The Schenectady Gazette wrote yesterday that “Stockade group frets over potential traffic: Mohawk Harbor access a concern” (by Haley Viccaro, September 30, 2014). They decided to only speak with Mary D’Allesdandro, Stockade Association president, concerning the Stockade’s traffic worries, although this group has raised the traffic issue since created at the end of May and deals with it specifically in our Statement in Opposition to the Casino. Mary would not say anything negative about the casino, which would greatly increase traffic, but did admit that “Anytime there is development there are concerns, like with traffic.”
The Gazette article quotes from the Stockade Association’s letter to Metroplex commenting on the environmental review of the Mohawk Harbor:
“Because of these concerns, the association requests that, at a minimum, there be no direct connection from the development to Front Street and other measures are taken to reduce the likelihood of drivers using the Stockade streets.”
The article does not point out, as Stop the Schenectady Casino has done often, that the casino’s access plan shows traffic going directly east up Front Street from the casino parking lot, and that that the Mohawk Harbor traffic report insists there will be no harmful effects for traffic as it traverses Front St. and Green St. at Lawrence Circle. Thus, the applicant recommends no changes along Front St. or at the Circle.
For a full account of the Stop the Schenectady Casino group’s position and conclusions on the traffic issues created by the casino in the Stockade, see pages 4 to 6 of our Statement in Opposition to the Schenectady Casino, and the related attachments.
The article has so many flaws, including confusing the extra traffic generated by the casino at the morning rush hour with the number for all daytime traffic, that I left the following comment at the webpage of the article:
Sept. 30, 2014, 1:17 a.m.
I’m concerned that the Gazette has again forgotten to mention the strong Stockade opposition to the casino, which has focused on the traffic issue for the past two months. Instead, you speak with the President of the Stockade Association, who has refused to have a meeting on the casino, which she supports, and talk about a traffic letter that received a few minutes of attention almost as an afterthought at an Association meeting.
Casino opponents collected 126 signatures by Stockade residents on their petition, as compared to the membership of the Association which is under 100, and compared to the 18 people who voted for the “neutrality position” at the September Association meeting.
Had you spoken with us, we would have pointed out, as was stated on August 14 at StopTheSchenectadyCasino.com, that the Applicant’s traffic study predicted casino patrons would generate 681 new vehicular trips during morning peak rush hour and 1,615 new trips during evening peak rush hour, not 680 during the day and 1615 at night, as your article states. In fact, the traffic report states that the peak rush hour numbers are those at the peak of the nearby roads, and that the casino’s even higher peak numbers come at different hours (which are never discussed in the Report).
The Table from the Traffic Report with the trip generation numbers can be found at this webpage:
It is strange that after 40 years of constant worry about traffic from development, the “leaders” of the East Front Street Neighborhood Association “don’t mind the traffic” from the casino. Yes, Front St. will get the traffic, and two-thirds of Front Street is very narrow and runs through a very densely populated portion of the Stockade neighborhood. For photos and description of the traffic problem likely to be created by the casino, see
Finally, the Casino’s access plan has an arrow directing exiting traffic west up Front St. If that is any indication of the good working relationship between the casino Applicant and the Stockade Association, perhaps we are lucky the Association has decided to disarm itself and abandon its role of protecting the residential nature of the Stockade.