Contrary to information apparently being disseminated today by NYCEDC, and contrary to certain erroneous news reports, the reported progress with the Environmental Assessment does NOT constitute approval of the proposed Van Wyck ramps. It is approval of the Environmental Assessment document merely for the purpose of holding a public hearing pertaining to it, which is the next step for NYC EDC; but the public hearing has yet to occur and will include expert submissions from WPU, then a subsequent decision by NYS DOT on whether to approve the ramps, a decision by FHWA on whether to require a full EIS, and then a decision by FHWA on whether or not to approve the ramps.
WPU is taking all appropriate steps to challenge and prevent the approval of ramps, and will continue to do so.
Showing posts with label DOT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOT. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Weiner and Willets Point
With the report today in the NY Daily News that Congressman Anthony Weiner is all but announcing that he's running for mayor, let's take a peek at what Weiner has said and done in regards to Willets Point-which is, after all, in his backyard. For years Weiner has cultivated an outer borough toughness and a homegrown neighborhood protectiveness image. No Manhattan limousine liberal is he.
It was precisely for this reason that WPU went to meet with the congressman last year to brief him on EDC's deceptive practices, and to seek his support against the eminent domain railroading of the Iron Triangle property owners. And Weiner was receptive to the pitch-particularly when WPU's Brian Ketcham explained how EDC's deceitful practices over the Van Wyck ramp traffic would lead to gridlock permeating through all of the neighborhoods surrounding Willets Point. He was also swayed by the fact that the NRDC had endorsed an independent review-along with a growing number of local civic groups.
WPU's concern was that the regulatory process might be rigged-especially since we had seen how the Bloomberg administration had used extra legal methods to gain approval for the project at the city council. Clearly, we felt that the billionaire mayor's influence might mean that state and federal regulators would bow-not to the facts-but to the pressure.
Weiner assured us that, if we could show that the process was not above board, he would look to intervene. That was then. Since that time we have bombarded his office with evidence that shows the the regulatory review process has been tainted-even pointing to the fact that the NYC DOT commissioner was cited for threatening a SDOT official for not expediting-rubber stamping in our view-the EDC application for the ramps.
This, as it turns out, was merely child's play. Now we can see how EDC is trying to totally avoid any regulatory review by embarking on a Phase I that is a product of a warped imagination. As Brian Ketcham has once again shown, this phase will generate tens of thousands of daily car trips that need mitigation or else they will inundate the local roads and highways. And minimally, ramps off of the highway are needed to lessen this expected gridlock.
As part of WPU's fight for fairness we have drafted a letter to the Washington office of the Federal Highway Administration that calls for that agency to take a hard look at the ramp proposal. In the letter we cite an email that heretofore we have kept under wraps. Here's the relevant section of the letter:
Via letter dated July 2, 2010, Phillip Eng, Director, NYSDOT Region 11, responded to the Natural Resources Defense Council, in relevant part: "We understand the request for an independent review but believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the analysis will be based on sound data".
NYSDOT's refusal to solicit any independent review of proposed roadway project X770.44 is disappointing, especially considering that NYSDOT apparently routinely relies on the independent firm AKRF to perform reviews of environmental analyses on behalf of NYSDOT. Candid internal NYSDOT email communications obtained by our community organization reveal NYSDOT's actual position, that independent review is a plague that could
afflict NYSDOT's future large projects:
"this [request for independent review] is dangerous ground and the Commissioner needs to be prepared to address. The use of a separate consultant, so-called independent, is a waste of the tax payer's money especially at a time when such expense cannot be afforded. We went through this on the Meeker project (to our detriment) and fought successfully against it with the K-bridge. To yield on this point now would reinforce this practice and possibly wind up plaging [sic] all of our subsequent larger projects. It is the responsibility of the Department to exercise this oversight and I think we have done it well. Lets [sic] not abrogate this point." – Peter King, Director, Planning/Program Management, NYSDOT
Region 11, email to Ian Francis, Senior Transportation Analyst, NYSDOT Region
11 and Phillip Eng, Director, NYSDOT Region 11; September 12, 2010, 9:09AM."
Now clearly SDOT was fighting the idea of any independent review for its own institutional reasons-and that it was trying mightily to expedite the Van Wyck ramp approvals in order to avoid the federal bogeyman. That it has yet to do this-and that EDC is now trying the old end around ploy-dramatically underscores just how deficient the EDC traffic data submitted to SDOT actually was. And this is further demonstrated by the way in which NYC DOT Commissioner Sadik-Khan has tried to bogart the state agency into a rubber stamp approval of the ramps.
The Anthony Weiner from the neighborhood that we have always admired would never allow this kind of deceit and bullying to go unchallenged. In the past two years, however, Weiner has been polishing his progressive credentials by bashing national Republicans at every turn. In our view, that's fine, but it's time that he came back to his roots.
