LEARN

LEARN

A SHORT HISTORY

OF RECENT EVENTS

On August 8th, 2024, Columbia County Public Works Commissioner Ray Jurkowski’s consulting engineers presented a draft plan to destroy the historic Stuyvesant Falls Bridge.

The bridge is a part of the Stuyvesant Falls Historic Mill District, part of the National Register of Historic Places. The mill district is home to back-to-back waterfalls, numerous historic structures, and archeological sites. The area is a time capsule of our nation’s 19th century industrial heritage, and one of the Hudson Valley’s most scenic locations.

The county proposed replacing the historic truss bridge with something resembling a concrete overpass with an ESTIMATED COST OF $5.1 MILLION. Below is the example they provided, built by the same engineers.

LINK: EXPLORE THE COUNTY’S AUGUST 8th PROPOSAL

In the following days, a group of neighbors came together and sprang into action. We soon coalesced into Historic Stuyvesant.

Our first goal was to encourage official public comments to the County, which were due just 14 days after the presentation. By August 22nd, a groundswell of public uproar led to nearly 100 comments submitted, nearly all condemning the County’s plan.

LINK: VIEW A SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

A dormant Town Bridge Committee was then hastily resurrected by the Stuyvesant town leadership, caught off guard by their constituents.

In the following months, the Town Bridge Committee sought a halt to the plan, and instead asked for a Community Based Design Process to seek an alternative design.

LINK: SEE THE PROPOSAL FOR A COMMUNITY BASED DESIGN PROCESS

On November 20th, this proposal for a community process was presented to the Columbia County Public Works Committee. That proposal was rejected.

LINK: LISTEN TO A RECORDING OF THE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS MEETING.

On January 17, 2025, Columbia County submitted their official plan. The design for the bridge is exactly what was proposed the prior August.

HOWEVER, responding to the Bridge Committee’s request for an accurate budget, the COUNTY REVEALED A MORE ACCURATE COST TO BE $11.2 MILLION.

THE COST WENT UP 220%. The explanation can only be deception, incompetence, or both.

LINK: THE COUNTY’S OFFICIAL PROPOSAL

Historic Stuyvesant has applied for Consulting Party Status in order to have a seat at the table at the state and federal reviews.

LINK: OUR APPLICATION LETTER SEEKING CONSULTING PARTY STATUS

We are presently incorporating into a formal 501c3 non-profit.

LEARN

LEARN

OUR POSITION

ON THE COUNTY’S PROPOSAL

The proposed August 8th plan for a 2-lane replacement of the Stuyvesant Falls Bridge is poorly conceived, unsafe, and does not suit the site context or desires of our community. We deserve a safe bridge plan that calms traffic, provides much-needed emergency vehicle access, and respects the character of our area. The August 8 plan falls far short of these goals and would result in the demolition of a beloved piece of local history without meaningful consideration of community input or design alternatives.

There are critical problems with both the design scheme and work plan presented on August 8th that can only be addressed by a pause in CHA’s consultant work and re-evaluation of process by NYSDOT, SHPO, and Columbia County DPW to take community voices into account. We are calling for the implementation of a community-based bridge design process that gives serious thought to alternative design options. We deserve adequate agency in decision-making about the future of our bridge.

    • The proposed increase from one lane to two was not reviewed with the community in advance of the CHA design. There is a strong community desire to keep the bridge as a single lane. Maintaining the single lane bridge would protect the low-speed, walkable, and friendly rural charm cherished by hamlet residents and folks who visit our community.

    • Residents want a safe bridge that provides adequate load capacity for emergency and farm vehicles. The August 8th replacement plan was presented without alternative options, and community members know that access for all vehicles can be provided without a widened bridge.

    • We call upon the Columbia County DPW and NYSDOT to obtain an exemption to the single lane bridge rehabilitation/replacement threshold for vehicle count.

    • The proposed alignment straightens the road significantly and will increase vehicle speeds on 25A in both directions.

    • No concrete data on vehicle trips per day was presented in the meeting, and no study was made by CHA regarding roadway safety or impacts to vehicle speed. This information must be carefully studied, presented to the community, and publicly incorporated into any proposed design.

    • Community members are already concerned about existing vehicle speeds. The increased width and straightened alignment of the proposed design is certain to increase car travel velocity. Traffic calming elements must be part of any proposed plan.

    • The current process should be paused and replaced with an approach that gives the community adequate agency in decision-making about the future of the bridge.

    • No public pre-design meetings or workshops were held prior to 8/8/24, despite the considerable community interest in the bridge project.

    • Only one design scheme was shared at the meeting with no presentation of alternatives.

    • The two further public meetings described by CHA are insufficient to adequately address the public’s comments and interest in the future of our bridge. 43 people signed in to the 8/8/24 public meeting, with even more in attendance. An additional 42 residents have since started organizing themselves as the “Save Our Bridge” working group of Historic Stuyvesant to advocate for a better, safer bridge plan.

    • The residents of Stuyvesant are broadly calling for and deserve a community-based bridge design process that gives serious consideration to alternatives including: A) bridge repair and rehabilitation, and B) alternatives that include single-lane bridge replacement that matches the aesthetic qualities and historic character of the existing bridge.

    • Demolition of the existing bridge and abutments would cause irreparable damage to the historic and cultural fabric of our town and is a decision that runs counter to the priorities in our Town’s Comprehensive Plan (1999).

    • We call upon the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and NYSDOT to put a stop to the current design process and institute one that ensures that the historical integrity of the Mill District is preserved.

    • The Stuyvesant Falls Bridge is a historic asset that can and should be preserved, rehabilitated, and modernized to safely support all modes of traffic.

    • The 125-year-old bridge is an iconic cultural and aesthetic feature in our community and one of the few publicly-owned assets that falls within the Stuyvesant Falls Historic Mill District, which was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1976.

    • The current proposal of bridge replacement would erase a community asset and erode the historic character of the area. This change, combined with increased traffic speeds, is certain to have a negative impact on nearby private property values.

    • The existing stone bridge abutments would be irreversibly degraded and replaced with large concrete walls that do not suit the natural beauty or aesthetic character of the site.

    • The proposed August 8th design with stone veneer walls makes no effort to replicate physical characteristics of the existing bridge.

    • The project’s proposed construction limit diagram encroaches on the public green space at the Empire State Trail Stuyvesant Falls Trailhead. Town residents and local Boy Scouts worked tirelessly in years past to provide this frequently used park overlooking the falls. The August 8th plan provided no clear guidelines for its protection or enhancement. Any plan for the Stuyvesant Falls Bridge must give careful consideration to this public resource.

    • The larger physical footprint of the August 8th bridge encroaches significantly more on the banks of Kinderhook Creek than the current abutments. We call upon the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to carefully review the condition of the existing abutments for potential reuse as well as the adverse impacts to the creek banks and habitat.

    • The embodied carbon footprint of new bridge construction far exceeds that of reuse and rehabilitation. By not giving proper consideration to reusing the existing bridge and abutments, the project is out-of-step with New York State’s broader Climate Action initiatives.