of the mitigation strategies in the "DPW/HPD" column were questioned by committee and audience members. Linda Mussmann, Fourth Ward supervisor, opined that improving the pavement would have no effect because the problem was the weight of the trucks. To refute the idea of painting centerlines on all truck routes, DePietro texted DPW superintendent Rob Perry who explained why there are not currently centerlines on the streets, the reason having to do with the need for travel lanes to shift to accommodate parking. The notion of installing traffic lights at Warren Street and Park Place and at Worth Avenue and Union Street was questioned by a Worth Avenue resident who asked about the environmental impact of traffic lights, possibly fearful that trucks would be idling in front of her house, waiting for the light to change.
It was at this point that DePietro expressed the opinion that the committee had "lost its way" and was "not confronting the real issue, which is all the truck traffic." He asserted that the effort to eliminate one of the two truck routes "doesn't help the city at large."
Susan Meyer, who lives on Worth Avenue, said she had been "alarmed to see the conversation with the adjoining towns abandoned." Morris told her they were focusing on "things that we can resolve in the short term." She pointed out that Greenport and Claverack had "completely rejected Option 12," the route that uses existing roads to get trucks from one part of Greenport to another without passing through the City of Hudson. The conversation with Greenport and Claverack happened in February, in a meeting that was not open to the public.
Although discussing the Colarusso gravel trucks had been verboten for the committee while the lawsuit brought by Colarusso against the Planning Board was ongoing, it seemed the gravel trucks were back on the table now that there's been a ruling in the case. Jason Foster, who lives on Green Street, implored people "to ask the Planning Board to take action." The action he urged was approving the proposed Colarusso truck road from the quarry to the river. On June 27, Mussmann made a similar appeal on her Facebook page, asking her followers to "stand up--speak out--and lets make a decision to permit Colarusso to use the HAUL ROAD now--it is time."
These appeals ignore many things. Colarusso could be using their proposed "haul road" right now if they would just complete the segment through Greenport without insisting that they have to do the whole road at once. Even if their truck road were approved, Colarusso still reserves the right to route its trucks on city streets. The average number of daily truck trips increased from 48 in 2016 to 114 in 2019 and, by Colarusso's own estimate, could increase to 284 daily truck trips. Approving Colarusso's proposed truck road would bring relief to folks who live the current route, but it would also compromise the ecology of South Bay, introduce dangerous crossings at the two major arteries into the city, and enable an increase in the activity at the dock that would compromise the enjoyment of the riverfront park and undermine the economic revival of the waterfront area. The goal of getting the gravel trucks off the streets of Hudson could also be accomplished if the Planning Board simply denied Colarusso the conditional use permits they need.
The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 11, at 6:00 p.m.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK
Colarusso claims that a federal statute prevents the Hudson Planning Board from imposing ANY upper limit on the volume of truck traffic. Thus, the approval of the proposed haul road opens up the possibility of an industrial nightmare on the waterfront. The company has stayed in the review process for seven years, and has made a huge investment in legal and engineering costs, so it's clear that they have major ambitions for a big waterfront operation.
ReplyDeleteIt's been seven long years, and because of Colarusso's lawsuits and evasions, the Planning Board has yet to review even one impact to our City. The engineering firm Barton & Loguidice produced a comprehensive list of serious impacts that are awaiting review, yet none of them has been scrutinized by the Board.
Hudson has a really attractive option: Opt for the 'Win'Win' situation, where we deny the Colaruss permits, and get the noxious truck traffic off the riverfront and out of the neighborhoods.
Permitting or approving any enlargement or paving of the gravel road that exists now would be insane. The immediate solution is to ban any large, heavy truck traffic on city streets off the state truck route. This can be easily and immediately done with a local law. The gravel trucks can use the existing gravel road now the way it is. If it restricts the amount of trucks they can run down there, all the better.
ReplyDeleteThe current industrial use of the waterfront doesn't benefit the city in any way. It is an antiquated remnant of Hudson's beleaguered, polluted past. The council needs to stop tip toeing on eggshells around Colarusso, get a backbone and do something about it.
Not everyone is aware of this, but in 1982 the Hudson Common Council voted unanimously against any further development in South Bay. After the construction of the huge L & B furniture factory on the north edge of the Bay, there was a lot of concern among local sportsmen that the marshlands would suffer further abuse. The resolution passed by the Council does not have the force of law, but it was a solemn promise to the community that should not be ignored.
ReplyDeleteColarusso's is not causing any more pollution than all the trains that constantly come through the area. Have you thought about that? The city should let them use the haul road as that would eliminate a significant number of trucks from the city streets. Once again there is already a developed waterfront. Use the land where the shacks are if you need more.
ReplyDeleteNow Lew, if you read anything above (which I doubt) you would know that getting that "significant number" of trucks off the street is something Colarusso could accomplish right now if they wanted, using the road they already have. That they choose not to do so is what begs scrutiny. One might surmise that the real point of running trucks up and down Columbia Street is to pressure the city to give them what they want: a two lane, high capacity truckway that will enable them to greatly increase the volume of gravel loading at the dock.
ReplyDeleteHey Lew, here's a win-win idea: How about we get Colarusso's trucks off Columbia St. AND off the waterfront? That it the best outcome for the citizens and taxpayers here in town.
ReplyDelete