1. Negotiated scoping process with community sign-off. The scope of work for the Atlantic Yards
must include the many concerns raised by the community.
The community must participate in and sign off on the final scope. The process parallels what has already
occurred between Forest City Ratner and the State: their experts met with the
State’s experts to work out an acceptable scope. The same process must occur with the community. The Downtown Brooklyn community must retain
its own experts to represent its interests in a similar negotiation. At a minimum, observe a moratorium on
scoping discussions during the summer hiatus of the community boards.
2. Full Community Board 2, 6 and 8-study area. The primary study area utilized for the
Downtown Brooklyn Development EIS was limited to the Downtown core, a
relatively tiny portion of the entire Downtown area. It didn’t even include Court Street with its heavy pedestrian
traffic. And it definitely didn’t
include DUMBO or IKEA or the Williamsburg waterfront. As such, it left out of the analysis a great deal of development
that, while more distant from Downtown, will contribute especially to traffic
impacts both through Downtown as well as around Downtown, particularly on the
Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. The
analysis for the Atlantic Yards must account for all new development that will
occur within at least a two-mile radius of the project. This means including all of Brooklyn
Community Boards 2, 6 and 8 (and perhaps CB1 to insure that the 15,000 new
dwelling units in Greenpoint - Williamsburg are included).
3. Twenty year horizon for analysis to include full development from
rezoning and all known planned development.
The Downtown Brooklyn Development EIS analyzed just 6.7 million sq.
ft. of new development (that which is likely to become occupied by 2013). Yet, the City approved rezoning for 14.7
million sq. ft. The City claimed that
the New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Manual required analysis
of only the first ten years and that further development was not guaranteed. Still, the additional 8 million sq. ft. can
now be built as of right, and, over 20 years, market demand will likely make it
happen. State agencies like the New
York State Department of Transportation (DOT) and the MTA routinely analyze a
twenty-year horizon and frequently a thirty-year horizon.
All development expected over the next 20 to 30 years must be accounted
for as the future (No-Build) baseline condition without development of the
Atlantic Yards site. Only then can the
project itself be loaded onto the area and analyzed for its incremental impact
on our community. We must guard against
the Atlantic Yards DEIS relying solely on an early Build year, say 2008 to meet
the Nets timetable, and ignoring the development that is not likely until 2010
to 2013.
4. Phased public review of baseline assumptions. Establishing baseline conditions for
traffic, transit and all other elements of an environmental impact statement
are critical to establishing the limits for new development. Under-reporting creates the misleading impression
that future development is possible.
The Downtown Brooklyn Development EIS under-reported baseline traffic
conditions and failed entirely to accurately characterize transit use. Traffic volumes reported in the Downtown
Plan EIS were lower than reported for other EIS’s a decade earlier whereas
bridge and tunnel volumes are higher today, a decade later, suggesting local
traffic volumes should have been higher. The Downtown Brooklyn community must
be permitted to review baseline conditions before they are used to develop
future conditions with and without the Atlantic Yards development.
5. Full documentation of all data, assumptions and calculations. One of the handicaps suffered by most EIS’s is that critical
supporting data required for agency sign-off are not presented for public
review. Sufficient data is omitted so
that no one can replicate a project’s impacts.
This minimizes the opportunity for the community to challenge the
results. It strengthens the sponsor’s
position in state courts, which are loath to challenge the judgment of City and
State agencies in certifying an EIS.
The community must insist that all data, assumptions and calculations
for the Atlantic Yards EIS are not only available in full, but are posted on
the internet prior to releasing a draft EIS for public review. No data, assumptions or calculations
pertinent to the EIS analysis must be omitted.
6. State of the art traffic modeling.
The only way to get a realistic assessment of the effects of new
development in Downtown Brooklyn is to use traffic models that simulate and
depict travel patterns and behavior.
Micro-assignment modeling estimates and displays the fastest route and
mode between where people are and where they want to go. It is used to assign future trips to the
regional and local roadway network with consistency and objectivity based on
land use and demographics. This kind of
travel demand modeling will show us under what conditions drivers get off the
BQE and spill over onto local streets.
This contrasts sharply with the typical reliance of EIS’s on some
engineer’s often arbitrary judgment as to what roads drivers will choose and
assigns them to those roads, whether or not there’s any space for another
car. The Downtown Brooklyn Development
EIS was allowed to get away with assigning only 1% of its trips to the Brooklyn
Bridge, whereas more than 10% of the trips due to all other new development
were, more logically, assigned to the bridge.
Once trips are assigned, simulation modeling can estimate and depict
actual road conditions, showing not only the delay at individual intersections
but also the spillback effects on nearby intersections. Simulation modeling has the added advantage
that its output is visual. You do not
have to be a traffic engineer to understand the impact of new development. You only have to be familiar with the
neighborhood.
7. Use of MTA’s transit ridership model with public review. This
community needs to understand the impact of new development on its subway
system. Similarly, subway ridership must be modeled using the MTA’s
Transit Demand Model, which, like traffic micro-assignment models, uses land
use and demographic data to assign trips to subway stations and direction of
destinations. The MTA’s model will then
estimate the effect on subway travel.
If Downtown Brooklyn is fully built out, as many as 400,000 new subway
riders will demand access to the subways on a typical weekday. About 40% of this will occur during the
morning and evening peak hours, another 40% during the shoulder periods (the
hour preceding and following peak hours).
And that doesn’t include the 200,000 more trips that will be generated
by projected Manhattan job growth by 2025.
The NYCDOT Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint “Technical
Memorandum, Existing and Anticipated Issues” (May 2005) reports that Downtown
subway lines are at or near capacity during peak hours but that some capacity
exists during shoulder periods. The
additional Downtown Brooklyn subway riders will fill these shoulder periods and
more.
The City and State transportation agencies need to understand which
lines are likely to be affected if impacts are to be mitigated. The Downtown Brooklyn Development EIS first
ignored subway crowding. The MTA’s
model must be used to estimate the transit effects of the Atlantic Yard’s
development and to determine where added service is needed.
8. Full analysis of available alternatives. The EIS for the Atlantic Yards will evaluate the project
itself (perhaps in stages), as well as conditions without the project (called
the No-Build condition). It should also
analyze alternatives to the Forest City Ratner proposal, including the Unity
Plan and the Pacific Plan, two alternatives that provide reasonable (albeit,
unsponsored) uses of the site, or one that may emerge from the MTA’s request
for proposals. The Atlantic Yards
developer must provide a comparative technical analysis of each plan in
sufficient detail to give the public a reasonable evaluation of each
alternative. The MTA should require no
less.
9. Method to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation. The environmental review process
specifies that impacts be mitigated. As
was demonstrated by traffic and subway impacts in the Downtown Brooklyn
Development EIS, when things are so bad, the adverse condition is simply
accepted as “unmitigatable.” Even
where commitments are made, once a project is constructed, no-one checks to see
if the agreed upon mitigation is actually carried out, let alone whether or not
it is effective.
The approval of MetroTech came with a commitment to $100 million in
mitigation, including a westbound exit ramp from the BQE to Navy Street and an
unpopular Adams Street underpass at Tillary Street. Neither project was completed nor were alternatives
proposed. Only the widening of Flatbush
Avenue by ten feet was completed to increase capacity. Ironically, the City is now planning to
narrow Flatbush to make it more pedestrian friendly. Where the traffic goes is anybody’s guess. Nor do we know whether or not mitigation is
effective (assuming it actually gets implemented). So, for all projects in Brooklyn, we need a method to monitor the
implementation of mitigation and then to investigate if the mitigation is
effective. If not, supplemental mitigation should be introduced to fully offset
a project’s impact. This process should
be fully in place before any approvals for the Atlantic Yards.
