Comments Reflect Fjord Trail Debate

Writers express virtues, concerns
A year ago, the state parks department released a draft of its environmental review of the proposed Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail. It then gave the public 60 days to submit comments to the more than 700-page report. After public outcry, the state extended the deadline to 90 days.
New Yorkers used the extra time well, submitting over 500 comments addressing the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement and the project in general.
The state recently told The Current that the finalized report is expected to be released early next year and that "all comments received were reviewed and will be acknowledged and responded to as appropriate in the final GEIS."
Through a Freedom of Information Law request, The Current received copies of every comment submitted before the deadline. Then we read all 517, ranging from a five-word submission ("It is a good thing") to several that exceeded 10 pages, including 103 pages from a Cold Spring resident who criticizes the DGEIS page-by-page; the 143-page comment that professional consultants submitted on behalf of the Cold Spring Village Board; and 274 pages from a local resident who opposes the project.
"I wish it wasn't so long," the person wrote in their cover letter. "I had a lot to say."
Many who spoke out against the trail urged the planners to scrap the entire project and go back to the simple dirt trail originally proposed as a connection between Beacon and Cold Spring. "If you had quietly made a sweet little trail this might have worked," wrote one Beacon resident. "Let people find it and enjoy searching it out. Why all the hype and promotion?"
Supporters point out that the original plan wouldn't address the overcrowding that has made Cold Spring unnavigable on many weekends and clogged Route 9D near the Breakneck Ridge trailhead with hikers running across the highway and looking for roadside parking. "I am so surprised that more people haven't been hit by a car on Route 9D," said one person.
A Philipstown resident wrote: "The expansion of its purpose and its scope from a 'simple trail' (as originally conceived), to a more formal, accessible resource that greatly enhances the experience of hikers, bikers and strollers, makes it far more attractive, useful and effective."
Others in favor of the trail addressed the ecological damage caused by the now-crumbling artificial shoreline built over 100 years ago to accommodate the railroad. "The natural riverfront no longer exists," wrote one Cold Spring resident, "and in some cases, the trail may improve the connection of the land to the river for flora and fauna that typically exist at that boundary."
According to another village resident, "By removing invasive species, adding native plants and trees and bolstering marine habitat along the trail, it will provide better resilience to climate change."
With construction of the trail's initial section now underway, here are 10 takeaways from the public comments.
Support remains split
The Current sorted the comments into those entirely or largely in favor of the trail as currently proposed in the DGEIS (209), those entirely or largely against the current trail (236) and those that were mixed (72). Many of the mixed comments did not take a specific side, but asked for more clarification on certain issues involving traffic, funding and emergency services.
A nine-page form letter was used by 131 of trail's opponents, although many added additional comments. ("TOO MUCH. NO!" added a Scarsdale resident.) The letter raises issues about traffic and parking ("would irreparably destroy the scenic character of this area"), added visitation, wildlife and habitat loss, and the demand on emergency services.

Heading upland
The form letter urges the state to simply scrap the entire plan and instead go with the Upland Alternative suggested by the local group Protect The Highlands. The Upland Alternative would lead from the Metro-North train station in Cold Spring out of the vi...