Voice concerns in letter to state parks
The mayors of Cold Spring and Nelsonville and the supervisor in Philipstown issued a letter on Wednesday (April 17) opposing plans to start the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail in Cold Spring.
The letter, signed by Kathleen Foley of Cold Spring, Chris Winward of Nelsonville and John Van Tassel of Philipstown and read aloud by Foley and Van Tassel at meetings, is addressed to Meagan Fitzgerald, the deputy commissioner of the state parks agency and Linda Cooper, the regional director.
State parks is partnering with Scenic Hudson, an environmental nonprofit based in Poughkeepsie, to construct the HHFT, which is proposed to run from Cold Spring to Beacon along the Hudson River. It is the lead agency in the environmental review of the project.
“Having the actual trail enter the Village of Cold Spring by any route would irreversibly change the landscape, viewshed and character of the village as well as the experience of all Philipstowners who consider Cold Spring the heart of our town,” the three elected officials wrote. “The trail’s necessary size, scale and construction requirements, particularly to meet the accessibility goal identified by the HHFT design team, would be outsized for our small residential village.”
The officials asserted that creating a gateway to the trail in Cold Spring, especially a proposed route beginning at the state-owned Dockside Park, would itself become a tourist destination, creating “an unbearable, unsustainable increase in visitor volume that no number of trash cans and toilets will offset.”
Instead, the letter advocates simple, “residentially scaled” paths and sidewalks from Cold Spring to an HHFT entrance north of the village, describing that approach as “far more appropriate to our historic, livable community.”
Foley said the letter represents the views of the three officials but not necessarily of the Village Board. (Van Tassel said the same about the Town Board.) On Wednesday, Cold Spring Trustee Aaron Freimark remarked that he would have appreciated receiving a copy of the letter before the meeting.
“It is your right to act unilaterally,” he said. “But as a courtesy, we’re reminded that we work together as a board.”
“I accept your good feedback,” Foley responded. “At some point, we need to calendar this as a public discussion.”
Foley also read comments into the record from an April 3 statement by members of the HHFT Data Committee, which includes two Cold Spring residents and Winward, that was critical of HHFT.
Thanking the Data Committee for its work, Foley said: “We picked people who know their fields and bring expertise ranging from data analysis to public administration to legal perspective; I wanted that to be part of our record.”
In a statement on Thursday (April 18), MJ Martin, director of development and community engagement for HHFT, wrote: “HHFT, along with state parks, has been in continued conversation with municipal leadership on the project. Both the letter by the supervisor and mayors and the media statement by the Philipstown members of the Data Committee came abruptly, in the middle of an ongoing process meant to gather information and understand community members’ priorities.
“It was surprising to learn municipal leadership is taking this stance, as local support for the Shoreline Trail is well documented in both a survey administered by HHFT and a recent independent survey by a Cold Spring resident. Philipstown, including the villages, is a community composed of diverse viewpoints. It is important that all voices be heard.”
On Wednesday (April 17), Supervisor Van Tassel also disclosed siting restrictions from the Metropolitan Transit Authority that would limit trail construction adjacent to Metro-North tracks:
“We did also meet with Metro-North representatives today to discuss possible access along the railroad tracks and, my opinion from that meeting today, is that’s not something that is going to happen because they’re looking at rising sea levels, they’re looking at having access to their tracks, to their rail. As they put it, they’re in the business of moving trains, not hiking and hikers… Their priority is the railroad and making it work… They [Metro-North] have some major upgrades that they’re doing by Mayor’s Park and they need both sides of the track to do it, they need both rails operable.
“I just don’t see there being any opportunity for HHFT to put their trail along that section either… with the flooding there… and there is some concern about the railroad having water access… and if HHFT’s trail is there it eliminates [Metro-North] from accessing the tracks from the river and that whole section of the causeway. They [Metro-North] have some major upgrades, if they needed to bring in barges or any types of material they would not have that because the trail would eliminate it… The engineers were on there today, and they were describing, well there’s a lot of transmission wires underground that follow the tracks that need to be accessible.”
Thank you for sharing this information. It is important that all residents hear from Metro-North, as well as other experts.