This entire Willets Point development process has been tainted by extra-legal methods, influence peddling, and outright strong arming of small business owners. According to Daily Politics, Weiner anticipates the support of the Clintons if he runs for mayor. If so, he should take a page from the old Bill Clinton playbook and triangulate back to the middle-back to his neighborhood roots. WPU needs a champion, and it is precisely the right role for mayoral candidate Weiner to play going into the next election cycle.
It was precisely for this reason that WPU went to meet with the congressman last year to brief him on EDC's deceptive practices, and to seek his support against the eminent domain railroading of the Iron Triangle property owners. And Weiner was receptive to the pitch-particularly when WPU's Brian Ketcham explained how EDC's deceitful practices over the Van Wyck ramp traffic would lead to gridlock permeating through all of the neighborhoods surrounding Willets Point. He was also swayed by the fact that the NRDC had endorsed an independent review-along with a growing number of local civic groups.
WPU's concern was that the regulatory process might be rigged-especially since we had seen how the Bloomberg administration had used extra legal methods to gain approval for the project at the city council. Clearly, we felt that the billionaire mayor's influence might mean that state and federal regulators would bow-not to the facts-but to the pressure.
Weiner assured us that, if we could show that the process was not above board, he would look to intervene. That was then. Since that time we have bombarded his office with evidence that shows the the regulatory review process has been tainted-even pointing to the fact that the NYC DOT commissioner was cited for threatening a SDOT official for not expediting-rubber stamping in our view-the EDC application for the ramps.
This, as it turns out, was merely child's play. Now we can see how EDC is trying to totally avoid any regulatory review by embarking on a Phase I that is a product of a warped imagination. As Brian Ketcham has once again shown, this phase will generate tens of thousands of daily car trips that need mitigation or else they will inundate the local roads and highways. And minimally, ramps off of the highway are needed to lessen this expected gridlock.
As part of WPU's fight for fairness we have drafted a letter to the Washington office of the Federal Highway Administration that calls for that agency to take a hard look at the ramp proposal. In the letter we cite an email that heretofore we have kept under wraps. Here's the relevant section of the letter:
Via letter dated July 2, 2010, Phillip Eng, Director, NYSDOT Region 11, responded to the Natural Resources Defense Council, in relevant part: "We understand the request for an independent review but believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the analysis will be based on sound data".
NYSDOT's refusal to solicit any independent review of proposed roadway project X770.44 is disappointing, especially considering that NYSDOT apparently routinely relies on the independent firm AKRF to perform reviews of environmental analyses on behalf of NYSDOT. Candid internal NYSDOT email communications obtained by our community organization reveal NYSDOT's actual position, that independent review is a plague that could
afflict NYSDOT's future large projects:
"this [request for independent review] is dangerous ground and the Commissioner needs to be prepared to address. The use of a separate consultant, so-called independent, is a waste of the tax payer's money especially at a time when such expense cannot be afforded. We went through this on the Meeker project (to our detriment) and fought successfully against it with the K-bridge. To yield on this point now would reinforce this practice and possibly wind up plaging [sic] all of our subsequent larger projects. It is the responsibility of the Department to exercise this oversight and I think we have done it well. Lets [sic] not abrogate this point." – Peter King, Director, Planning/Program Management, NYSDOT
Region 11, email to Ian Francis, Senior Transportation Analyst, NYSDOT Region
11 and Phillip Eng, Director, NYSDOT Region 11; September 12, 2010, 9:09AM."
Now clearly SDOT was fighting the idea of any independent review for its own institutional reasons-and that it was trying mightily to expedite the Van Wyck ramp approvals in order to avoid the federal bogeyman. That it has yet to do this-and that EDC is now trying the old end around ploy-dramatically underscores just how deficient the EDC traffic data submitted to SDOT actually was. And this is further demonstrated by the way in which NYC DOT Commissioner Sadik-Khan has tried to bogart the state agency into a rubber stamp approval of the ramps.
The Anthony Weiner from the neighborhood that we have always admired would never allow this kind of deceit and bullying to go unchallenged. In the past two years, however, Weiner has been polishing his progressive credentials by bashing national Republicans at every turn. In our view, that's fine, but it's time that he came back to his roots.
This entire Willets Point development process has been tainted by extra-legal methods, influence peddling, and outright strong arming of small business owners. According to Daily Politics, Weiner anticipates the support of the Clintons if he runs for mayor. If so, he should take a page from the old Bill Clinton playbook and triangulate back to the middle-back to his neighborhood roots. WPU needs a champion, and it is precisely the right role for mayoral candidate Weiner to play going into the next election cycle.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
City Cites Bike Lane Success, Like Willets Point Ramps?
