YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE
New Route from the Quarry to the River Proposed by O&G
Mike McCagg and Carole Osterink
ccSCOOP News
12-13-09 - 1:45 p.m. - On Tuesday, November 24, a proposal to revive a disused gravel path from the Holcim quarry in Greenport to the deep-water dock on the Hudson was presented to the Greenport Planning Board. The path would take trucks loaded with gravel off Hudson city streets and route them more or less as the crow flies along what was once a railroad bed, crossing in the process Route 9 and Route 9G.
Since 2005, when Holcim, then St. Lawrence Cement, was denied critical permits by the NYS Department of State to build a massive new cement plant in the Becraft Mountain quarry, a Connecticut company called O&G, in a lease agreement with Holcim, has been removing aggregate from the quarry and hauling to the river where it is loaded on barges. |
|
The access road going east from Route 9 |
The trucks, which now enter Hudson on Route 23B and travel along Green Street, Columbia Street, and Front Street to the dock, have been a major source of concern for the City of Hudson. They are considered a safety hazard to residents, and their weight is damaging the infrastructure below the roadway. There have also been complaints about the trucks “jake” braking on Front Street as they approach the area of the train station and the railroad crossing.
Although the heavy trucks loaded with aggregate pose definite safety and environmental concerns for the City of Hudson, the Greenport Planning Board had its own safety and environmental concerns over a plan that would turn a single-lane path into a two-lane road crossing two highways en route from the quarry to the river.
The proposal was presented to the Greenport Planning Board by Patrick Prendergast, an engineer representing O&G. According to Prendergast, approximately 70 loads of aggregate would be hauled to barges each day, which would mean 140 truck crossings of Routes 9 and 9G. He reported that he has already met with the NYS Department of Conservation (DEC), the NYS Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Army Corps of Engineers. Prendergast said the DEC declared the project a Type II action, requiring no further SEQR review, and issued a permit for the project on October 30, 2009. He also reported that the DOT’s only conditions for approval were widening the shoulders of Routes 9 and 9G at the truck route intersections and installing “truck crossing” warning signs. Prendergast told the board that O&G intends to improve on DOT’s recommendation by installing flashing lights on the signs.
Regardless of the promise of enhanced warning signs, members of the Greenport Planning Board raised several concerns about the safety of the crossings. |
|
The proposed route from the quarry to the waterfront
—Illustration from City of Hudson Draft LWRP |
Michael Bucholsky said he thought the Route 9 crossing was dangerous and said he didn’t believe Prendergast’s statement that the site distance south of the proposed crossing was 1,000 feet. “You’ve got a corner there, and there have been several bad accidents,” he said.
“We definitely want to take a look at that,” said George Super. Bucholsky added that, with the truck traffic from the nearby businesses, it would be a very busy intersection with a great potential for accidents. Greenport firefighter and former Second Assistant Chief Paul D’Onofrio said, from the audience, that there have been a number of accidents along that stretch of Route 9.
Planning Board Chairman Don Alger also raised concerns about the Route 9G crossing, saying that cars come off nearby Mount Merino Road “at 60, 70 miles per hour.”
Bucholsy, who said he had frequently hunted in the area in the past, raised questions about the location of wetlands near the Route 9 crossing, saying he believed they were closer to the proposed intersection than the drawing presented by Prendergast indicated. The engineer responded that DEC had reviewed the proposal and didn’t find the wetlands to be that close.
Prendergast was asked to report back to the Planning Board in December to address the safety and wetland concerns and to update the board on what actions Hudson is taking.
Meanwhile, in Hudson, the draft LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Program) presented to the Common Council for consideration on Monday, December 7, supports the use of the “causeway”—the section of the proposed route heading west from Route 9G through South Bay—as a way to reroute trucks carrying aggregate off city streets.
Dump truck traffic associated with aggregate shipments via portions of the State designated truck route and other City streets to the waterfront has resulted in serious and significant adverse impacts to the communities along this truck route. . . . Adverse impacts from this truck traffic include increased noise and vibration from trucks experienced by residents and vibration of structures in close proximity to the truck route; safety concerns related to trucks traveling through residential districts; potential adverse human health and environmental impacts from diesel fuel emissions; and damage to City streets and infrastructure. The City supports plans proposed by Holcim (US) and its tenant to reroute dump truck traffic from the Holcim mine in Greenport, New York, to the deep water port via the South Bay causeway. Use of the causeway will eliminate dump truck traffic through the City’s most disadvantaged and densely populated neighborhoods thereby providing significant health, safety and environmental benefits to these communities. Upgrades to and use of the causeway will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal laws.
—City of Hudson Draft LWRP, pages 24 and 25 |
|
The route heading east from Route 9G
The route heading west from Route 9G through the South Bay |
An alternative route for the trucks carrying aggregate was also the subject of a Generic Environmental Impact Study (GEIS), the draft of which was also presented to the Council on December 4. The study, which started with the “causeway” as the solution supported by the City of Hudson as indicated in the draft LWRP, analyzed six alternatives to this route.
Only one of the alternatives was found by the study to be a viable alternative: Alternative 3. A specific variation of this route—Alternative 3C—has the support of several aldermen and many members of public. By this route, trucks would travel from Route 9G to the on-grade crossing over the railroad tracks by way of a new public road through the abandoned LB Industries property. Supporters of this alternative see it as a way not only of solving the immediate problem of getting gravel trucks (and salt trucks in winter) off Hudson’s residential streets but also of enabling the preservation and renewal of the South Bay as a recreational resource and providing a much needed gateway to the waterfront.
Mayor Scalera pitched the idea of constructing a public road skirting the north edge of the South Bay to the Council earlier this year, but the first step in realizing the plan involved purchasing the abandoned LB Industries building and demolishing part of it to make way for the road. When it was discovered that the Restore NY funds, which the mayor hoped to use to finance the first phase of the plan, could not be used to purchase property, the plan was effectively abandoned. |
|
Alternative route from Route 9G to the dock
—Illustration from City of Hudson Draft LWRP |
Last Monday at the Common Council meeting, Alderman Ellen Thurston, who organized Hudson’s successful Quadricentennial Namesake Celebration, urged that even though one plan to get grant money didn’t work out, other sources of funding should be sought, and the plan for a properly constructed and screened road to the waterfront should be pursued.
The question of the permit issued to the project by the DEC and presented to the Greenport Planning Board raises some questions. Many observers, including Mark Wildonger, planner for Scenic Hudson, wonder about the process that issued a permit for work in the freshwater wetland before an environmental review was carried out. An examination of the permit itself suggests a possible discrepancy between the plan proposed by O&G and the actual activity authorized by the permit. At the Greenport Planning Board, Prendergast talked about the road that would support 70 round trips a day from the quarry to the river. Such a road would have to have two lanes and be wide enough for two large dump trucks to pass each other. The language of the permit does not seem to authorize the extent of work required to transform the current road to the one proposed. The authorized activity is specified in the permit as:
Maintenance and repair of existing gravel and stone roadway located within the adjacent area of Freshwater Wetland HS-2 on property owned by Holcim (US) Inc., including the excavation and cleaning of approximately 600’ of existing ditching and the placement of approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of asphalt adjacent to NYS Route 9G.
The letter accompanying the permit cautions that “The permit is valid for only those activities expressly authorized therein.”
O&G was expected to make a presentation to the Hudson Planning Commission on Wednesday, December 9, but because of an unexplained conflict, no one appeared. The next Greenport Planning Board meeting, at which Prendergast is expected to address the safety and wetland concerns raised by the board, is scheduled for Tuesday, December 22.
|