10. Funding for community to hire its own experts. Community involvement in the preparation
of an environmental impact statement takes expertise, engineering expertise
that is generally not available to communities. While Brooklyn’s community boards reportedly have an urban
planner line, it goes unfunded and unfilled.
Community boards need technical expertise to effectively review an EIS. And, there is plenty of precedent for
funding professional advisers to oversight groups. Most recently, the NYS DOT financed such experts for the Gowanus
Expressway Neighborhood Coalition. The
City did so two decades ago by paying for an independent consultant for a
Citizens Advisory Committee for the Brooklyn Navy Yard Waste-to-Energy Plant
that wound up introducing pioneering technology. Private developers like Trump have improved their projects by
financing independent experts to work with a community task force throughout
the development of the EIS.
The City, State and federal governments have invested tens of millions
of dollars planning for the Development of lower Manhattan and the Hudson
Yards. The replacement of the World
Trade Center, at about 10 million sq. ft. is one-sixth what is occurring here
in Brooklyn. The Hudson Yards, a
fantasy at 40 million sq. ft., is still less than two-thirds of what is
underway here in Brooklyn. Providing
the financing for an independent expert for Downtown Brooklyn communities is
chump change in a $3.5 billion project.
The land use study area for Brooklyn Atlantic Yards development should be
contingent on regional versus local impacts.
As such, neighborhoods rather than blocks ought to be considered in
selecting the study area boundaries. We
recommend that the full Community Board 2, 6 and 8 district catchment areas be
used as the DEIS study area. The
analysis for the Atlantic Yards must account for all new development that will occur within at least
a two-mile radius of the project. This
means including all of Brooklyn Community Boards 2, 6 and 8 (and perhaps CB1 to
insure that the 15,000 new dwelling units in Greenpoint/Williamsburg are
included).
The primary study
area utilized for the Downtown Brooklyn Development EIS was limited to the
Downtown core, a relatively tiny portion of the entire Downtown area. It didn’t even include Court Street. It did not include DUMBO or BAM or IKEA or
the Williamsburg waterfront. As such,
it left out of the analysis a great deal of development that, while more
distant from Downtown, will contribute especially to traffic impacts of
Community Board 8’s primary and secondary roads. This is the only way that this community can be assured that it
has a clear understanding of the effects of whatever is built over the Atlantic
Yards.
The BAY EIS should
consider, consecutively and concurrently, primary, secondary and regional
impact areas. The Primary impact area
should include, but not be limited to, Prospects Heights, Fort Greene, Boerum
Hill, Downtown Brooklyn, Gowanus and Park Slope. Secondary effects should be consider from, but not limited to,
Cobble Hill, Carrol Gardens, Crown Heights, Brooklyn Heights, Clinton Hill and Bedford-Stuyvesant. Considering effects on the Atlantic Avenue,
Flatbush Avenue, Eastern Parkway, Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue corridors
should observe regional impacts. Community
Board 8 contains Primary, Secondary and Regional Impact areas.
Underutilized
similarly zoned sites within this study area should be identified, based on
current zoning and market conditions.
What zoning regulations would control the project area upon completion? What kinds of uses and future development
would be excluded because of the built out?
The BAY DEIS should create a twenty-year horizon for analysis to include
full development from rezoning and all known planned development. State
agencies like the New York State Department of Transportation and the MTA
routinely analyze a twenty-year horizon and frequently a thirty-year
horizon.
The Downtown Brooklyn Development EIS analyzed just 6.7 million sq. ft.
of new development (that which is likely to become occupied by 2013). Yet, the City approved rezoning for 14.7
million sq. ft. The City claimed that
the CEQR Manual required analysis of only the first ten years and that further
development was not guaranteed. Still,
the additional 8 million sq. ft. can now be built as of right, and, over 20
years, market demand will likely make it happen. The analysis for the Atlantic Yards cannot permit these
oversights.
All development
expected over the next 20 to 30 years must be accounted for as the future
(No-Build) baseline condition without development of the Atlantic Yards
site. Only then can the project itself
be loaded onto the area and analyzed for its incremental impact on our
community. We must guard against the
Atlantic Yards DEIS relying solely on an early Build year, say 2008 to meet the
Nets timetable, and ignoring the development that is not likely until 2010 to
2013.
Socio-economic
conditions need to consider the population, housing and their economic activities
for the existing, construction and post-construction conditions. The study area should be in a two-mile
radius from the Atlantic Yards and should have a twenty-year horizon. These must consider the official regional
forecast by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. They project an increase of the population
in Brooklyn by 2025 of 250,000 and 123,000 more jobs. Profiles for the existing and anticipated populations should
include the following characteristics:
Total population
Gender
Age
Race and ethnicity
Ethnic
BalanceFamily Status
Household Size
Income
Poverty Status
Education
Occupation
Car ownership
Place of work
Mode of work-trip
travel
Profiles of
existing and anticipated housing should include:
Housing type
Condition
Units per structure
Owner-occupancy or
rental
Single Room
Occupancy
Group quarters
Vacancy rates
Income levels of
occupants (low-moderate –high income)
Regulations that
protect tenants
Percentage of
regulated
Regulated units
lost in last ten years
Regulate units
anticipated to be lost in the next twenty years
Availability of
housing subsidies
Housing costs
Housing values
Other affordable
housing units on line for construction
Income mix of
future development
Existing and
anticipated economic activities should be:
Classified by
commercial type (e.g.’office-based services, retailing, etc.) and non-taxable
institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals/health care centers, community centers,
etc.)
Socioeconomic
conditions must consider the effects of the primary and secondary displacements
of population, housing and economic activity.
The study area for
socioeconomic conditions must include anticipated effects at the regional
(i.e., the effect of newly developed commercial space cumulatively considering
and accurate reporting of the existing Downtown Brooklyn capacity and maximum
build-out capacity from recent Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning action.) and local
levels. Projections should also be done
based on the Build and No-build options to identify other variables that would
influence trends and activity to the region.
Finally, all base
line data should be provided to the community for review before figures are
incorporated into the DEIS. We will
convene a special meeting of our Board, if need be, to accommodate this
consultation.
1.
Public
education facilities
Public Schools
operated, funded or chartered by the Department of Education and educational
programs (e.g., G.E.D., literacy programs, etc.) must be analyzed based on the
potential for the project to cause overcrowding or excessive demands for
services.
Private and
parochial schools should be taken into consideration. Institutions that attract school groups (e.g., BAM, Prospect Park
etc.) should be analyzed as well.
Impact on high-risk
test scores should be considered in schools most likely to be effected by
increase enrollment absent increase school funding.
Air quality of
public and private schools need to be analyzed for projection of construction
impacts.
Extra attention
should be given to primary and secondary roads that pass schools, or are on
school routes to analyze potential increased risks to pedestrians going to and
from local school.
2.
Libraries
Public Libraries
operated by the Brooklyn Public library system (e.g., Brower Park, Pacific and
Clinton Hill branches), the Long Island Historical Society and other
similar institutions must be analyzed
based on the existing and projected resource available to serve the anticipated
population growth.
3.
Health
Care facilities
Health care
facilities (i.e., hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other facilities
providing emergency and outpatient health services) must be analyzed based on
project induced impacts. A
comprehensive baseline health profile for the project area should be developed
to assess whether existing facilities are currently sufficient to fully
understand the impact of any project induced impact. This baseline should be
signed off by CB2, 6, and 8 since health services used by one community board
resident may be located in an adjacent board’s catchments area. (NB: List local
health care facilities here)
4.