According to City Room, the city is claiming that the DOT bike lanes are a huge benefit to public safety:
"The Bloomberg administration released an unusual two-page communiqué on Monday laying out its arguments for bicycle lanes, the subject of what one magazine has labeled the “newest urban culture war.”
The memo (pdf), written by Howard Wolfson, the city’s deputy mayor in charge of communications and government affairs, uses statistics to demonstrate improved traffic safety and cites community-based support for the lanes, which have sprouted up under the supervision of Janette Sadik-Khan, the city’s transportation commissioner."
Well, pardon us if we don't simply take the city's word at face value-not after what we have seen them do with all of the traffic issues surrounding Willets Point. And we believe that, just like with the ill-fated Van Wyck ramps, any evaluation of the impact of these bike lanes should be done with an independent review.
Wolfson, no Gridlock Sam, needs to release all of the city's raw traffic data-along with the time frames that its so-called review took place. And support from one local community board or another doesn't by itself make the bike lane experiment a fabulous idea. Might any particular supportive Board reacted differently if the lanes had undergone a full SEQR review?
And a full environmental review would also have to address the business impacts of the lanes-customer access and delivery impediments. These are factors that should, but haven't gone into any decision making process at bike crazy DOT.
The bottom line is that, just as has been the case with school test scores and the evaluation of menu labeling, it is never a good idea to allow self interested policy makers to grade their own papers. One aspect of the Wolfson memo did get our complete attention: "The memo also points to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week that found that 54 percent of New Yorkers agreed with a statement that the lanes are a positive development “because it’s greener and healthier for people to ride their bicycles.”
If the public feels that strongly about, "greener and healthier," public policies, we wonder what the opinion survey would reveal if the folks were asked about not conducting independent review of ramps servicing a project that will generate 80,000 car trips each and every day? Or, how they feel about the hypocrisy of an administration that is actively promoting car dependent malls that will destroy any greener and healthier impact of any bike lane plan?
The Bloomberg administration wants to have it both ways. It wants to mall the city to death-and do so by taking private property from its rightful owners in Willets Point-and at the same time it wants to posture as cutting edge green policy makers. But its first instinct simply overwhelms even the self proclaimed traffic calming gains of bike lanes.
As with the Van Wyck ramps, bike lanes are badly in need of an independent second opinion.
"The Bloomberg administration released an unusual two-page communiqué on Monday laying out its arguments for bicycle lanes, the subject of what one magazine has labeled the “newest urban culture war.”
The memo (pdf), written by Howard Wolfson, the city’s deputy mayor in charge of communications and government affairs, uses statistics to demonstrate improved traffic safety and cites community-based support for the lanes, which have sprouted up under the supervision of Janette Sadik-Khan, the city’s transportation commissioner."
Well, pardon us if we don't simply take the city's word at face value-not after what we have seen them do with all of the traffic issues surrounding Willets Point. And we believe that, just like with the ill-fated Van Wyck ramps, any evaluation of the impact of these bike lanes should be done with an independent review.
Wolfson, no Gridlock Sam, needs to release all of the city's raw traffic data-along with the time frames that its so-called review took place. And support from one local community board or another doesn't by itself make the bike lane experiment a fabulous idea. Might any particular supportive Board reacted differently if the lanes had undergone a full SEQR review?
And a full environmental review would also have to address the business impacts of the lanes-customer access and delivery impediments. These are factors that should, but haven't gone into any decision making process at bike crazy DOT.
The bottom line is that, just as has been the case with school test scores and the evaluation of menu labeling, it is never a good idea to allow self interested policy makers to grade their own papers. One aspect of the Wolfson memo did get our complete attention: "The memo also points to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week that found that 54 percent of New Yorkers agreed with a statement that the lanes are a positive development “because it’s greener and healthier for people to ride their bicycles.”
If the public feels that strongly about, "greener and healthier," public policies, we wonder what the opinion survey would reveal if the folks were asked about not conducting independent review of ramps servicing a project that will generate 80,000 car trips each and every day? Or, how they feel about the hypocrisy of an administration that is actively promoting car dependent malls that will destroy any greener and healthier impact of any bike lane plan?
The Bloomberg administration wants to have it both ways. It wants to mall the city to death-and do so by taking private property from its rightful owners in Willets Point-and at the same time it wants to posture as cutting edge green policy makers. But its first instinct simply overwhelms even the self proclaimed traffic calming gains of bike lanes.
As with the Van Wyck ramps, bike lanes are badly in need of an independent second opinion.
Friday, March 18, 2011
EDC UnPhased: What About You?
The NYC EDC. frustrated in its efforts to gain approvals for ramps that will grind the Van Wyck to a halt, is now claiming that its partial first phase of development can move forward without any stinkin' ramps. Yet, these are the same sleight of handers that tried to slip fraudulent traffic data passed NYSDOT, only to have WPU's Brian Ketcham smacked the effort down over one year ago.