It’s gratifying to finally hear in — my eight-years of advocacy against this intrusive development juggernaut, that local officials, excepting one aberrancy, have studied carefully — weighing the (mostly) consequences and (utter absence of) benefits of the tourist park, to chime in against the myopic and selfish interests of a few individuals, in deference to what’s in the best interests for our collective community. It will be interesting to see if HHFT will heed this sentiment, or continue to threaten to build ‘it’ on top of us, like as not.
In my time as Philipstown supervisor, I would inform and involve my board of actions that demanded their input. I not only “accepted” their input but welcomed and always valued it. This necessary collaboration is critical to democracy. A lot of information has been put out that is inaccurate. The Visitation Data Committee makes assertions that are untrue and don’t serve the residents of our town. Were the board members consulted before the release of two very public statements?
For the three local leaders to unilaterally come out with an opinion without consulting their boards flies in the face of the democratic process and disenfranchises their board members and, by extension, their constituents. This is not helpful to the process nor is it respectful of democratically elected boards. Since when were the two villages and the town only represented by three people?
Shea is a member of the board of the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail Inc.
Kudos to the mayors/supervisor for writing their concerns over the impact of the proposed Fjord Trail and desiring a more conservative solution. I find it interesting that the HHFT people call for “all voices to be heard” when they have clearly not done so in their polished marketing sessions with the public. Instead, Philipstown can provide town hall meetings to which the HHFT could be invited; then they couldn’t pick and choose which questions they want to answer.
This is a project with huge consequences for our area; it would behoove them to lay all their cards on the table, including the cost to maintain it, the fact that the trail will not be bikeable to Beacon, and that roundabout traffic circles are being considered “to keep traffic moving” in a slim and environmentally sensitive area. Yes, there is a need to resolve traffic issues, but there is more than one way to do so, which will involve far less expense, be less damaging to the environment, and attract far fewer people.
This is good news. I applaud the mayors and supervisor for taking this stance. Being a leader is hard sometimes. You can’t please everybody, but standing back and looking at the enormous impact of what will happen if the “trail” is built as envisioned by the nonprofit planners. No one wants to leave a legacy of supporting something that will have severe consequences later, both financially and changing the area as we know it. Sure, they will lose support from some. But in the long run, putting the brakes on this will be good. Now maybe we can get back to the original intent of a trail and not a bazillion-dollar white elephant. Thanks again for being true leaders.
Richard Shea alleges: “A lot of information has been put out that is inaccurate. The Visitation Data Committee makes assertions that are untrue and don’t serve the residents of our town.”
When an accusation as such is made, especially by a prior supervisor, I expect it to be backed up. I, for one, trust that our volunteers have worked overtime to learn the facts as thoroughly as they can. I trust that they, as well as our leaders, have the village residents’ best interests at heart. So, what are you saying, Richard Shea?
I am devastated to see how many vocal people oppose such a wonderful concept. I have been looking forward to walking or biking from my house in Beacon to Cold Spring for years. I can’t express how much I hate being dependent on cars and this trail is such a game-changer for people who don’t want to drive on 9D. Or local disabled people who want to be able to enjoy a local trail. Or push their strollers without getting into their car and driving somewhere.
Young people especially think differently about car dependency. I would hope progressive-minded leaders would take into account the needs and desires of all generations when deciding on public projects.
It would seem to be a reasonable request to have a non-binding public vote on the access points of the HHFT by all three government bodies (two villages and towns). Surveys are just that, a snapshot. If New York State and HHFT still want to build according to their stated “goals” without true public support, that’s probably their legal right, but should they may be a different story. If it has the public support, so be it.
In response to Richard’s comment about his tenure as supervisor, I served on the Town Board the entire time he was supervisor and, after Nancy Montgomery left to become a county Legislator, I was his deputy supervisor.
Richard worked for years in the development of the trail being discussed. I never was at a table, meeting or included in an email with this group. I can’t speak for my colleagues at the time, but my guess is that neither were they. Richard would bring items to the board when it required a contract execution or an investment by the town.
I was vividly clear to the audience when I read the statement at our meeting that it was not the opinion of the Town Board. I was clear to the board that I would look to them for support at some point and signing on with the mayors and I.