Day
Care Centers
An analysis of the
existing numbers and distribution of day care and head start slots must be
developed for the existing population and project induced needs should be
projected based on net anticipated population, both residential and
commercial. There must also be
consideration for the shift in School-age day care that is occurring in
September 2005, which will involve children being shifted from an independent
center to a facility run by DYS in a DOE facility.
5.
Fire
Protection
Given the net
anticipated population, the increased density of buildings in the project area,
the project-induced traffic and the introduction of large and frequent
scheduled public assembly events, a detailed assessment of the impact on
response time and service delivery should be conducted in coordination with the
fire department.
A baseline analysis of existing protection services should include:
Protection services should include:
Arson statistics
Fire deaths,
Response times,
Age and adequacy of equipment
Prior to the 9/11
attack, a plan to blow up the Atlantic Avenue station was thwarted, we demand that
special attention be paid to an emergency plan to analyzes threats to include:
Truck bomb with
conventional ordinance
Truck bomb with
radioactive material
Truck bomb with
biohazardous material
Hijacked plane with
conventional explosive, radioactive or biohazardous material
Suicide bomber with
conventional explosive, radioactive or biohazardous material
Analysis of impacts
must be done for the following companies (Union Street, St. John’s)
Analysis should
consider how fire department vehicles move if traffic conditions shut down as
they did on December 24th, 2004.
These types of traffic conditions are like to occur with increasing
frequency due to large assembly events, shopping seasons, the construction
phase and the anticipated doubling of traffic in the downtown Brooklyn area?
Considering the
anticipated increase in working and residential population, an analysis should
indicate how fire protection services would be increased to accommodate
increased demand.
Analysis should
consider locating new fire protection units that are equipped to handle
skyscrapers in Brooklyn.
6.
Police Protection
Given the net anticipated population, the increased density of buildings in the project
Area, the project-induced economic activity, the project-induced traffic and the
introduction of large and frequent scheduled public assembly events, a detailed
assessment of service delivery should be conducted in conjunction with the Police
Department.
Furthermore, the proximity of the project area to the location of the 78th
Police Precinct stationhouse and the likely access and mobility issues arising as a result
should warrant a detailed impact analysis to determine the extent to which project-
induced traffic may negatively effect the ability for the precinct to rapidly and effectively
respond to service calls.
It has come to our attention that Brooklyn Community Board 6 has previously suggested the possible need to relocate the 78th Precinct stationhouse because of the crowded conditions at the corner of 6th Avenue and Flatbush.
Prior to the 9/11/2001 attack, a plan to destroy the Atlantic
Avenue station was fortunately thwarted. Because of the real possibility
of another incident on American soil[1], special
attention needs to be paid to security concerns related to international or
domestic terrorism.
Recently released Department of Homeland Security’s 15
National Planning Scenarios, covering both natural disasters and domestic or
foreign attack, reveals that over half of these scenarios apply to the BAY
project. Four of them have been
highlighted for their specificity as regards this project. Some Potential Threats to the BAY Complex
are:
* Planes landing at LaGuardia Airport that pass directly over the BAY complex
* Truck bombs and/or car bombs entering, or just passing by, the BAY complex
* Biological attacks on the arena, the high-rises and/or the Atlantic Ave. Station
* Chemical attacks on the arena, the high-rises and/or the Atlantic Ave. Station
* Assaults and/or hostage taking situations
v False alarms.
Specifically, what would be the affected Community Boards’, or other local agencies’, involvement in determining the size, types, locations, numbers, appearance, etc. of traffic control & security barriers? What agencies (& budgets) may be involved in satisfying these security requirements?
How will the limited number of access points (see published Site Plan) into the BAY development be defended/secured to prevent unwanted entry of car or truck bombs; both during NYC’s “normal” and elevated federal Alert conditions? Consequentially, how
will such “defense & security” for parking facilities & BAY entries limit the free movement of people and goods between local communities? What will be the economic consequences of such Fortress generated dislocations on those communities & local businesses? (E.g., searching commercial vehicles, in August of 2004, at the Manhattan Bridge stopped all downtown Brooklyn traffic & had to be curtailed.)
Will parking in underground lots be restricted during arena events given the example of how parking has been restricted at the US Tennis Open in Queens? How might such parking restrictions impact traffic & thus impact evacuation and rescue operations as well as the local economy?
What special accommodations must be made to the arena & the 17 high-rise towers to facilitate rapid emergency exiting? Will any of these accommodations & costs require the actions of public agencies: e.g., changes to streets or the Atlantic Ave. Station?
What impact on evacuation and rescue operations, including in false alarm situations, can be expected from the demapping of existing city streets? Parenthetically, will this affect normal Fire Department response times? Will any mitigation costs be associated with meeting FD standards in this area?
What provisions & procedures exist at local hospitals & police & fire services to adequately handle the aftermath of any such terrorist attack(s)? Are such services adequate to the potential aftermath of any terrorist event given the increases in building & population density from this project & the 4th Ave. & Downtown Brooklyn re-zoning.
Potential Financial Impacts & Questions:
Given that Federal terrorism insurance laws will expire this year, how such very substantial terrorism insurance costs are calculated, and how this cost will ultimately be satisfied, and by what parties, over the projected 30-year project life has, thus far, been completely ignored.
What costs are expected to arise pursuant to satisfying security obligations & coordinating all security issues with the many local, city, state & federal agencies involved during construction & occupation? For example what agencies are involved in Atlantic Avenue’s designation as a “Shore Evacuation Route”?
How will over-flights (commercial, private, helicopter, etc) be handled, by what agencies, & in what circumstances (Orange & Red Alerts, scheduled or special Arena events, etc)? What will be the effect on the regional economy and airports, including flight delays, if flights must be curtailed or rerouted?
In the event of a major WTC level attack, and post 9/11 EPA findings, how might air toxicity be minimized given the density of the population in the surrounding area? What might be the expected costs of post event clean up based on the WTC experience?
In the event of a bio or chemical attack what mitigating air circulation, monitoring, cut out & purification systems might be required for the arena (& individual towers), as well as the connected Atlantic Ave. Station, to prevent contamination of the complex and surrounding communities? What will be the additional costs?
7. Other community facilities
The need for additional community facilities, particularly community centers, faith-based and cultural facilities must be considered in conjunction with the anticipated
socioeconomic conditions. Also within the project area is a shelter at 630 Pacific Street.
The future of this facility must be considered in the project analysis. In order to create a greater level of community participation, the developer should consider conducting a scientific poll to determine what additional community facilities the surround residents require.
Proposed open space must be clearly designated as either public or private open space
and active or passive areas. For public open space it should be known whether such
space would ultimately be under government or private jurisdiction and if the latter then
whether any restrictions on the use of the space would be in affect that would differ from
public open space that would fall under government jurisdiction.
Identification of existing public/private and active/passive open space for the project area and within 1/4 mile radius of the site would be necessary to determine the changes based on the project, and an analysis of the impact on the existing facilities is necessary based on the potential for the project to cause greater utilization demands. Assessment of the effects of noise, air pollutant emissions, odors, shadows, etc. on the proposed open space should be addressed in the other relevant sections of the EIS. Open space ratios (the ratio of total open space acreage per 1,000 user population) for existing and post-construction
populations (residential and nonresidential) should be calculated. Open space features,
types of equipment, facilities, hours of operation and access, etc. if known should be
presented. If not known, a structure for developing open space plans with the affected
communities present an opportunity for collaborative community planning.