The real danger here is that it will be all of the surrounding communities-Flushing, Corona, East Elmhurst and College Point-that will be made to suffer if no one steps up and forces a full and independent review of what EDC is trying to pull. Yet, as we have seen, the area elected officials-with the exception of Senator Avella and CM Halloran-have remained timidly on the sidelines.
This is not an example of righteous representation. You don't have to be an opponent of the project to want to insure proper oversights and control over the development agency-not when we have seen how certain mayoral agencies have screwed up managerial projects such as CityTime and cost tax payers millions as a result.
So, does anyone want to simply take what EDC at face value that this first phase will not need ramps? To get a better picture of what the potential traffic impacts will be, we once again rely on Brian Ketcham's analysis-data that will be the foundation of the lawsuit brought by WPU against the city's illegal segmentation of the Willets Point project.
As Ketcham points out, "The proposed Phase One Willets Point project totals 1.35 million square feet and includes a 650,000 square foot big box retail center generating 84% of all vehicle trips. NYCEDC has proposed this scaled down project in order to avoid dealing with ramps connecting with the Van Wyck Expressway at the northeast end of the Iron Triangle—ramps they are having a hard time getting approved."
Attention Wal-Mart shoppers! This is still one humongous development-and it will be anchored by box stores! Yet the city council doesn't want to exercise the oversight over this? And, as Ketcham highlights, EDC is up to its old tricks-rooking the guests and cooking the books. How so? Under counting, and false baseline analyses.
As Ketcham tells us:
"EDC claims this Phase One project will have a lower traffic impact than earlier proposed for this development. They make this claim based on estimates for traffic impacts based on under reporting trip generation rates.
EDC assumes few people will drive to the site but will walk or use transit to shop. Willets Point is remote from transit and is more than a mile from downtown Flushing, the closest population center.
They assume trip generation rates that produce relative few auto trips—rates that are below accepted standards and lower still than used at nearby Flushing Commons and the Gateway Center in East New York.
They assume vehicle occupancy that is higher than assumed for either of these other projects that cuts traffic volume by a third."
Same old EDC it seems. But what happens when we adjust for a more accurate baseline analysis? Well, the number of trips simply jumps: "EDC reports the project will generate about 1,400 car and truck trips for weekday PM peak hours. Adjusting for auto use and trip generation rates will double this number to 2,800 trips. Adjusting for vehicle occupancy will increase the number of trips to nearly 4,000 trips in the PM peak hour.EDC has shaved the numbers used in estimating project impacts to minimize project traffic and thereby eliminate the need for Van Wyck ramps."
Would anybody buy a used car from these people? But the part we really like is the assumption-the last refuse of traffic scoundrels-that masses of folks will be using the train and buses. Unbelievable-and simply more evidence that the good citizens from Bay Terrace, Mitchel-Linden, Bowne Civic, Malba Gardens, Juniper Civic and Comet were right to join with WPU and the Natural Resources Defense Council to call for an independent review of all the traffic assumptions in this project.
But Ketcham isn't finished-and his coup de grace is in his comparison of this phased development with Gateway Mall in East New York: "EDC is proposing 910 parking spaces to service a 650,000 square foot big box retail complex. Gateway Center in East New York provides nearly 3,000 spaces for the same size retail center."
Con man Robert Preston in the Music Man couldn't do a better job than EDC in trying to beguile the people with false promises. Yet in spite of all of its attempts at minimization, EDC can't diminish the fact that this large partial development will have a massive and unmitigatable impact that necessitates those ramps:
"In spite of all the data manipulation EDC reports severe gridlock conditions at the two entry portals to this project: 126th Street at 34th Avenue and 126th Street and Roosevelt Avenue. Technical Memorandum 004, provided by EDC on March 14th, four days before the deadline for submitting comments on this proposal itself reveals that with Phase One traffic volumes overall LOS for 126th Street/GCP Ramp at 34th Avenue with Phase One traffic are a severe F with average vehicle delay of 422 seconds (7 minutes) with 4 of 5 approaches LOS F with delays of 7.7 to 13.5 minutes, sufficient to completely block access to the project site. These conditions will be much worse once reasonable adjustments are made for trip generation characteristics that could double or even triple project traffic impacts."
So, EDC has under reported project traffic impacts, has failed to investigate how traffic will move into and out of the proposed Phase One project including how shoppers might access off-street parking, is proposing far less parking for a 1.35 million square foot multi-use project than is standard practice, claims the project will have a low traffic impact and buries the truth in their Technical Memorandum 004 that reports severe gridlock conditions at critical portals that will prevent access to the site for most of the day.