I rarely respond to anything in this manner. I never utilize social media and rarely interact with critics. I was taught by Richard to rise above it. However, Richard’s comments are grossly inaccurate and offensive.
I am proud of the collaboration and cooperation that’s been established with both villages and mayors during my tenure. This work has benefited the residents of the entire community providing the ability to share services in a multitude of areas.
I will continue to work with my board, as well as the surrounding municipalities, to provide the best outcome with HHFT and every other item that comes before us. I look forward to productive, cooperative meetings with HHFT and state parks to ensure that the proposed trail serves the safety and overcrowding demands of the area and also is something the residents are comfortable with.
Van Tassel is the Philipstown supervisor.
Rail trails have been wonderful for everyone where they exist. I wonder if this opposition is from like-minded residents who would build a wall around their community. It would be interesting to learn what the residents as a whole think of the project, not the group of people represented in this opposition.
Apples and oranges. This isn’t a defunct rail line being repurposed as a trail. Those are wonderful. This is a section of railroad where Amtrak trains regularly move at 80 mph. The trail would need to be built in the river, from scratch, preventing repairs to tracks from the river side. Would you sacrifice an economic engine for a boardwalk? Looks like MTA won’t, in any case.
In this age of high-speed decision making, it is often too easy to hit send. I did just that on Friday and what was sent in haste has now been regretted in leisure. Nothing is worth damaging a friendship and I value my friendship with John Van Tassel more than any issue. I am sorry, John. I let my ego and temper get the better of me.
It appears that I have some fences to mend and I intend to do just that. And since I was so eager to mention my time as supervisor, I should also mention that I was always vexed when someone went to letter-writing rather than speaking to me directly, another crime that I have now committed. I should know better. Speaking of mending fences, considering recent developments, it would appear that the HHFT Board, of which I am a member, has work to do to gain the public trust. This is work that we are committed to doing. See you around town.
Shea is a member of the board of the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail Inc.
I have wondered for a long time why Metro-North let the project get this far. This recent statement from them (see Katherine Lukacher’s comment) suggests they have finally woken up and are facing the realities of rising water levels and will need to access the tracks from the river. Hard to do when there’s a massive concrete boardwalk in the way.
The mayors and the supervisor have every right to take a position on this topic. In fact, they have an obligation as our elected representatives. To claim it is undemocratic or somehow not representative is disrespectful to our community and just plain offensive.
All three were overwhelmingly elected and re-elected by our community. All three are some of the most dedicated public servants in our community. All three didn’t rush to this judgment, but instead looked at the data and took in many viewpoints to arrive at a position that is for the good of our entire community. All three speak for our community.
I know many folks who are opposed to the Fjord Trail for the reasons discussed in this article. They are, however, afraid to speak out because of their board positions, employment by Chris Davis, Parks, etc. I applaud these three for having the courage to speak out and hope more will follow. Let’s get real – we don’t even know how much this thing will cost us – the taxpayers.
I am glad that Mr. Van Tassel, Ms. Foley and Ms. Winward have spoken out on this issue. I know they have been working hard to get the relevant data, and HHFT has not been particularly forthcoming. I trust that Van Tassel, Foley and Winward have the best interests of their communities at heart in this matter. Let’s hope that their statement has impact and helps to shape a better solution for Philipstown and its villages.
The supervisor of Philipstown and the mayors of Cold Spring and Nelsonville have shared their perspectives on a substantive issue affecting our community. It’s refreshing to hear from those entrusted with navigating complex matters like this one. In a democratic society, informed public discourse, especially on intricate topics, is vital and in keeping with the principles of open dialogue in the public square.
MJ Martin sites the survey that Mr. Ulmer sent, and she misleadingly indicates most people want the trail as proposed. What that survey showed, in fact, is that plurality of residents, 55 percent, do not want the trail as proposed in Philipstown. Unfortunately this half truth seems to be how HHFT communicates with the public.
The “anchor question” (Question #5) of the independent Fjord Trail Survey, to which Grace refers, asked respondents which “version” of the trail they preferred. 37 percent of all respondents wanted the trail built in its entirety, from Dockside Park to Beacon. For those respondents who identified as living in the Village of Cold Spring village, 29 percent wanted the trail built in its entirety. As Joe Curto mentions earlier in this thread, a survey is a “snapshot”, and this survey was intended to be just that. A link to survey results is available by emailing [email protected].
