Walk to what?

To: The Rhinebeck Town Board
Re: Rhinecliff TND - Comment on The Draft Rhinebeck Comp-Plan
Date: July 24, 2006

As a part-time resident of Rhinecliff for the last six years, I have been following the evolution of The Rhinebeck Plan and participated in the Rhinecliff “visioning” sessions held at the Morton Library. In addition, I founded a website in order to provide the Rhinecliff community with information and an on-line forum. I mention this to make it clear I care deeply about our historic hamlet.

While I have numerous concerns regarding the comprehensive plan, I shall narrow the focus of these comments to certain aspects of the proposed Rhinecliff “TND.”

According to the definition of a TND (a basic unit of New Urbanism,) it should ideally provide for a five minute walk ( ¼ mile) to civic buildings, transportation etc. Previous comments have addressed the fact that the proposed Rhinecliff TND is not located within the bounds of walkability, so I will not re-visit that point. Even if the proposed TND were to be placed within 100 feet of the train station, it would not qualify as a TND.

Here is why:

In appendix 7 - public hearing comments and response, The Comprehensive Plan Committee states the following:

“ the post office, library, fire house and retail services exist within walking distance of the proposed Rhinecliff TND. Both TNDs are transit accessible, the Astor Flats served by the Loop bus line and the Rhinecliff TND served by Amtrak. Both TNDs are designed so that residents can “park once and walk” so additional vehicular traffic should be limited accordingly. It is also hoped that additional residential development in the hamlet will support limited commercial development in the existing Rhinecliff Business District”

This one response from the plan committee reveals its primary rationale for placing additional density in the hamlet of Rhinecliff and labeling it a TND. However, this statement is contradicted by data in the plan itself and by reality.

1- “..The Astor Flats [is] served by the Loop bus line and the Rhinecliff TND [is] served by Amtrak. Both TNDs are designed so that residents can ‘park once and walk’”:

This statement is completely contrary to the plan’s own findings. Appendix 1, page 18 depicts a chart titled “Place of Work.” In reviewing the chart, which lists 11 geographic regions and “other,” 13% of Rhinebeck residents work in the “New York Metro Area” and 1% work in Albany. According to the plan’s own chart, 86% of Rhinebeck residents can’t utilize the Rhinecliff Amtrak station for commuting to and from work. It simply does not service their place of work. In addition, the plan designates at least 10% of the Rhinecliff TND units as “affordable or work-force housing” available to “households making 80% of the town’s median income ($52,679 in 2000).” I applaud the concept of affordable housing, but residents of “work-force” housing are not going to be Amtrak commuters. Given these facts, provided by the plan itself, one can extrapolate that approximately 10 of the 90 proposed homes would have residents that could even utilize the Amtrak station for commuting. How can the committee suggest that the TND residents can “park once and walk” when the overwhelming majority won’t utilize the Amtrak station according to the committee’s own metrics?

The total number of people in the Town of Rhinebeck who commute via public transportation, including taxis, is only 109 according to the 2000 census. This is an insignificant percentage of the community. It defies every known statistic about our town to imply any significant number of residents will use public transportation.

2- “The post office”: Currently the Rhinecliff post office serves the hamlet with PO box service. This is an extremely small branch and it is likely it could not support the additional residents of the TND, in which case it would be absorbed into the Rhinebeck post office. Has the committee ever contacted the US Postal service to see how the tiny Rhinecliff post office would be impacted when carrier delivery starts? It seems likely the post office would close and be absorbed by Rhinebeck’s post office. This has already happened in Barrytown and parts of Kingston. What metrics are being used to plan a community around a tiny rural post office?

3- “retail services exist…”: Rhinecliff’s tiny business district currently includes one retail business, a restaurant. Even if one or two more businesses were to open, it is disingenuous to state there are “retail businesses” people will walk to. What are the specific retail businesses the committee is referring to?

Given that Rhinecliff offers so few civic amenities within any conceivable distance, the TND should be labeled what it is, sprawl. It is a poorly planned expansion of our beautiful historic hamlet into the surrounding countryside. The committee states that its plan for Rhinecliff’s expansion is based on an 1860 plan for expansion of the hamlet. In 1860 the train station ran local trains, the dock was filled with boats and ferries, the hamlet was filled with hotels and businesses and the car had not yet been invented. Given the changes that Rhinecliff has experienced in the last 146 years, how can the committee rely on a plan designed in 1860?

In light of the inconsistencies noted above and the numerous questions raised by other residents, I applaud the Town Board’s decision to retain a nationally renowned planner such as AKRF to review the plan independently. It is vital to the integrity of the process that someone of unquestionable authority and independence review and critique the plan’s merits. If the plan is truly as good as the committee claims, they should welcome the unbiased scrutiny of such an expert.

Sincerely,
Matthew Rosenberg