It is clear from this brief summary that EDC must provide more access to the Phase One project and the Van Wyck ramps must be one of these access points. Of course, what the resultant impact would be on the Van Wyck is an entirely different story-one that EDC can't continue to dodge forever.
The real danger here is that it will be all of the surrounding communities-Flushing, Corona, East Elmhurst and College Point-that will be made to suffer if no one steps up and forces a full and independent review of what EDC is trying to pull. Yet, as we have seen, the area elected officials-with the exception of Senator Avella and CM Halloran-have remained timidly on the sidelines.
This is not an example of righteous representation. You don't have to be an opponent of the project to want to insure proper oversights and control over the development agency-not when we have seen how certain mayoral agencies have screwed up managerial projects such as CityTime and cost tax payers millions as a result.
So, does anyone want to simply take what EDC at face value that this first phase will not need ramps? To get a better picture of what the potential traffic impacts will be, we once again rely on Brian Ketcham's analysis-data that will be the foundation of the lawsuit brought by WPU against the city's illegal segmentation of the Willets Point project.
As Ketcham points out, "The proposed Phase One Willets Point project totals 1.35 million square feet and includes a 650,000 square foot big box retail center generating 84% of all vehicle trips. NYCEDC has proposed this scaled down project in order to avoid dealing with ramps connecting with the Van Wyck Expressway at the northeast end of the Iron Triangle—ramps they are having a hard time getting approved."
Attention Wal-Mart shoppers! This is still one humongous development-and it will be anchored by box stores! Yet the city council doesn't want to exercise the oversight over this? And, as Ketcham highlights, EDC is up to its old tricks-rooking the guests and cooking the books. How so? Under counting, and false baseline analyses.
As Ketcham tells us:
"EDC claims this Phase One project will have a lower traffic impact than earlier proposed for this development. They make this claim based on estimates for traffic impacts based on under reporting trip generation rates.
EDC assumes few people will drive to the site but will walk or use transit to shop. Willets Point is remote from transit and is more than a mile from downtown Flushing, the closest population center.
They assume trip generation rates that produce relative few auto trips—rates that are below accepted standards and lower still than used at nearby Flushing Commons and the Gateway Center in East New York.
They assume vehicle occupancy that is higher than assumed for either of these other projects that cuts traffic volume by a third."
Same old EDC it seems. But what happens when we adjust for a more accurate baseline analysis? Well, the number of trips simply jumps: "EDC reports the project will generate about 1,400 car and truck trips for weekday PM peak hours. Adjusting for auto use and trip generation rates will double this number to 2,800 trips. Adjusting for vehicle occupancy will increase the number of trips to nearly 4,000 trips in the PM peak hour.EDC has shaved the numbers used in estimating project impacts to minimize project traffic and thereby eliminate the need for Van Wyck ramps."
Would anybody buy a used car from these people? But the part we really like is the assumption-the last refuse of traffic scoundrels-that masses of folks will be using the train and buses. Unbelievable-and simply more evidence that the good citizens from Bay Terrace, Mitchel-Linden, Bowne Civic, Malba Gardens, Juniper Civic and Comet were right to join with WPU and the Natural Resources Defense Council to call for an independent review of all the traffic assumptions in this project.
But Ketcham isn't finished-and his coup de grace is in his comparison of this phased development with Gateway Mall in East New York: "EDC is proposing 910 parking spaces to service a 650,000 square foot big box retail complex. Gateway Center in East New York provides nearly 3,000 spaces for the same size retail center."
Con man Robert Preston in the Music Man couldn't do a better job than EDC in trying to beguile the people with false promises. Yet in spite of all of its attempts at minimization, EDC can't diminish the fact that this large partial development will have a massive and unmitigatable impact that necessitates those ramps:
"In spite of all the data manipulation EDC reports severe gridlock conditions at the two entry portals to this project: 126th Street at 34th Avenue and 126th Street and Roosevelt Avenue. Technical Memorandum 004, provided by EDC on March 14th, four days before the deadline for submitting comments on this proposal itself reveals that with Phase One traffic volumes overall LOS for 126th Street/GCP Ramp at 34th Avenue with Phase One traffic are a severe F with average vehicle delay of 422 seconds (7 minutes) with 4 of 5 approaches LOS F with delays of 7.7 to 13.5 minutes, sufficient to completely block access to the project site. These conditions will be much worse once reasonable adjustments are made for trip generation characteristics that could double or even triple project traffic impacts."
So, EDC has under reported project traffic impacts, has failed to investigate how traffic will move into and out of the proposed Phase One project including how shoppers might access off-street parking, is proposing far less parking for a 1.35 million square foot multi-use project than is standard practice, claims the project will have a low traffic impact and buries the truth in their Technical Memorandum 004 that reports severe gridlock conditions at critical portals that will prevent access to the site for most of the day.
