The Valley Alliance has submitted a dozen objections to the City of Hudson Planning Commission this afternoon regarding the proposed subdivision of Holcim land. The plan would prevent future Hudson officials from exercising their normal oversight of the Waterfront, representing a near-total capitulation to company demands.
To read the comments, click here for the full PDF.
The 12-point objection concludes with an examination of just one vivid example of how shortsighted the City’s swap could prove to be:
Locally, there is a longstanding concern that the Broad Street rail crossing to the to the southeast of the Hudson Waterfront Park, south of the Amtrak station, and northeast of the entrance to the Holcim Dock and proposed new State Boat Launch, could be closed by CSX.
This crossing is currently an essential (if itself problematic) component to all current public and commercial uses of the Hudson Waterfront, as well as future plans projected in the City’s LWRP. Its closing would have a cascading effect upon virtually everything which occurs at the Waterfront.
In recent weeks, aldermen have reported to the Valley Alliance—and it has been mentioned in passing during at least one Common Council committee meeting—that CSX once again is making noise that it may close the Broad Street crossing.
If the crossing were closed at any time in the next 50 years, the City would be forced to adjust. It is likely that Hudson would be forced to reconsider many fundamental aspects of how its Waterfront operates, as access (emergency or otherwise) to the entire area would be drastically limited. Traffic patterns, zoning, LWRP, events, ferries, remediations, and other factors would require urgent attention due to the loss of this entrance and egress.
Indeed, throughout the development of the Hudson LWRP and its related zoning, the Valley Alliance, private citizens and CSX itself have flagged issues regarding this rail crossing.
The crossing serves as both as a primary means of access to both the Park and the Dock by larger or heavier vehicles which cannot use the Ferry Street bridge, and also a secondary means of egress from the Park area. Thirdly, it has been expected to be the primary means of accessing a relocated boat launch further to the South, even though many have noted the infeasibility of its use as such due to its immediate proximity to the CSX tracks and right-of-way, along with the difficulty of recreational and pedestrian activity sharing an access road with heavily-laden gravel trucks.
If this were to occur, all traffic to the Waterfront would have to enter and exit via the Ferry Street Bridge. This bridge is not designed for heavy haul traffic, has required costly routine maintenance over the years, and is ill-suited to handle high volumes of both ordinary civilian and intense industrial traffic.
This is an example of the type of fundamental change in the use and planning of the Waterfront which occurs in the normal course of events. It is precisely the type of change which would require future leaders to revisit elements of the City’s LWRP and zoning to address new conditions and concerns. Such periodic adjustment is necessary to ensure that an LWRP remains relevant, effective, and responsive to local needs.