‘Not so fast’ says environmental coalition regarding Route 17 conversion to Interstate 86

As the process of studying the potential environmental impacts of converting Route 17 into Interstate 86 by adding a third lane, upgrading interchanges and reorganizing selected exits unfolds, a coalition of environmental groups is asking the state to consider alternative ways to improve transportation along the corridor.

“Improving mobility along the corridor is a very positive goal and members of our coalition — which includes Catskill Mountain Keeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, independent consults and others — just want it done the right way,” said Mike Edelstein of Orange Environment, a group that has been involved in many of the environmental issues in the county since its founding in 1982. “The third lane solution that has been proposed is more of an outdated, post-World War II solution.”

‘All-encompassing approach’

Instead, Edelstein envisions using the $1 billion in state funds allocated for the project on an “all-encompassing approach” that includes reducing the number of cars on the road by installing local and regional rail and upgrading Route 17M and other roads to serve as alternatives to Route 17 for local traffic.

“Let’s see how much of this money can be spent on getting cars and maybe even trucks off the road,” Edelstein said. “The Route 17 corridor used to be served by rail and I think we can use rail to move people regionally and locally because we need mobility without depending on cars. We could get people to Legoland and the casino in Monticello, for example, by rail from mobility hubs.”

Edelstein, a Goshen resident who headed the environmental studies and sustainability programs as a professor at Ramapo College of New Jersey, says the idea that a third lane will alleviate traffic issues on Route 17 is short sighted.

‘Iron Rule of Highways’

“The effort to convert 17 into Interstate 86 accentuates the regional importance of the road over the local importance of the road and that is not a good thing,” he said. “When you expand a highway, you have a short-term gain in traffic flow for about five years. Then, as so often is the case, growth ensues because of the increase and the advantage you just gained by expanding the highway is gone. It is often referred to as the ‘Iron Rule of Highways.’ So, the benefit of putting in that third lane in for $1 billion can get lost quickly.”

Edelstein recommends using a portion of that billion dollars to study climate resilience in the region.

“On the heels of last month’s storm and other recent weather, I think it only makes sense to explore climate resilience,” he said. “Flash flooding, among other things, is a problem of not being able to move and we now have enough experience to talk about flood prone areas and create a mobility structure for at least the Route 17 corridor that allows us to function under different weather and climate conditions. Can the corridor function in extreme heat? Does it contribute to extreme heat?”

‘An increase of greenhouse gases in Orange County’

Ultimately, he says, the project should adhere to New York State policy on climate change.

“State policy on climate change states, in a nutshell, that no state money is to be spent on projects that increase greenhouse gases,” he said. “Instead, state funds are to be spent on projects that decrease greenhouse gases and promote a transition to renewable energy. Interstate 86, in our view, violates that policy because there will be no reduction of cars and trucks, and therefore greenhouse gases, and there seems to be little talk about renewables. There will likely be an increase of greenhouse gases in Orange County and eventually in Sullivan with any added growth.”

‘We are not seeking to just say no’

Edelstein said he and other members of the coalition look forward to taking part in constructive and open discussions with state and local officials as well as the public to come up with the best long-term solutions for the Route 17 corridor.

“We are not seeking to just say no,” he said. “We are seeking to get involved in the environmental impact statement process and have it do what environmental impact statements are supposed to do, which is to tease out what the best alternatives are, what the adverse impacts are and look to mitigate those adverse impacts in order to give decision-makers the best information about the best course of action.”

New York State Department of Transportation Project Manager Mark Kruk says there will be plenty of time for all interested parties to be heard on a whole host of issues pertaining to Route 17.

“We will be reengaging the public and elected officials and their comments and concerns will be documented as part of the environmental impact statement process,” Kruk said. “There will be meetings with officials and open houses for the public as we move forward.”