The longest shadows cast are 4.3 times the building heights. Shadow impacts on open
space, natural and architectural resources inside and outside the project area must be
analyzed for seasonal variations.
Historic resources (i.e., districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects of historical,
aesthetic, cultural and archaeological importance) in the project area must be inventoried,
classified and reported in the EIS. Determination of past site uses and anticipated effects
of site disturbances including archaeological sensitivities (known and potential resources)
should be considered. As new developments are proposed and constructed in our borough, it is essential to preserve and promote the historic presence of African Americans, who have been a significant part of the population of the borough since the 16th Century.
G. Urban Design/Visual Resources
The urban design elements of the project (i.e., building bulk, use, and type, building
arrangement, block form and street pattern, streetscape elements, street hierarchy and
natural features) should be considered for their regional as well as local impacts. As in
the land use study area, the urban design elements should be studied and viewed in
context to surrounding neighborhoods. Detailed descriptions if known of proposed urban
design elements (including building bulk, heights, setbacks, density, building uses,
building arrangement, block form and street pattern, and streetscape elements such as
street furniture, streetwall, front lawns, median strips, stoops, loading docks, etc.) should
be presented. If not known, a structure for developing urban design plans with the
affected communities present an opportunity for collaborative community planning.
Visual resources include important view corridors, vistas and natural and built features.
Including among them is the significance of the Williamsburg Saving Bank as a
landscape feature of historic importance. Project impacts on these view corridors must be
considered.
Other questions to be addressed include:
Will the building arrangement resemble a campus-type setting, as in MetroTech, and how
will they integrate and relate to the surrounding neighborhoods?
An assessment of neighborhood character will be necessary since the project will likely
affect all or some of the following categories: land use, urban design, visual resources,
historic resources, socioeconomic conditions, traffic and noise. For neighborhood
character, how these areas combine to create the context and feeling of the neighborhood,
and the affect of the project should be considered. Information should be gathered by
way of field visits, photographs, other available information and interviews.
A natural resources analysis must consider the project’s impact on water resources (i.e.,
surface water bodies like the Gowanus Canal, groundwater, overall drainage systems, and
floodplain), upland resources (i.e., street trees, gardens and other ornamental
landscaping), and built resources (i.e., waterfront structures and flood protection
structures). Project proposes a significant increase in paved surface area so resulting
plans for treatment of groundwater, surface drainage, stormwater run-off, sewer capacity
demands, combined sewer overflow discharges and municipal facility demands must be
considered. Tree surveys and water quality analyses should be performed.
Other questions to be addressed include:
What is the impact of commercial/residential development on the Gowanus watershed
area? Will it affect existing plans for Gowanus Pump Station/Flushing Tunnel? (E/W)
An analysis of known and suspected hazardous materials on the project site based on the
history of land uses subject to further research of the site and surrounding reconnaissance,
interviews with owners and occupants, surface topography and groundwater migration
evaluation should produce an assessment conclusions report as part of the EIS. A Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment should be produced to determine whether Phase II
studies are warranted.
The project area does not lie within the designated boundaries of the New York City’s
Coastal Zone, but is located roughly 3/4 mile upgradient of the nearest boundary at the
Gowanus Canal (Baltic Street and 4th Avenue). As such, special attention should be
taken into consideration on any project-induced impacts on the Gowanus Canal
floodplain region.
Other questions to be addressed include:
What is the impact of commercial/residential development on the Gowanus watershed
area? Will it affect existing plans for Gowanus Pump Station/Flushing Tunnel? (E/W)
Without question there will be a need to develop additional infrastructure to support the
project. Infrastructure analyses must include water supply, sanitary sewage and
stormwater disposal, sanitation, energy, roadways, and public transportation, all
necessary components to the project. Existing and projected infrastructure capacities and
demands must be thoroughly considered.
Other questions to be addressed include:
What is the impact of commercial/residential development on the Gowanus watershed
area? Will it affect existing plans for Gowanus Pump Station/Flushing Tunnel? (E/W)
Will the project utilize any gray water systems to capture and reuse discharged water?
(E/W)
Will the project utilize any green building system designs? (E/W)
Will the project utilize any alternative energy systems? (E/W)
Collection, transfer and transport systems for solid waste collection/management and
related facilities must be projected for existing and anticipated volumes of municipal
solid waste, commercial solid waste, regulated medical wastes and designated recyclable materials. A modeled flow plan for how anticipated volumes of generated wastes would be handled should be developed based on anticipated residential and nonresidential
populations.
A complete assessment of the existing supply capacity and projected peak demands for
energy consumption by residential and nonresidential populations should be developed.
In addition to considering the projected energy consumption needs, acting on the
assumption that additional resources will be necessary to support the project, any effects
on the transmission of new energy resources must likewise be considered.
Other questions to be addressed include:
Will the project utilize any alternative energy systems?
O. Traffic and Parking
Forest City Ratner and its Nets Arena, with approximately 8 million sq. ft. including its 19,000 seat arena for the Nets basketball team--an arena proposed for year-around activity--is the latest in a long line of new development. FCR is coming into the picture late. Will there be enough subway and roadway space to accommodate this new development? The NYC Department of Transportation in a recent technical memorandum for its Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint, reports that Downtown roads are already crowded during peak hours; that the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway is at capacity for much of the workday; that our Downtown subway lines and stations are crowded during peak hours; and that any new development in the Downtown area is going to have a hard time squeezing in.
Selection of the traffic study area should consider regional access as well as local street
access. Traffic flow and operating conditions, parking conditions, goods delivery and
vehicular and pedestrian safety all must be considered.
The Atlantic Yards DEIS must employ simulation and micro-assignment
modeling if its impact analysis is to be accepted by the community. The
only way to get a realistic assessment of the effects of new development in
Downtown Brooklyn is to use traffic models that simulate and depict travel
patterns and behavior. Micro-assignment
modeling estimates and displays the fastest route and mode between where people
are and where they want to go. It is
used to assign future trips to the regional and local roadway network with
consistency and objectivity based on land use and demographics. This kind of travel demand modeling will
show us under what conditions drivers get off the BQE and spill over onto local
streets. This contrasts sharply with
the typical reliance of EIS’s on some engineer’s often arbitrary judgment as to
what roads drivers will choose and assigns them to those roads, whether or not
there’s any space for another car. The
Downtown Brooklyn FEIS was allowed to get away with assigning only 1% of the
re-zoning related trips to the Brooklyn Bridge, whereas more than 10% of the
trips due to all other new development were assigned to the bridge.
Once trips are assigned, simulation modeling can estimate and depict
actual road conditions, showing not only the delay at individual intersections
but also the spillback effects on nearby intersections. Some models combine both the travel demand
and operations functions. The Downtown
Brooklyn Development FEIS analyzed isolated intersections and, in the end,
admitted that even its under-reported traffic would so jam Brooklyn traffic that
no mitigation could be found to offset all its impacts. The City approved the project anyway. Simulation modeling has the added advantage
that its output is visual. People don’t
not have to be traffic engineers to understand the impact of new development. These models can also be used to develop
and optimize any mitigation needed to offset new development in the Downtown
area.
For traffic flow and operating conditions, traffic modeling for intermodal splits between highways (i.e., Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, Gowanus Expressway, Prospect Expressway, Brooklyn Bridge/Manhattan Bridge/Brooklyn Battery Tunnel usage), primary thoroughfares (i.e., Atlantic Avenue, Flatbush Avenue, 4th Avenue, etc.), secondary thoroughfares (i.e., Eastern Parkway, 8th Avenue/Prospect Park West, Fulton Street) and local surrounding feeder streets must be projected.