Further to Ms. Kennedy’s point, I reiterate my view that the flawed survey’s skewed questions were engineered to only reflect personal preferences as a divide and conquer strategy — me and not we, as a community, which is the only relevant issue in planning. It is also true that many people never stopped to consider ramifications outside their own personal interests with or without surveys.
People’s personal preferences in this context appear myopic and, selfish, and should not be considered as drivers insofar as what’s best for our community, which includes the Metro-North rail corridor. It was a foolish and amateurish oversight by the planners to neglect to consider the encumbrances to the operators accessing their rail system in service to a superfluous, 7-mile tourist bridge from the get-go, which I have pointed out for eight years now. Had they ever descended their ivory tower of ‘benefactors’ to earth they may have sooner realized this utter folly.
I am not in favor of this Fjord Trail. Still, we should be listening to ex-Supervisor Richard Shea’s ultimate point: Van Tassel, Foley and Winward are executives of their boards, they’re not three people we elected to be smart and know best for the community.
As much as they can disclaim, “I am only speaking for myself and not my board,” let’s face it: Three executives making the huge gesture of speaking in solidarity are still using their leverage as elected executives, and to treat this united action as simply “their right as private citizens” is disingenuous.
I’ve been a fan of John Van Tassel as a board member and now as supervisor. He is transparent, smart and cogently spoken and so I have no reason to doubt the hypocrisy he alleges of the former supervisor’s solo actions. But the point that this project finds itself at right now is far different from the nascent stages more than a decade ago of spitballing ideas in meetings to which Van Tassel and other Town Board members weren’t invited.
Again, I’m no fan of this trail. Pretty idea. Potentially ugly outcomes, some of which we haven’t even put our fingers on. But I take Richard Shea’s point to heart and I hope others do as well. Let’s get to our ultimate outcome through true representative democracy and not by what amounts to executive actions.
I am deeply saddened by what is going on in our community at this time. While I am a supporter of the trail, I don’t think that victory by either side is worth what the argument is doing to our town and village. I have been a member of the Philipstown Recreation Commission since 1982, 42 years now. I served with both Richard and John as well as three of their supervisor predecessors. I have the highest regard for both Richard and John and can unequivocally state, from a couple of decades of close and personal experience, that both care deeply about not only the recreation facilities in the Town but also about the welfare of the town as a whole. Their opinions may differ but their hearts are in the right place.
Can we all please take a deep breath and turn down the volume? I don’t know where the point of agreement lies, but I know that somewhere out there there is a solution and that we should spend more time seeking it rather than shouting at each other.
I am so happy that we can finally have some open conversation. I have been told by friends that when asked about the 13 endangered species that live on this stretch of the river, they’d been informed by the HHFT that this had been “taken care of.” As someone who cares about everything from the bats and bunnies to the Atlantic Sturgeon that live there, I wondered if this could be clarified for us since their habitat will be cut down.
I am one of the many who are part of the silent majority that lives within the Village of Cold Spring and supports the Fjord Trail from Cold Spring to Beacon. My historic 1814 home resides within the heart of the village and I would never support a project that would compromise the beauty and character of our historic community or parks, which my family and I love so much. I trust New York State Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation.
I agree 100 percent with Peter Farrell.
Overlaying an elevated pedestrian and bike highway atop a quiet park and for two miles up the river’s edge would not “compromise the beauty and character of our historic community and parks?” Not credible. But of course it would raise Airbnb rates.
Couldn’t $210 million be better spent? This isn’t anything close to the natural trails of our grandparents. This started as restoration of our hiking trails and has been morphed into a proposed Disneyland thruway of concrete and fencing for 7+ miles.
This fiasco attraction will crush our small community of 2,000 individuals and they never even ask, “May I?” When reading these opinions, make sure you take time to ponder who is benefiting from this monstrosity and whose ego it serves. Ask yourself whose opinions here are altruistic and those who have been compromised by the long tentacles of personal enrichment via positions, posts and work over the years.
