DOT HEARING IN STUYVESANT

Mike McCagg

ccSCOOP News

05-15-10 - 1:00 p.m. - No immediate closing of the Ferry Road CSX crossing in Stuyvesant will take place and there are no plans for the state to take ownership of the homes on that road.

That’s the message that was repeated over and over at a NYS Department of Transportation hearing before Administrative Law Judge Peter S. Loomis on Wednesday, May 12, in the latest chapter of a two-decade-old saga.

"There are no plans to bulldoze or take the homes on Ferry Road,” DOT’s Richard Peters testified. Peters is Regional Planning and Program Manager for the Department of Transportation. During later testimony, Ed Rosen, who oversees at-grade railroad crossings stated, “There are no plans to immediately close Ferry Road. No actions will be taken in the near future.”

The hearing was the result of the award of more than $2 million in federal ARRA stimulus funds to improve the safety of rail crossings between New York City and Albany, including the Ice House Road and Ferry Road crossings off Route 9J in Stuyvesant. The award of the funds—and the subsequent attention being paid to the crossings by the state—has raised the concern of town residents who have mounted a battle with the state to improve river access. During that battle, DOT officials have sought to limit use of—or eliminate altogether—the at-grade railroad crossings from Route 9J. A plan to close Ferry Road and build a connector road from Ice House Road was the subject of a memorandum of understanding between the state and the Town of Stuyvesant reached in 1995. That agreement fell apart because of concerns about routing a road through a designated wetland.

Stuyvesant residents, including Ferry Road resident John Hutchinson, have raised concerns that the state would close the crossing and claim their properties through eminent domain proceedings. They claim doing so would cut off vital river access and eliminate historic properties on Ferry Road. Two of the homes on the road are on the National Register of Historic Places.

The main point of safety concern for the state about the Ferry Road crossing is the limited amount of space between the railroad tracks and Route 9J. While a car or minivan can fit between the road and rail crossing, larger vehicles, such as school buses and trucks, are left on the tracks while waiting to turn onto Route 9J. To underscore the importance of the road to the community and beyond, more than seventy people turned out at 9:30 a.m. on a workday for the hearing about the road, which has only five residences on it.

The hearing, which lasted for several hours, saw witnesses called by lawyers for DOT; Jeff Baker, the lawyer representing land owners, and Tal Rappleyea, the lawyer representing the Town of Stuyvesant and Columbia County. In addition, testimony in favor of allowing continued access to Ferry Road was submitted by several groups, including Scenic Hudson and the Columbia County Board of Supervisors.

Representing the Board of Supervisors was Kinderhook Supervisor Pat Grattan, who spent part of his childhood living on Ferry Road. Grattan stated that continued access to the road and the historic hamlet is important for all residents of the region. Besides serving the five homes, the road is also an access point to a DEC area that provides access to the river for kayakers, as well as an area for fishermen, picnickers, swimmers, and those seeking to view the only remaining ice house in the entire Hudson Valley. A representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation, the agency responsible for bringing a halt to the memorandum of understanding that would have allowed the connector road to be constructed, testified that access should continued to be provided to Ferry Road. DEC believes DOT can choose a safe alternative to access Ferry Road without disturbing wetlands. DEC Biologist Betsy Blair, of the Norrie Point Environmental Center, testified that the installation of a traffic light on Route 9J, for example, would provide a safe alternative.” She explained that the reason her agency no longer believes a connector road between Ice House and Ferry Road should be constructed—as it had agreed to in 1995—is a change in leadership and opinion. Agency officials now believe that the one to two acres of wetlands that would be disturbed by the construction of the road would be damaged too greatly. Those wetlands are home, she stated, to five endangered species and eight regionally rare species. The traffic signal she proposed is one of several alternatives DOT officials said they will study as part of the next step in the agency’s renewed interest in the railroad crossing.

Peters stated that the agency will begin this summer or fall a lengthy and public review of the Ferry Road rail crossing that will examine needs and objectives and examine the numerous alternatives. He cited the “preliminary” options as:

• Leaving the crossing as is;
• Placing the traffic signal on Route 9J and creating turn lanes on 9J for turning into Ferry Road;
• Moving Route 9J east to create more space between the rail crossing and the state road;
• Closing the rail crossing.

“We assume more alternatives will be identified during the [review] process,” Peters added.

Because of the intense public interest in the project, Peters said that if a construction alternative is determined to be the appropriate response, construction would not begin until 2014.

Among the dozens in attendance at the meeting was Assemblyman Tim Gordon who told ccSCOOP that the state must strike a balance between safety and access to the river. “Beyond the people that live on this road, people want access to this unique property. All New Yorkers want this access,” Gordon said.

Judge Loomis said he will review the testimony from the hearing and make a recommendation to the state for the next action.

After the hearing, Hutchinson told ccSCOOP that Ferry Road residents remain skeptical of the state’s intent. “Talk is cheap. . . . I have the FOILed DOT meeting notes where Region 8 DOT Director Bill Gorton says taking our homes is the ONLY option. I won't forget that too soon, not till I see in black and white that they have committed to another solution for Ferry Road other than eminent domain.”