Working from the assumption that the baseline condition for traffic in the area is at capacity[2], a detailed analysis of how operating conditions in the area would
actually be mitigated is essential. Efforts should be made to review past promised mitigations that have not been undertaken.[3] It should also investigate a proposal of NYCDOT’s Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Project to reroute traffic in area of Atlantic Center that was abandoned because it would have required taking one small property on Nevins Street.
Vehicle trips generated by each component of the project (residential and nonresidential uses) must be identified individually and projected cumulatively with other planned and anticipated development.
For parking affects all streets within a 1/2 mile radius of the site should be considered. All newly created parking spaces should be identified as serving its corresponding component of the project (i.e., how many spaces will be used for the area, for the residential element, for the commercial office space, etc.). The impact on subsurface parking in the Yards on train operations now and with a future potential extension of the LIRR must be reported.
Public and private parking spaces, their respective locations, as well as free and paid parking, should be identified as well. An analysis should be made of the arrangement FCRC made with community residents for reduced fee parking at the Atlantic Terminal Mall. Was the plan successful? What is the current status of that promised community benefit?
Traffic study should also analyze how increase truck traffic will impact parking and traffic flow in and around the new development. Specifically, what security precautions will be considered to protect the development from truck bombs? How will the screenings of truck impact traffic congestion?
Any analysis of traffic in Downtown Brooklyn must take into consideration the use of the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges as toll free river crossings. Alternative must include congestion mitigation such as tolls or congestion fees coupled with resident parking permits and high transient fees. Parking pricing varying according to demand should apply to both on-street and off-street parking.
An analysis of existing and projected roadway capacities and levels of service should be performed on a regional basis. An existing on-street and off-street parking analysis should be developed as a baseline. Mitigation measures, if known, should be presented. If not known, a structure for developing traffic mitigation plans with the affected communities presents an opportunity for collaborative community planning.
Selection of transit study area should be considered in context of regional access of
transit options and local street access for pedestrians. All of the train lines that pass through Community Board 8 also pass through Downtown Brooklyn, impacting the capacity of these lines. A baseline with community sign-off should accurately reflect the current status of the A,C,2,3,4,and 5 trains. The Baseline issues should include, but not be limited to:
Transit peak hour
demands,
pedestrian volumes within stations,
analyses of station element level of service,
stairways,
corridors and passageways,
turnstiles, escalators,
elevators and high-wheel exits,
In-haul capacities,
Assessments of subway capacity should use MTA not NYC CEQR
standards. Subway ridership must be modeled using the MTA’s Transit Demand Model,
which uses land use and demographic data to assign trips to subway stations and
direction of destinations. The basis on
all assumptions must be documented and reviewed by community
representatives. Actual operating
parameters must be used for existing conditions. Future No Build must account for the background demand due to
projected growth in Manhattan, 513,000 more jobs in 2025 than 2005, according
to the official forecast by NYMTC.
Brooklyn traditionally fills 20% of those jobs, with 90% going by
transit, approximately 80% on trains that go through Downtown Brooklyn (slightly
less at Atlantic Center without the F).
The Future Build should consider capacity with and without the extension
of the LIRR to Lower Manhattan, and with added service on those lines that can
handle more peak hour trains and added service in the shoulders of the peak for
lines that are at their maximum throughput.
Or these can be considered under mitigation, along with a concerted
campaign by Downtown businesses to promote staggered workhours to reduce peak
demand and encourage travel in the shoulders.
Such a simple measure would, however, require additional subway cars.
The bus system should be analyzed for including but not limited to:
bus routesbus ridership
Busload levels
bus service frequency
bus travel times
Future No Build should consider ridership potential with and without Bus Rapid Transit instituted in subway deficient areas. It could also be examined as a means of mitigating high auto use.
For pedestrian study area, all intersections within a half -mile (the general limit of most trips on foot) of the project site should be considered as much for safety and convenience as for crowding. Mitigation measures should consider extending and enhancing the Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Project. It should especially investigate pedestrian protective signal system, including Digital Eyes, which prompts pedestrians to look for turning traffic before crossing.
In order to insure accuracy of baseline assumptions and to allow community participants to make informed observations of transportation needs the following step outlined in our cover letter should be observed.
Ø
Negotiated scoping process with community
sign-off.
Ø
Full Community Board 2, 6 and 8-study area.
Ø
Twenty-year horizon for analysis to include
full development from rezoning and all known planned development.
Ø
Phased public review of baseline
assumptions.
Ø
Full documentation of all data, assumptions
and calculations.
Ø
State of the art traffic modeling.
Ø
Use of MTA’s transit ridership model with
public review
Ø
Full analysis of available
alternatives.
Ø
Method to monitor the effectiveness of
mitigation
Air quality sources (i.e., mobile, stationary, construction-related) must be considered for
existing conditions and project-induced impacts. Existing sources should be identified
and new projected sources considered. Mobile sources should be considered in the same
study area suggested for the traffic study area. Receptor locations should include
sidewalks, property lines for residential and nonresidential components of the project,
parking areas and open space. Dispersion modeling should be developed, particularly
during peak demand events. Such modeling for mobile and stationary sources should be
considered both independently and cumulatively. Construction-related air quality sources
should be identified and considered with the individual laborers as the most sensitive
receptors.
Noise sources (i.e., mobile, stationary, construction-related) must be considered for
existing conditions and project-induced impacts. Existing sources should be identified
and new projected sources considered. Mobile sources should be considered in the same
study area suggested for the traffic study area. Receptor locations should include
sidewalks, property lines for residential and nonresidential components of the project,
parking areas and open space. Noise descriptors and their potential affect on the
surrounding environment should be identified. Construction-related noise sources should
be identified and considered with the individual laborers as the most sensitive receptors.
Construction-related impacts include traffic-related impacts resulting from construction-
induced traffic, street/lane closings, air quality and noise. While temporary in nature, the
magnitude of the project suggests that construction impacts will have a lasting presence
in the community. Given the projected lengthy construction period, further attention
should be paid to the construction impacts on land use and neighborhood character,
socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, open space, historic resources and
infrastructure. Mitigation measures, if known, should be presented. If not knowstructure for developing construction impact mitigation plans with the affected
communities present an opportunity for collaborative community planning. Furthermore,
an ongoing structure consisting of community representatives should be in place for
regular monitoring of construction-related impacts.
T. Public Health
Many public health concerns are closely related to air quality, noise, hazardous materials,
sanitation and solid waste, construction and natural resources. As such, relevant risk
assessment/risk modeling should be performed in those areas to determine to what degree
public health mitigation measures may be warranted.
Access to quality healthcare has become an even more critical matter for our community as we prepare to confront the imminent closing of St. Mary’s Hospital, the only major healthcare facility in our Community Board District. Careful consideration must be made on how additional residents, the associated hazards with large-scale construction, and the impact of increased congestion will affect the provision of health services to area residents.
Within the range from the “Build” to the “No Build” options there are numerous
permutations that could change the configuration of the project. Recent media
announcements, for example, have suggested that the finalized project plans may include
less commercial office space and more residential development. Other variables include
considering alternative uses for the project site, development of an as-of-right alternative,
alternative site for the project, alternative size for the project, alternative design or
configuration, alternative technology, phasing alternative, and no unmitigated impact
alternative.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Sub Committee Meeting
Center for Nursing
and Rehabilitation
Brooklyn, NY 11238
The meeting was chaired by Mr. Bill Batson, Chairperson and Mr. Meredith Staton, Co-chair. The committee heard a presentation by our technical advisors, Ms. Carolyn S. Konheim and Mr. Brian Ketcham of Community Consulting Services regarding the Environmental Impact Statement scoping process. The following are questions raised by those present.