The recent funding, promotions and retirements surrounding this project can be blinding but clearly illuminates this monstrosity for what it is and who has been compensated with postings and favor. We all know who they are, you may even sit next to one or two as a volunteer or on a community board but don’t think for a minute that “your service” to community is the same as those who willingly take their pieces of silver.
Question what has happened to New York State, parks and home rule. Why hasn’t our county government and/or local Legislator taken notice of this battle of Davis and Goliath and openly supported our ability to say no? A nonprofit can’t mandate and circumvent our state constitution. It’s about our self-determination, not boardrooms, hedge funds or investment bankers. My question is, who maintains the stones to call out the egos and the deep pockets circling our community? Remember, a paid opinion is not an opinion at all, it’s an advertisement.
I’d like to clarify some key points regarding Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail’s relationship with Metro-North and the railroad’s ongoing relationship with the Fjord Trail project.
HHFT and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation have enjoyed working on Fjord Trail planning with Metro-North for more than a decade. HHFT, state parks and Metro-North are already successfully collaborating on Phase One of the project; Breakneck Connector and Bridge. This work is set to begin this fall, including substantial improvements to the Breakneck station that HHFT is helping make possible.
Naturally, as owners and permitting entities, HHFT is in regular communication with Metro-North. The project has been designed to meet all of the safety and operational considerations identified by the railroad. This includes the input and guidance received during many technical conversations, specifically about Shoreline trail. It is an ongoing conversation that will continue as the design is further developed and refined, including conforming to the 25-foot setback requirement needed for utilities, maintenance and storm resilience.
Note that Metro-North has informed us that their maintenance is performed from land, not water, in the project area. The reason no permits have been issued by Metro-North on the Shoreline trail is that they have not yet been applied for. Permits are not applied for until the environmental review is complete and we are not yet at that benchmark.
In the meantime, HHFT is advancing discussion of the recently proposed Alternative Route 6 (an extension path from the east side of the Cold Spring station platform) with Metro-North. While this would require a special exception to the MNR 25-foot setback, we are committed to fully exploring this option as an alternative connection to the north end of Dockside Park from the train station.
I urge all municipal leaders and community members to reach out with any questions they may have on the project, or better yet, join me at one of HHFT’s monthly Sunday Afternoon Chats so we can discuss the project informally and in person. Communicating directly with each other is the best way to avoid misunderstandings.
Kacala is the executive director of HHFT.
You have to marvel at how loudly and shamelessly Philipstown residents and now its leadership love to repeat, “Keep it inaccessible!” And they mean it: Keep nature physically inaccessible for the young or elderly or those with physical impairments. “Keep it inaccessible!” financially to those without access to a car or who aren’t wealthy enough to call this expensive little village home. They know exactly who they want to keep out. Make them say it out loud. [via Instagram]
I’m getting quite tired of this debate. Where are the voices who can mention the positive things about the trail and why it was designed in the first place? It’s only the “against” voices you hear all the time. Sick of it. [via Instagram]
Cold Spring is not immune to changing times. I don’t blame people, though. The village doesn’t have the infrastructure for more tourism — yet. [via Instagram]
As usual, Philipstown will scratch and claw its way to stop progress. Build the trail! [via Instagram]
To help Cold Spring cope with the unwieldy HHFT-generated tourist crisis, we could imitate Venice, which has instituted an entrance fee of 5 euros for visitors. I suggest $5 since our currencies and cost of living is in the same ballpark.
Venice also stopped big ships from docking in its canals and relegated them to nearby Mestre, where visitors find transportation to enter the city. We could have Seastreak ships dock in Peekskill and have a Venetian-style vaporetto take them up the river to our village. Seastreak can pay for this leg and collect the $5 for us. Visitors entering by train or car would pay at designated locations. Venice is levying a fine for non-compliance. We can do the same.
In the spirit of goodwill and cooperation, we could share the windfall with Nelsonville and Philipstown — but not a nickel for Carmel until Nancy Montgomery is elected county executive.
Perhaps Mayor Kathleen Foley in Cold Spring can send an HHFT-paid factfinding mission to Venice to learn how it orchestrated the collection and verification of the entrance fee. I stand ready to join this delegation. Mentioning my ancestor, the 15th-century Venetian diplomat Ermolao Barbaro, will likely gain cred with the city authorities, and I will gladly pay the 5 euros to set an example for the coming mob of HHFT tourists.
