This is already a 4-way intersection because in addition to the legs of 9 North, 9 South, and 9H south, there is also the State Farm Road leg (which leads directly to the Elementary and Middle Schools). There is also no other direct route to Albany. I have been particularly concerned since hearing of the proposed "roundabout" which, according to Widewaters and its supporters, will make the intersection safer and alleviate congestion and problems. This seems to me to be a very drastic change in the traffic environment and one the will cause more danger and congestion than not.

Is Widewaters trying to tell us that the introduction of a large mall with another leg to this intersection is not going to cause more traffic? Won’t these stores need to have deliveries on a daily basis? Won’t there be more traffic coming into the area specifically to go to the mall? (They don’t seriously think that just the people of this small community will be enough to keep the mall in business, do they?)

I don’t think that the traffic studies that have thus far been done in relation to this proposed mall are sufficient. The visual representation that was shown at the Kinderhook Town Board meeting earlier this summer showed only a few vehicles on the "roundabout." These vehicles were not made to scale (they were smaller than the reality). Also, no mention was made of the winter months, when, in addition to all of the vehicles mentioned above, there will be piles of snow, snow plows, and sanders. I feel that this presentation was misleading! If the town of Kinderhook REALLY needs another supermarket, I’m sure we could find a safer place away from the schools.

I had hoped to raise my children in the type of environment that Kinderhook IS NOW, not what it MIGHT BE in the future—if the mall is built in this location my family will most likely relocate to another area that is as quiet and wonderful as Kinderhook is today.

I respectfully ask the Kinderhook Planning Board to reconsider this plan that will irrevocably change this town and its present safe environment for our children.

Sarah Biondello, Kinderhook

KNGG NOTE: The red highlighting in the above letter was added by KNGG for emphasis.

LAW ON CROSSWALKS GETS LITTLE RECOGNITION  

(Register-Star October 10, 2003) By Taitia Shelow

CHATHAM - Have you stopped for a pedestrian in a crosswalk lately?  If the answer is no, you're not alone.  But you also have broken the law.

Since January 19, 2003, (the) New York state vehicle and traffic law has required that motorists "yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian walking in any part of a crosswalk in the same roadway, when a traffic signal is not present or not operating."  Close to half of the 50 states in the United States have such laws, according to the New York governor's office.  Local motorists traveling over the border into Massachusetts are well aware of the state's similar law.

The New York Legislature passed this amendment to the previous crosswalk in July 2002, but it didn't take effect until earlier this year.  The previous law only required motorists to yield the right-of-way when a pedestrian was on the same half of the roadway, or close enough on the opposite half to be in danger.

The state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) made every effort to publicize the change, said Joseph Picchi, DMV spokesman.  They issued press releases to the media, put inserts in mailings like reqistration renewals, and ran public service announcements on television.  They also notified police departments of the change, he said.

"The word is out.  Sometimes not everyone is going to get the word, especially with a law whose scope is so narrow," said Peter Graves, a spokesman with state DOT.

But despite the state's efforts to publicize the revision, most residents seem unaware of the change.  In Chatham Village, where Main Street sees a lot pedestrian traffic in its unsignaled crosswalks, cars continue to whiz by pedestrians.

Chatham Village Police Chief Kevin Boehme said his department is still giving out warnings as opposed to tickets for violations of the new crosswalk law.  He, too believes most motorists are unaware of the change.

"I don't think there was a lot put out as far as public awareness," he said.

On a recent Friday afternoon, a high-traffic time for both pedestrians and cars, approximately two-thirds of the traffic on Main Street drove through a crosswalk without even slowing.  However, at least three drivers stopped even when this reporter stood firmly on the sidewalk.  And when Chatham resident Jane Wood and her son Matt accepted a request to cross a few times as an experiment, one car stopped to let them pass while several others zoomed by.

Whether those who stopped knew the law or were simply being courteous, however, is  unknown.  No pedestrians approached by the Courier last week were aware of the law change.

Chatham resident Mike Holden said he was aware of the law change, having seen the publicity service announcement on TV.  But he went to his computer and looked it up on the Internet for confirmation recently when he was passed by a Chatham Village Police car while standing in the crosswalk.  The police car did not stop, he said.  Holden thinks it would be helpful to have signs announcing the law at crosswalks, like in Massachusetts towns.

The topic of crosswalk signs has come up in the past few months at Chatham Village Board meetings.  Village Trustees have wondered aloud whether they are responsible for putting up such signs.  The main drags through Chatham Village are all state-maintained roads.

DOT spokesman Graves said the crosswalk law does not require signs.  They are available, however, if towns wish to purchase them at a cost of about $100-$150 a piece, he said.

"It's not that we 're trying not to support anyone here...communities have discretion whether or not to place signs," Graves said.

But Village Trustee Lael Locke, who has been researching the issue for Chatham Village believes it's just another example of state bureaucracy in action.

"They pass laws and don't provide communities any way to implement them," Locke said.

Locke added that she, too, would like to see signs put up, and feels it's unfair to ticket people if the law is largely unknown. "I do think people need to know there's a law in effect," she said.