Noting that the Unity Plan is half the size of FCR’s plans (due to the fact that the Unity Plan includes only housing and not a stadium as FCR’s plans do), transportation issues were raised as being key to the EIS. Transportation issues need to be addressed so that the infrastructure will not be backed up by additional service necessities required to prevent traffic jams. What is being done to ensure that this is accomplished?
How will the housing and job market play out in the plan? Is funding going to be provided for the LIRR and the 2nd Avenue Line if it is extended into Brooklyn? What safeguards do we have when FCR changes its mind on issues each year? Are they going to put the infrastructure back? Without it, traffic will not move effectively.
The EIS should be easy to understand and should contain all the data from each agency. Most times, however, the data is stripped from the record. We have to make sure that they commit to infrastructure projects and if they fail to acknowledge, they should lose some of the programs they seek. The EIS subcommittee should have experts assisting them and they should be paid for by the developer. This is something that should be asked for.
We have to make sure everything is spelled out in the EIS statement; if it is not there, the developer will not have to do it. We need to make a projection of what the travel problems will be like and make FCR prove the projections inaccurate.
Although the presentation focused on Traffic and Transportation, there is one area that impacts it that wasn’t discussed. Because of the location and design, there are serious security concerns relating to the project. There will be severe security restrictions that will impact all of Downtown Brooklyn traffic. This needs to be taken into consideration. What is being done to address the security issues?
With the high levels of infant mortality and asthma rates in Fort Greene, something should be mentioned about hospitals. Hospitals, schools, transportation infrastructure issues need to be addressed. Where will additional hospitals and schools be built?
The current scope of the EIS affects only 10% of CB 8. However, the 2 main arteries that serve our boundaries are Atlantic Avenue and Eastern Parkway, which have an enormous volume of traffic daily. This traffic will undoubtedly increase tremendously, which means the entire district will be affected. What is being done to document the effect that this additional traffic will have on our main thoroughfares?
EIS Meeting
Brooklyn Children’s Museum
145 Brooklyn Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11213
Mr. Batson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. He distributed additional copies of the survey regarding the condition of the parks and streets in their neighborhoods to those that had not received a copy previously. He stated that he hopes that those in attendance would spread word of the meetings so that attendance would be better at upcoming meetings. The committee was created to prepare a report to the state of New York regarding our expectations of how the development of the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project. We will also discuss our expectations for community involvement in the community with respect to the EIS statement. The goal is to have a report by June 9, which is the next and last CB meeting for the Fiscal Year.
It is important to meet and discuss concerns because we all have a very important interest in the project, whether we are directly affected by the footprint or not. We will all be affected by the results of the development in the area. We need to have a forum to voice our concerns as often the community is left out of development discussions which normally involve the developer and the State agencies that will participate.
He introduced Brian Ketcham of Community Counseling services, which is a non-profit organization that provides technical support for other community organizations. He provided the following information regarding the Environmental Impact Statement Process (EIS):
An EIS is not a decision making document—it must take a hard look and
disclose a project’s impacts on its setting.
If there’s no better alternative, an EIS identifies how to mitigate
impacts. It is required by federal,
state, and NYC laws, but once it is deemed complete, it is difficult to
litigate unless flaws in the process are found (for instance, not doing what is
prescribed in the EIS scope).
Elements of a useful EIS for Atlantic Yards are a negotiated scoping
process with community sign-off; full CB 2, 6, and 8 study area; 20 year
horizon; phased public review of baseline assumptions; full documentation of
all data, assumptions, and calculations; state of the art traffic modeling; use
of MTA’s transit ridership model with public review; full analysis of available
alternatives; monitored effectiveness of mitigation; funds provided to the
community to hire its own experts.
The Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint currently shows that
70,000 people currently work Downtown and more than 1/3 drive (80% of which
drive alone). Road are already at
capacity during peak hours and the BQE is at capacity for much of the day. Basically, it shows that it is going to be
very difficult to add more development without creative actions. It was
reported one month ago that development would generate about 100,000 new car
and truck trips. This estimate assumed
that 12% of new workers would drive, but DOT reports that three times this
number presently drive. In keeping with this trend and these numbers,
300,000 more cars and trucks on the roads could be devastating.
The above reasons are why it is utterly necessary to have an EIS
process that responds to the community.
The scope of an EIS is where issues to be covered get decided. The scope of work must be developed with the
community and with community sign-off.
The study area for the Atlantic Yards Development Project should
include all of CB 2, 6, 8 as all of the area covered by the three boards will
be directly affected despite not being in the footprint. It also cannot ignore Park Slope and
Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning. There should be a 20-year horizon for
planning analysis as the NYS Dept. of Transportation and the MTA assumes the
standard minimum of 20 yeas for planning.
Also, the Downtown Brooklyn Development Plan accounted for only 10 yeas
and left out half of what was rezoned.
There should be phased public review of baseline assumptions as
baseline determines what transportation capacity is available for new
development. Also, the community needs
to agree on a reasonable baseline. Full documentation of all data, assumptions,
and calculations should be provided to the CBs. The normal practice is to strip out the information so that results
cannot be duplicated. However, the community
needs to insist on receipt of full documentation as the EIS is developed.
State of the art traffic modeling should be employed as the standard
practices do not correctly assess heavily congested conditions. There are
models available to estimate traffic impacts with accuracy and visual output as
well as to assign trips on the basis of actual travel behavior. These types of
models provide more accurate results to assess the project’s impacts and can
therefore be used to identify effective mitigation.
Use of the MTA’s Transit Ridership model can be used to provide
accurate assignment of new trips based on travel behavior. With the Downtown Brooklyn EIS, line-haul
transit effects were first ignored and then the data was manipulated to
minimize the impacts. It needs to be known how an additional 400,000 new subway
trips (as estimated upon completion of building in Downtown Brooklyn) will
affect the system.
Full analysis of realistic alternatives must be completed. Presently, there are three: the Ratner Plan
with an arena, the Unity Plan, and the Pacific Street Plan. Other reasonable uses of the Atlantic Yards
must be considered as well.
The CBs must monitor the effectiveness of mitigation and must first
make sure that mitigation is actually implemented. It needs to be insured that
mitigation is effective both before and after all counts and if it is not, then
additional mitigation must be adopted (in order to insure that AY does not end
like MetroTech and 330 Jay Street, which did not complete the agreed upon
mitigation).
There is a precedent for funding to be provided to the community to
hire its own experts. Examples are the
Gowanus Expressway, Brooklyn Nay Yard waste-to-energy and Trump City. The EIS process is very complicated and
requires considerable expertise and experience to prepare and to review. Therefore, the only way to make the EIS
process effective and responsive to communities is to provide them with their
own experts.
To accommodate new development, the following ideas have been raised:
increased transit capacity; an LIRR connection to Lower Manhattan with stops in
Downtown Brooklyn; bus rapid transit for all of Brooklyn; tolling the East
River bridges to pay for all development and to alter travel patterns to
accommodate new traffic. Without
implementing many or all of these ideas, the community will face a bleak future
with severe congestion, little new development, or both.