Barbaro gives good advice here. Contrary to Cold Spring’s best interests allegedly being fed by racism and exclusionary attitudes, detractors have expressed valid concerns of serious implications and miscalculations in the HHFT plan and the existential threat it represents to Cold Spring. Some advocates seek to argue for the trail from a convoluted ‘woke’ ideology that is wholly irrelevant to practical considerations and seems outright hostile to points of view other than their own.
Cold Spring has neither a prerogative or mandate to make the river more accessible to anyone and everyone. The river is already accessible to disabled, elderly and parents with strollers in Cold Spring and Beacon — why not visit those places? Many detractors, including myself, appreciate that there could be some benefit to the masterplan, but those are eclipsed by genuine existential concerns, tantamount to dropping a nuclear bomb on Hackensack.
The 9D corridor is already in a state of utter chaos and anarchy each weekend as the developer clear cuts the trees, leaving muddy drainage ditches in their place awaiting parking lots. This circumstance should outright preclude aggrandizing additional and unbridled development.
As the sole Beacon representative on the HHFT Visitation Data Committee, I am writing in response to an April 3 statement made by five other members of the committee who reside in Cold Spring, Nelsonville and Philipstown.
While I understand that some residents of these communities hold strongly felt concerns about increased visitation to the Village of Cold Spring and potential traffic congestion along the Route 9D corridor, I do not share their viewpoint that the data collected and projections calculated by HHFT’s consultant ORCA are “concerning” or inadequate.
On the contrary, my professionally-informed opinion is that the data and projections are generally solid and well thought out. We are only part-way through the overall committee process of reviewing project data and projections. As such, it is concerning to me that my fellow committee members appear to be rushing to judgment before our work is completed. Unfortunately, this suggests to me a possible preconceived bias against the project which may stand in the way of their ability to remain objective about the data.
The Visitation Data Committee was formed by HHFT to “proactively and meaningfully inform the data collection process and visitor projections to ensure that we are receiving robust analysis in keeping with established industry best practices,” as described in the Sept. 1, 2023, press release announcing the formation of the committee. Our independent consultant, Georges Jacquemart of BFJ Planning, has considerable expertise in park and trail development and has agreed that, although these types of projections are never guaranteed to be accurate because projects like these are so variable and unique, the data collection and analysis by HHFT consultants do follow industry standards.
Our committee has asked dozens, maybe hundreds, of clarifying questions about the data and analysis, and HHFT and its consultants have responded with thorough and credible answers. I have every confidence that both HHFT and its consultants will continue to work diligently to listen to input from all communities and stakeholders, to answer our committee’s and the public’s outstanding questions, and to find the best possible path forward to address the existing crowding, traffic and parking problems in the Village of Cold Spring and along the 9D corridor through the design and management of the proposed trail.
Beacon Mayor Lee Kyriacou appointed me to the all-volunteer Committee last summer in part because of my personal interest in learning more about the project, but also based on my professional experience projecting impacts of development projects both as a consultant and as a New York City government employee, in addition to my educational background in urban and environmental studies and public policy. I am a 12-year resident of Beacon with additional work experience at local community organizations Common Ground Farm and the Cold Spring Farmers’ Market. I came into this process in good faith and with an open mind, interested and curious to see what the data would show us.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that the other participating committee members may have come to the table primarily to critique the data, the projections, HHFT and its consultants. I do not minimize the concerns voiced by many Cold Spring area residents; I can understand that many are fed up with the sidewalk and traffic congestion in the village and along 9D. The situation is a problem that needs to be solved whether the proposed new trail is ever built. However, I believe that smart design, solid construction and effective ongoing management of the proposed trail will go a long way to ameliorate the crowding and traffic issues Cold Spring area residents are most concerned about.
I think I speak on behalf of many, if not most, Beacon residents and probably also many other regional residents, when I share my excitement and enthusiasm for the development of an accessible waterfront trail connecting Beacon and Cold Spring. At different phases of my life, I have been a bicyclist, a runner, a mother of young kids in strollers, a dog walker and recently a user of crutches with limited mobility due to an injury. Through it all, I’ve maintained a desire to enjoy recreational opportunities in nature. The Fjord Trail as it is proposed serves all of these needs: increasing access to nature for younger, older and disabled local residents and visitors who may not be able to enjoy existing mountain hiking trails, creating safer passage for bicyclists and helping to solve the parking disaster and associated traffic congestion along the 9D corridor by spreading access and visitation along the entire 7.5-mile length of the trail.