It is clear from this brief summary that EDC must provide more access to the Phase One project and the Van Wyck ramps must be one of these access points. Of course, what the resultant impact would be on the Van Wyck is an entirely different story-one that EDC can't continue to dodge forever.
Monday, November 15, 2010
EDC's year-long coverup continues
From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
It is now approaching a year since Willets Point United and its traffic maven Brian Ketcham blew the whistle on a fraud that was about to be committed by EDC over the application to build ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway to accommodate.
What has transpired since last February is nothing less than a vaudeville act. The DOT, after promising transparency and cooperation with whistle blower Ketcham, circled its wagons and has refused any direct information exchange with the expert who prevented the agency from looking like a compliant horse's ass. The actions of EDC, however, are even more egregious-it has refused to give up any information on the work product that has gone into the AMR's revision-and this is after DOT promised WPU that it would have a revised AMR by no later than October 1st.
Can any one concerned with accurate and open government defend the actions of these two agencies?
...WPU has got ungatz from either DOT or the NYC EDC-a stonewalling that further compels that this entire process should be opened up for an independent and public review process. But review aside, EDC is breaking the open government law-refusing to hand over documents that it is required to do under the Freedom of Information Act; a refusal that is instructive about the way this quasi-public agency goes about its business.
The Willets Point development is a massive use of tax payer funds that, while forcibly removing property owners, will have a huge impact on, not only the immediate Willets Point/Corona/Flushing neighborhoods, but the entire region. The proposed Van Wyck ramps are the linchpin of this development, and their ability to accommodate and mitigate thousands of daily car and truck trips is essential for the ability of this development to function smoothly-and NYC has admitted this in court papers.
Put simply, if the ramps either aren't built, or can't perform the tasks assigned to them, the entire Willets Point development becomes a collapsing house of cards. Therefore, the review of these ramps is a crucial variable in evaluating the feasibility of the entire Willets Point project.
If, however, the process is suborned by agency collusion-aided and abetted by an administration used to getting its way in spite of any perceived contradictory facts-a disaster awaits Queens County and its road and mass transit infrastructure. EDC is in dire need of an intervention-the people of Queens and the rest of NYC, including the embattled Willets Point property owners deserve no less.
It is now approaching a year since Willets Point United and its traffic maven Brian Ketcham blew the whistle on a fraud that was about to be committed by EDC over the application to build ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway to accommodate.
What has transpired since last February is nothing less than a vaudeville act. The DOT, after promising transparency and cooperation with whistle blower Ketcham, circled its wagons and has refused any direct information exchange with the expert who prevented the agency from looking like a compliant horse's ass. The actions of EDC, however, are even more egregious-it has refused to give up any information on the work product that has gone into the AMR's revision-and this is after DOT promised WPU that it would have a revised AMR by no later than October 1st.
Can any one concerned with accurate and open government defend the actions of these two agencies?
...WPU has got ungatz from either DOT or the NYC EDC-a stonewalling that further compels that this entire process should be opened up for an independent and public review process. But review aside, EDC is breaking the open government law-refusing to hand over documents that it is required to do under the Freedom of Information Act; a refusal that is instructive about the way this quasi-public agency goes about its business.
The Willets Point development is a massive use of tax payer funds that, while forcibly removing property owners, will have a huge impact on, not only the immediate Willets Point/Corona/Flushing neighborhoods, but the entire region. The proposed Van Wyck ramps are the linchpin of this development, and their ability to accommodate and mitigate thousands of daily car and truck trips is essential for the ability of this development to function smoothly-and NYC has admitted this in court papers.
Put simply, if the ramps either aren't built, or can't perform the tasks assigned to them, the entire Willets Point development becomes a collapsing house of cards. Therefore, the review of these ramps is a crucial variable in evaluating the feasibility of the entire Willets Point project.
If, however, the process is suborned by agency collusion-aided and abetted by an administration used to getting its way in spite of any perceived contradictory facts-a disaster awaits Queens County and its road and mass transit infrastructure. EDC is in dire need of an intervention-the people of Queens and the rest of NYC, including the embattled Willets Point property owners deserve no less.
Monday, October 18, 2010
34th Avenue crater filled in
NEW YORK (WPIX) — Less than 72 hours after PIX 11 News reporter Greg Mocker reported on a disastrously rough and pothole-laden road in Willits Point, residents, business owners, and motorcyclists are enjoying a smooth ride – on fresh asphalt.
Mocker says the New York City Department of Transportation took incredibly swift action after his report, dispatching crews to clean and then pave the long-neglected stretch of 34th Ave. near Citi Field.
Members of the Queensboro Motorcycle Club, which is located on the road, originally asked Mocker to help get the road fixed when their attempts had been stymied. Today, club members were elated.
"We've been doing this for three years to get this road fixed," said club president Billy Goldstein. "In two days you were able to do this. As we say here, it was off the hook."