Mr. Ketcham informed those present that the only way to overturn an EIS is to find that it has not followed the proper process. Therefore, the scope of the EIS is extremely important. At the present time, the issues brought about from the current perceived scope are underreported. Mr. Ketcham reported that in the Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Plan, the findings prove that the number of traffic concerns has been underreported during the scoping process. What the DOT report shows is that 3x the number of people reported in the EIS estimate actually drive in the community. Example: 13% is reported, but actually, it is 35%.
However, there needs to be community sign-off on the scope of work prior to creating and developing an EIS. Responding to a question as to what community sign-off actually is, Mr. Ketcham stated that sign-off is when the community goes over the scope line by line so that everything that concerns residents is included in the scope. The current drawn boundaries do not leave much room for negotiation by residents nor does it possess enough of the surrounding area to actually address valid concerns. Therefore, it is pertinent to propose that all of CBs 2, 6, and 8 be included in the study area as each community board will be affected, even areas that are not directly in the footprint of the project.
The following are the questions asked and the responses given at the meeting as well as additional concerns that were raised.
Can a Light rail in system be placed back into the plans? Mr. Ketcham stated that it should be looked at as a traffic alternative. It would be interesting to obtain a copy of the MTA’s subway travel model that will document the number of people that currently utilize the Downtown stations to compare with the models intuited in the scoping process. He stated that the CB can demand to get a copy for investigative purposes to make sure that mitigation is actually implemented.
Would the developer have to pay for each EIS statement for any development alternatives? Yes. Two other plans have been presented: the Marshall Brown Plan and the Pacific Street Plan. Marshall Brown has housing and nothing else; the Pacific Street Plan is a lower scale plan with building heights with half the size, and a stadium. The entire scale is smaller. The Pacific Street plan also moves the arena to a more residential area.
Regarding transportation and traffic issues, Mr. Batson informed those in attendance that there are ways to address traffic issues. For instance, he stated, we can suggest that not only new roads be built, but also that we keep some of them open rather than closing them off. Mr. Ketcham suggested that Ratner use a computer simulated program to determine that traffic concerns rather than guesstimating and Mr. Batson stated that the CB will ask to have access to the program as well so that we can see what Ratner is proposing.
It was brought to the attention of the committee that the whole of Ratner’s plan has not been seen. It was also brought to the attention that a critique of the plans cannot be made without the necessary details. Also, valid concerns cannot be raised and the community cannot interact with plans that have not been disclosed yet.
Mr. Batson raised the issue that the role of the community board is not to critique the plans but to address the issues of concern for the neighborhood. In doing so, we must make important concepts available to the public so that it will be politically embarrassing to the entities involved in the plan.
Mr. Todd stated that there is the assumption that something will be built and asked why the assumption is there. He gave an anecdote on the policy in certain other states, primarily Oregon, where the people have determined where there will be massive development, little development, and no development done. Many sites are evaluated, and then the amount of development for the most feasible site is calculated. However, this was not done here, as there were no additional sites considered.
Will the CB request money for independent consultants? Mr. Batson stated that he had heard a rumor that BP Markowitz would request funds from Pratt Institute.
Is ESDC under any obligation to listen to the CB? Just by having the document, it brings our concerns to the attention of the public and they will have to be addressed. If we know the right questions to ask, we can use them in the future.
Define scope in relation to the community and the project. The scope is the outlining area that must be reported on. It spells out the data collection that must be done. The detail provided in the scope is how we hold the developers legally responsible.
The aspect of terrorism is not mentioned anywhere in Ratner’s plan. In 1997, there was a plot to blow up the Atlantic Avenue subway station. Has there ever been an EIS regarding terrorism? Mr. Batson stated that the final document will express the concern. Mr. Ketcham stated there is no precedent regarding terrorism.
Traffic, primarily fast moving traffic, is already a concern, especially on the routes that people are now taking as shortcuts to get to major thoroughfares.
There is quite a large artist community in the area, and this is threatened by the project.
Air quality and aesthetics are other concerns. Mr. Batson listed the areas on concern that will be commented on.
Mr. Ketcham stated that the EIS is a very complicated and intricate process. There is a precedent to get the funds to hire consultants to discuss and explain the development process. What the CB is trying to do is get as much testimony as it can regarding the project. The two main areas of leverage that the community has is lawsuits, based upon the action taken or not taken, and political, in terms of voting. We need to put pressure on our elected officials in order to have a voice. The agencies that have control are not those elected by us, but rather are appointed by the governor.
Mr. Batson availed himself for information if anyone had any questions or comments. Please email him at Batson27@hotmail.com. Each email will receive a response. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00.
If we at all accept the reality of domestic or foreign terrorism, then it becomes necessary to look at Forest City Ratner’s Brooklyn Atlantic Yards (BAY) Project to determine what related issues will fall within the scope of an EIS for that project. By engaging in this process we are expressing a socially prudent concern with determining how and if we can answer the question: Will Brooklyn be less safe if this project is approved?
Above all, please understand that the following material focuses on terrorist related issues & consequences that result from the specific location, nature and design of this project and not on just the generic issues arising from the construction of large buildings. In this respect it follows the logic behind the NYPD’s review of security issues relating to the construction of a specific structure, the Freedom Tower, at a specific site, Ground Zero.
Parenthetically, given that Federal terrorism insurance laws, passed after 9/11, will expire this year, answers to these questions may also help determine how such very substantial terrorism insurance costs are calculated. Unfortunately, how this cost will ultimately be satisfied, and by what parties, over the projected 30-year project life has, thus far, been completely ignored.
In conjunction with the material presented here the recently released Department of Homeland Security’s 15 National Planning Scenarios, covering both natural disasters and domestic or foreign attack, has been appended. It appears that over half of these scenarios apply to the BAY project. Four of them have been highlighted for their specificity as regards this project.
* Prior terrorist attack, planned in 1997, involving the Atlantic Ave. Station. (See Jihad in Brooklyn, by Samuel Katz, New American Library, 2005.)
* Thwarted attempt on the Herald Sq. Station by suicide bombers reminiscent of the 1997 plot. (See NY Magazine of December 6, 2004.)
* The discovery of Atlantic Station renovation plans scattered loose on Brooklyn streets (NY Post, 2/6/05) & GCT plans in the leader of the Spanish train bombing’s computer.
* Proximity of the BAY Project to critical transportation:
- Atlantic Ave. Station serving 10 subway lines and a LIRR terminus
- Three Major Brooklyn thoroughfares: 4th, Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues.
* A sports arena with publicly scheduled mass events proximate to the Atlantic Avenue Station and the project’s other 17 oversized high-rise buildings.
* The large number of high-rise buildings constructed so as to enclose an open central area. This would allow a single Oklahoma City sized truck bomb to take out multiple high-rises in a single event.
* The lack of setbacks allowing the arena & any of these perimeter towers to be attacked from any surrounding street or avenue by car or truck bomb. In this context, the 18-wheeler trucks that roll by the Freedom Tower are no different than those rumbling past the proposed arena & associated skyscrapers.
* The high-end commercial space in the high-rises that can be expected to include government and financial offices, both of which are declared Al Qaida targets.
* The vast numbers of people living, working, passing through & servicing the complex on a daily basis constituting another declared Al Qaida target criteria.
* Stated use as an Olympic venue if NYC is selected to host the 2012 Olympics.
Some Potential Threats to the BAY Complex:
* Planes landing at LaGuardia Airport which pass directly over the BAY complex
* Truck bombs and/or car bombs entering, or just passing by, the BAY complex
* Biological attacks on the arena, the high-rises and/or the Atlantic Ave. Station
* Chemical attacks on the arena, the high-rises and/or the Atlantic Ave. Station
* Assaults and/or hostage taking situations
* False alarms.