My hope is that our committee can take a more collaborative problem-solving approach moving forward to complete the process of reviewing the data and analysis in an objective fashion. In doing so, we can help our respective communities reap the many obvious regional benefits of the proposed Fjord Trail while addressing problems and better managing the impacts of additional recreational visitors.
I was born and raised in Philipstown and have lived in the Village of Cold Spring full-time since 2017. It is important to publicly express my support for the construction of the Fjord Trail.
When my partner and I left New York City, we moved to the village, instead of Garrison, where I grew up and where my family still lives, because of its walkability and our desire to be more connected to our new community. We love living here and feel that the Fjord Trail will add so much to our lives by providing a safe path to walk, jog, and bike along the river’s edge to Beacon.
The Fjord Trail will:
* Add ecological improvements to the river’s edge, long ago de-naturalized by industry and the rocky, man-made shoreline carrying the railroad tracks
* Create a path accessible to people of all abilities, not just those brave enough to risk their lives walking along Rt. 9D or healthy enough to traverse the local trails
* Add much-needed infrastructure improvements to the area including garbage disposal, public restrooms and shuttle service for visitors and locals alike
* Spread visitors along the entirety of the 7+ mile trail by promoting various entry and parking points, and usage of the Metro North stops at Breakneck and Beacon
* Connect Cold Spring and Beacon to pedestrians and bike riders, allowing locals to connect in a car-free way they haven’t ever been able to do before
I also understand that change is difficult, especially in a village and town as small as this one. I respect everyone’s right to their own opinion, but I do believe there is a very vocal minority of residents using scare tactics to try to convince our local elected officials and the community as a whole, that the majority of residents are 100 percent in opposition of the trail, which is not the case.
Not Dockside, and not little Stony Point, but the Cold Spring train station — that is where the Fjord Trail should begin. Of the alternative routes discussed, I am most in favor of that proposed by resident Jan Thatcher at the Village Board meeting on May 1. It would begin at the Cold Spring train station and run along the east side of the tracks north to Little Stony Point.
This route is the most elegant design solution to manage overcrowding, especially from surges of people arriving by train. The route would incentivize train travel and make wayfinding to the trailhead as easy as stepping off the train and walking north, eliminating the need for anyone arriving by train to set foot on any village street.
It combines aspects of Alternative Alignment 2 and 6, which were considered by the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail but dismissed because of obstacles posed by Metro-North setbacks and conflicts with private property. The route described here is essentially Alternative Alignment 6, but on the east side of the tracks — call it “Route 7.” If we can get Metro-North to budge on its 25-foot setback, Route 7 may be feasible and is worth pursuing as a compromise between Dockside and anti-Dockside advocates.
The Depot Restaurant’s terrace is an obstacle, but any conflicts with private property can be overcome with proper consultation, especially when Alternative Route 7 avoids the village and Dockside altogether. I encourage HHFT and our representatives to get Metro-North back to the negotiating table. If it fails, beginning the trail at Dockside is the next best option.
I’d like to thank Cold Spring Mayor Kathleen Foley and the Village Board for hosting comments on the Fjord Trail. I was encouraged by the civility with which the May 1 meeting was run and I learned from the comments made by residents on both sides of the issue.
I like the pretty pictures in recent HHFT ads. Unfortunately, despite a few arrows in the most recent one in The Current, there is no hint of Route 9D. Nor are any cars (parked or traveling) shown. I do not wish to sound like a NIMBY fanatic, and I certainly support truly improved access to our magnificent outdoors, but I live in Beacon, after more than 40 years in Garrison. I use Route 9D to travel from one place to the other. Although I am retired, I believe there are many people who are not, who need to travel on that road. The only alternative involves NY 52, US 9 and I84, all of which, especially I84, are routinely at a standstill. The renderings cast doubt on the value of the HHFT to the people who live and work here.