tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post6642011732223702255..comments2024-03-28T17:55:31.180-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: By Truck or by TrainCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-90794928406037130432012-06-28T00:02:02.274-04:002012-06-28T00:02:02.274-04:00Barb, You make a very good point if Carole is corr...Barb, You make a very good point if Carole is correct in saying "What does seem clear, however, is that the proposed transloading facility will mean a lot more trains moving through Hudson along the ADM spur, which goes through the Public Square and down behind Allen Street,...." <br />If a train blocks the track between Allen and State, the only way from most of Hudson to the Hospital, would be to go out 6th/ Glenwood blvd. to rt 9, turn back toward Hudson, over the bridge across the track, to go back to the hospital via Fairview Ave. I'm sure we have all been blocked by trains that sit there for no apparent reason.<br /><br />Emergency traffic coming up 9G would be affected by a stopped train, also, since the tracks cross 9G at grade level.<br />As you say, a few minutes could make a difference and this detour would be quite a few minutes.Judy S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00691600692126449438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-2595493906946510792012-06-26T17:07:52.243-04:002012-06-26T17:07:52.243-04:00"I wish to review these things not as a way t..."I wish to review these things not as a way to reargue the wisdom of transporting gravel by rail ..." (from above).<br /><br />Barb, my previous comment only concerned procedure, and how our officials can be fast and loose with procedure when it comes time to hoodwink the public.<br /><br />If it's possible that City Hall could be hostile to whatever your aims might be, then you could do a lot worse than heeding this message!unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-90600397255901187342012-06-26T09:52:40.319-04:002012-06-26T09:52:40.319-04:00I know it has been discussed for years, but that d...I know it has been discussed for years, but that does not take away from the fact that it is the most destructive proposal for the growth of Hudson. And, it does not take away from the fact that it puts individuals (children included), needing emergency service to the hospital at great risk, as ambulances will have to route around the train tracks, taking valuable minutes away in life or death situations. Does it?Barbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15502515434454023349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-48064250749521028942012-06-26T09:19:44.124-04:002012-06-26T09:19:44.124-04:001.
The evident feasibility of transporting gravel...1.<br /><br />The evident feasibility of transporting gravel - anyone's gravel - via the ADM spur has been discussed for years, and was brought up in public comments in 2010 concerning the draft Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for the Common Council under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). <br /><br />Even though impact statements under SEQRA are required to consider all "reasonable alternatives" to any action being planned by a municipality - in that case the means to transport gravel through the city's South Bay as a component of the city's LWRP - at least one inconvenient public comment addressed the rail alternative which was missing from the review. <br /><br />That comment (at 3.1.24) was ludicrously misinterpreted. <br /><br />To the question why such an obvious alternative was missing from the city's study, the official "Response" to the question provided by the single city attorney involved pretended a misunderstanding. It appeared as if the attorney was answering an entirely different question, and that was that. The Common Council deemed the discussion sufficient for their purposes and then proceeded to finalize their document (as-yet unapproved by NY state).<br /><br />As with the entire impact statement, these less than forthcoming "Responses" were conducted in the name of the asleep-at-the-wheel Common Council, which was acting as SEQR "Lead Agency." (City Hall providing the planning and legal advice, as usual.)<br /><br />I wish to review these things not as a way to reargue the wisdom of transporting gravel by rail, but only to remind everyone of the procedural shoddiness that accompanies so many of the controversial actions undertaken by this city.<br /><br />2.<br /><br />Today the Common Council will likely become SEQR Lead Agency in another debacle which is rapidly shaping up, this time concerning the North Bay.<br /><br />The earliest stage of a SEQR review calls for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for all actions undertaken by a municipality (excepting true emergencies). <br /><br />I'm relieved to be able to report that there's no threat of a full environmental review in the North Bay, which is anyway required when creating an LWRP. <br /><br />But what people should be very aware of is that the first stage of the EAF is meant to be written by the "agency" which intends the action. <br /><br />The AGENCY currently planning the direct action is the Office of the Mayor. <br /><br />The ACTION that's currently under review, the one that's being discussed behind semi-closed doors, is the razing of the historical fisherman's shacks at the North Dock Tin Boat Association (a.k.a. "Furgary").<br /><br />We know that we can count on the insufficiency of the first part of the EAF, and likely its dishonesty. The acting agency will avail itself of every short-cut and mischaracterization available to circumvent an honest reporting under SEQRA. As we learned during the last SEQR review, there are never adverse consequences that can result from their ambitions; such types having no compunction about rubbing out history, ecology, rights (you name it) in order to achieve their ends.<br /><br />However, the rest of the EAF is the responsibility of the Lead Agency, which will invariably be the Common Council in this case.<br /><br />What I really want to say is that signing a petition on behalf of the former occupants of the Furgary community is simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH. <br /><br />Just as we now forgetfully discuss the once "unreasonable" ADM spur, in a year's time we'll be discussing what looked to have been feasible after all concerning the preservation of the Furgary cabins.<br /><br />Please let your representatives on the council and the Common Council President hear your defense of the Furgary cabins from the municipal vandalism now being planned. <br /><br />Also, please somehow avail yourselves of the creative alternatives being discussed in private emails concerning the future uses of these structures. <br /><br />For further information on EAFs:<br /><br />http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/45586.htmlunheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-5403208109325723292012-06-26T07:05:12.200-04:002012-06-26T07:05:12.200-04:00This is absolutely the most destructive proposal f...This is absolutely the most destructive proposal for the growth of Hudson I have heard yet! Also, it puts individuals, needing emergency service to the hospital at great risk, as ambulances will have to route around the train tracks, taking valuable minutes away in life or death situations. I say we really need to revolt as a community on this one.Barbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15502515434454023349noreply@blogger.com