Monday, September 20, 2010
Who will stand up for Queens?
From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
In a survey of the best lawyers from around the world, Willets Point United's legal advocate Mike Gerrard was listed as the best environmental lawyer in New York-and in our view, it's not even close. But the recognition should put the state and the federal regulatory authorities-NYSDOT and FHWA-on notice that their lack of due diligence (and potential collusion) over the Willets Point/Van Wyck ramps will not go unchallenged if they fail to subject the proposed Access Modification Report to a full independent review under the National Environmental Policy act.
Given that the state's roads are in a state of current disrepair-owing in large part to DOT's incapacities-the allowance of ramps that will flood the highwayss and lead to the wasting of the billion dollar being spent to upgrade of the Kew Gardens Interchange, is simply unconscionable. Queens electeds need to wake up-much as those on Staten Island have because of the poor state of that borough's roads.
In Queens...pols still seem reluctant to challenge a Willets Point project that was falsely sold to them on the basis of environmental sustainability. But the proverbial stuff is already hitting the fan and the three blind mice routine is gonna come back and bite Queens residents on their collective butts. WPU may be in the eye of the storm, but that organization's fate is akin to the canary in the mine-a warning to all those borough residents, and the folks who are supposed to represent them, that a Category 5 traffic storm is on the way.
In a survey of the best lawyers from around the world, Willets Point United's legal advocate Mike Gerrard was listed as the best environmental lawyer in New York-and in our view, it's not even close. But the recognition should put the state and the federal regulatory authorities-NYSDOT and FHWA-on notice that their lack of due diligence (and potential collusion) over the Willets Point/Van Wyck ramps will not go unchallenged if they fail to subject the proposed Access Modification Report to a full independent review under the National Environmental Policy act.
Given that the state's roads are in a state of current disrepair-owing in large part to DOT's incapacities-the allowance of ramps that will flood the highwayss and lead to the wasting of the billion dollar being spent to upgrade of the Kew Gardens Interchange, is simply unconscionable. Queens electeds need to wake up-much as those on Staten Island have because of the poor state of that borough's roads.
In Queens...pols still seem reluctant to challenge a Willets Point project that was falsely sold to them on the basis of environmental sustainability. But the proverbial stuff is already hitting the fan and the three blind mice routine is gonna come back and bite Queens residents on their collective butts. WPU may be in the eye of the storm, but that organization's fate is akin to the canary in the mine-a warning to all those borough residents, and the folks who are supposed to represent them, that a Category 5 traffic storm is on the way.
Friday, September 10, 2010
The great city-state coverup
From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
It has been seven months since Willets Point United, and its traffic consultant Brian Ketcham, demonstrated the blatant deficiency of a Van Wyck ramp report submitted by NYC EDC to the NYSDOT. The state agency is responsible for initially approving these ramps-or not-with the Federal Highway Administration having the last word on their feasibility. So the question that we ask, is there a cover up at NYSDOT?
In this interim seven month period, EDC and its consultants, in apparent secrecy and collusion with the oversight agency, have been working feverishly-to address the gross defects of their original submission (a revised ramp report was first slated to be ready in March). But, the WPU and Ketcham, after having been the key actors in insuring that the original report was sent back for revision, (in spite of promises from NYSDOT that they would be included in the revision process) have been left out; leaving EDC's original axe to grind consultant as the sole interlocutor with the state on the ramps feasibility.
As a result of the agency's reneging on an open, professional review process, WPU has been forced to file numerous Freedom of Information requests just to obtain information that, if transparency was valued, would be shared collegially in the interest of insuring that the impact of the ramps on the entire Queens highway grid system would be honestly evaluated. Instead the EDC consultant, AKRF, whose work was not only deficient but, arguably deceptive, has been allowed to act as the sole provider of technical knowledge to the agency.
The compelling question is, why has NYSDOT circled the wagons and resisted the free and open exchange of information? This is the question that WPU's Ketcham has asked DOT Commissioner Stanley Gee in a letter to the agency head. In particular, Ketcham raises the issue of NYSDOT's accountability to the public: "Given your distinguished career at the Federal Highway Administration and more recently at New York State Department of Transportation, I am bringing to your attention current Departmental practices that undermine your objective of improving its performance, accountability and communication within and outside the agency."
It has been seven months since Willets Point United, and its traffic consultant Brian Ketcham, demonstrated the blatant deficiency of a Van Wyck ramp report submitted by NYC EDC to the NYSDOT. The state agency is responsible for initially approving these ramps-or not-with the Federal Highway Administration having the last word on their feasibility. So the question that we ask, is there a cover up at NYSDOT?
