Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Ulster County Legislature Basin Road bridge meets width standards; ask whether NYC DEP blocks train use
Summary
Public commenters at the Dec. 16 meeting challenged committee findings that the Basin Road bridge failed AASHTO width requirements and asked whether New York City DEP is effectively vetoing future train access. Speakers said they measured the bridge and found it wider than reported.
Three members of the public told the Ulster County Legislature on Dec. 16 that recent committee statements about Basin Road Bridge width and structural suitability require re-examination, and they asked whether New York City Department of Environmental Protection policies are dictating local decisions.
Larry Roth questioned why the un-designated corridor study would be used to exclude the Basin Road Bridge and whether "NYC DEP is asserting veto power over Ulster County tourism decisions," noting comments he heard at a Dec. 4 Housing and Transportation Committee meeting. Roth asked for transparency about who decided the bridge was outside the study area and about a reported DEP statement that it "will never allow Catskill Mountain Railroad to return to the Ashokan Reservoir."
Matthew Landy said he measured the bridge himself and reported dimensions of about 11 feet "brace to brace," roughly 14 feet inner-to-inner and about 16 feet outer-to-outer, telling legislators that the information presented earlier "was false" as to the bridge width. Harrison Waldorf said he independently double-checked measurements, compared Basin Road to other rail-trail bridges and found many comparable structures narrower than the 10-foot threshold cited in committee discussion.
Why it matters: The Basin Road Bridge figure into deliberations about trail and rail access and whether replacement or design decisions should accommodate potential future uses, including safe access between a station and the Ashokan Rail Trail. Public commenters urged that the Legislature or committee verify measurements and the technical basis for prior statements before finalizing plans.
Details and next steps: Commenters referenced AASHTO and other trail guidance cited by committee staff and questioned whether the bridge’s measured width and potential for safety railings alter that assessment. Resolution 451 — mentioned by speakers — was not before the full Legislature for a vote that evening. No formal vote or direction to reopen engineering review was recorded during the meeting; interested parties may bring the matter back to the Housing and Transportation Committee for further examination.
Ending: Legislators received public comment and did not take immediate on-the-record action to change prior committee findings; the record notes the public's request for transparency and additional technical review.