Logical EIS Related Considerations and Questions:
What costs are expected to arise pursuant to satisfying security obligations & coordinating all security issues with the many local, city, state & federal agencies involved during construction & occupation? For example what agencies are involved in Atlantic Avenue’s designation as a “Shore Evacuation Route”? (e.g., Will this designation affect the construction schedule in any way?)
How will over-flights (commercial, private, helicopter, etc) be handled, by what agencies, & in what circumstances (Orange & Red Alerts, scheduled or special Arena events, etc)? What will be the effect on the regional economy and airports, including flight delays, if flights must be curtailed or rerouted?
In the event of a major WTC level attack, and post 9/11 EPA findings, how might air toxicity be minimized given the density of the population in the surrounding area? What might be the expected costs of post event clean up based on the WTC experience?
In the event of a bio or chemical attack what mitigating air circulation, monitoring, cut out & purification systems might be required for the arena (& individual towers), as well as for the connected Atlantic Ave. Station, to prevent contamination of the complex, the station and all surrounding communities? What will be the additional costs & how will they be allocated?
What provisions & procedures exist at local hospitals & police & fire services to adequately handle the aftermath of any such terrorist attack(s)? Are such services adequate to the potential aftermath of any terrorist event given the increases in building & population density from this project & the 4th Ave. & Downtown Brooklyn re-zoning.
Additionally, given Brooklyn’s historic lack of skyscrapers, what additional manpower, specialized equipment & training will be required to handle potential terrorist scenarios, high-rise fires, evacuations & other associated demands? What will be the initial and ongoing costs associated with any required changes, and who will pick up these costs?
What impact on evacuation and rescue operations can be expected from damage to, or overloading of public & street facilities? (E.g., even if the Atlantic Ave. Station is not closed down will there be sufficient LIRR & TA cars to move people out quickly? What happens if thoroughfares are damaged or in a gridlocked condition?
What impact on evacuation and rescue operations, including in false alarm situations, can be expected from the demapping of existing city streets? Parenthetically, will this affect normal Fire Department response times? Will any mitigation costs be associated with meeting FD standards in this area? Will additional firehouses be required.
What design specifications & special accommodations must be addressed for the arena & the 17 high-rise towers in order to facilitate rapid emergency exiting? Essentially, what standards will the arena be built to; Embassy Standards, Olympic Security, other? Will any of these accommodations & costs require the actions of public agencies: e.g., changes to streets or the Atlantic Ave. Station?
How will the arena be evacuated in a safe & timely manner in order to avoid panic &/or disorder in emergency, including false alarm, situations? What training will be required for arena staff since there will not be any fire/emergency drills for attendees at arena events. What additional (federal, city, etc.) services will be required? What will be the ongoing costs associated with any required services? What parallel issues apply to the 17 high-rise towers.
What accommodations will have to be made to mitigate any damage from car, or truck, bombs due to the lack of set backs from avenues & side streets of the arena & the 17 towers? How will any such accommodations affect area wide traffic, evacuation and rescue operations?
In the event the arena is car or truck bombed, how will glass shrapnel effects from the arena’s street facing glass walls be minimized or constrained? Al Qaida's Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, whose computer held surveillance files of the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, and other financial targets, also spoke of their glass exteriors as shrapnel. It is relevant here that the Freedom Tower’s glass exterior’s strength had to be increased to withstand a blast of 10,000 lbs of explosives, up from 500lbs. (See also, Scenario # 10, hurricanes.)
How will any underground parking facilities be secured? Will additional reinforcement be required given a 1993 WTC attack scenario? At what additional cost?
Will parking in underground lots be restricted during arena events given the example of how parking has been restricted at the US Tennis Opens in Queens? How might such parking restrictions impact traffic & thus impact evacuation and rescue operations as well as the local economy?
How will the limited number of access points (see published Site Plan) into the BAY development be defended/secured to prevent unwanted entry of car or truck bombs; both during NYC’s “normal” and elevated federal Alert conditions? How might limited access impact traffic, evacuation and rescue operations, as well as the local economy?
Given such defense & security needs, what would be the affected Community Boards’, or other local agencies’, involvement in determining the size, types, locations, numbers, appearance, etc. of traffic control & security barriers? ? What agencies (& budgets) may be involved in satisfying these security requirements?
How will such “defense & security” affect local thoroughfare & side street traffic flow and thus impact evacuation and rescue operations? (E.g., searching commercial vehicles, in August of 2004, at the Manhattan Bridge stopped all downtown Brooklyn traffic & had to be curtailed.)
How will such “defense & security” for parking facilities & BAY entries limit the free movement of people and goods between local communities? What will be the economic consequences of such fortress generated dislocations on those communities & local businesses? What effect might it have on the public’s access (per any CBA agreements & city ordinances) to the open spaces within the BAY complex? What would be the affected Community Boards’, or other local agencies’, involvement?
How will any of the many potential traffic dislocations impact the local air quality?
What will be the effect of each day’s worth of such traffic dislocations on the formulas, or numbers used in those formulas, to calculate air quality impacts & associated health & economic consequences? Who will determine the potential number of traffic dislocations that can be expected for estimation purposes over the 30 year life of the development? E.g., estimated number, severity & duration, of real incidents, heightened terror alerts, false alarms, etc….
Finally, given all such terrorist security concerns will CBA agreements regarding the use of local businesses, and the employment of neighborhood residents, be overridden by the need to meet bonding and background check requirements? What impact would that have on current estimates of the benefit of this project to local economic development & any associated tax benefits accruing to the city & state.
Alan M. Rosner
Please note that the entire presentation made by Mr. Brian Ketcham and
Ms. Carolyn Konheim of Community Consulting Services at the April 28, 2005
meeting is available for viewing at the District office. Copies of the EIS are also available upon request.
*Prior
terrorist attack, planned in 1997, involving the Atlantic Ave. Station. (See Jihad in Brooklyn, by Samuel
Katz, New American Library, 2005.)
* Thwarted attempt on the Herald Sq. Station
by suicide bombers reminiscent of the 1997 plot. (See NY Magazine of December 6, 2004.)
* The discovery of Atlantic Station
renovation plans scattered loose on Brooklyn streets (NY Post, 2/6/05) &
GCT plans in the leader of the Spanish train bombing’s computer.
* Proximity of the BAY Project to critical
transportation:
- Atlantic Ave. Station serving 10 subway lines and a LIRR
terminus
- Three
Major Brooklyn thoroughfares: 4th, Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues.
* A sports arena with publicly scheduled mass
events proximate to the Atlantic Avenue Station and the project’s other 17
oversized high-rise buildings.
* The large number of high-rise buildings
constructed so as to enclose an open central area. This would allow a single Oklahoma City sized truck bomb to take
out multiple high-rises in a single event.
* The lack of setbacks allowing the arena
& any of these perimeter towers to be attacked from any surrounding street
or avenue by car or truck bomb.
* The high-end commercial space in the
high-rises that can be expected to include government and financial offices,
both of which are declared Al Qeida targets.
* The vast numbers of people living, working, passing through & servicing the complex on a daily basis.
[2] The NYCDOT Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint “Technical Memorandum, Existing and Anticipated Issues” (May 2005
[3] The approval of MetroTech came with a commitment to $100 million in mitigation, including a westbound exit ramp from the BQE to Navy Street and an unpopular Adams Street underpass at Tillary Street. Neither project was completed nor were alternatives proposed.