In this interim seven month period, EDC and its consultants, in apparent secrecy and collusion with the oversight agency, have been working feverishly-to address the gross defects of their original submission (a revised ramp report was first slated to be ready in March). But, the WPU and Ketcham, after having been the key actors in insuring that the original report was sent back for revision, (in spite of promises from NYSDOT that they would be included in the revision process) have been left out; leaving EDC's original axe to grind consultant as the sole interlocutor with the state on the ramps feasibility.
As a result of the agency's reneging on an open, professional review process, WPU has been forced to file numerous Freedom of Information requests just to obtain information that, if transparency was valued, would be shared collegially in the interest of insuring that the impact of the ramps on the entire Queens highway grid system would be honestly evaluated. Instead the EDC consultant, AKRF, whose work was not only deficient but, arguably deceptive, has been allowed to act as the sole provider of technical knowledge to the agency.
The compelling question is, why has NYSDOT circled the wagons and resisted the free and open exchange of information? This is the question that WPU's Ketcham has asked DOT Commissioner Stanley Gee in a letter to the agency head. In particular, Ketcham raises the issue of NYSDOT's accountability to the public: "Given your distinguished career at the Federal Highway Administration and more recently at New York State Department of Transportation, I am bringing to your attention current Departmental practices that undermine your objective of improving its performance, accountability and communication within and outside the agency."
Friday, August 13, 2010
State DOT unhappy with EDC's made-up traffic stats
From the NY Times:Even as the Bloomberg administration promotes the $3 billion development of Willets Point in Queens as one of its signature projects, state officials whose approval is needed have privately raised concerns over highway ramps crucial to the proposal and have questioned whether the development will ever get off the ground.
State officials have repeatedly expressed frustration with the city’s inability to provide reliable information and the pressure it was placing on them to expedite their analysis, according to a review of hundreds of e-mails involving the Willets Point project that were provided to The New York Times by an opponent of the project.
Michael Bergmann, a structural engineer for the State Department of Transportation who was part of the team reviewing the city’s application, wrote to the department’s regional director and other colleagues on Dec. 28: “Unless the preparers of this report start accepting the idea that it is seriously flawed, we are going nowhere.”
About a month later, after pointing out a mistake in a document that put the development’s completion date as 2107 instead of 2017, Peter King, a project manager for the state, wrote to a colleague, “Perhaps that reference to 2107 may have been closer to the truth than anyone realizes.”
By that point, the city’s Economic Development Corporation, which was overseeing the project, was pushing state officials to finish their work so that the ramps, which would connect Willets Point to the Van Wyck Expressway, could move on to the final stage of approval by the Federal Highway Administration.
Several months later, state officials did not seem very optimistic about the project’s future.
“If I were a betting man, I’d start dropping the odds regarding success for E.D.C. on this project,” Mr. King said in an e-mail to a state transportation analyst on May 11. “Resistance seems to be building.”
He was reacting in part to a group of business and property owners in Willets Point who had organized an effort to try to derail the project. As part of that, the opponents had filed a Freedom of Information Law request with the State Transportation Department seeking copies of all communications on the plan, hoping to pry open a behind-the-scenes bureaucratic process the public often knows very little about.
They also were hoping the e-mails would provide fodder for their campaign. The messages — about 200 from May 2007 to May 2010, among State Transportation Department staff members, federal highway officials, city officials and private consultants — show the state’s concern about the safety, design and traffic impact of the ramps.
What seems unusual is the annoyance state regulators expressed with the work of the consultants hired by the city to work on the ramps’ design. The consultants submitted numerous written responses and clarifications to questions and sat with the regulators in several meetings, but still failed to satisfy them, the messages show.
This NY Times article scratches the surface, but does not describe how the involved agencies are rigging the process to ensure approval of ramps. The article also lets EDC spokesperson David Lombino get away with remarking that EDC routinely collaborates to optimize projects, which is contrary to information found in the responses to our FOIL requests.
But don't worry...more is coming to set the record straight!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
EDC afraid of allowing the sun to shine in
From the Daily News:
...some land owners - bitter over a cancelled state hearing on the project scheduled for this week - said a controversial ramp project for the Van Wyck Expressway should red light the plan.
"We could be at the beginning of a long process," said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the local business owners' group, Willets Point United. "This deal can't be done behind closed doors."
Some business owners had hoped to use the state Senate hearing as a platform to call for an independent review of the plan.
The meeting was to be chaired by state Sen. Martin Malave Dilan (D-Brooklyn), head of the Transportation Committee. It was cancelled two days after it was planned because of a scheduling conflict, a Dilan spokesman said.
"It's disappointing to us and mysterious that it was cancelled within 48 hours [of being scheduled]," said Lipsky...
Dozens of land owners in the so-called Iron Triangle are also calling for more transparency in conversations between the city Economic Development Corp. and state Department of Transportation as they try to hammer out an environmental assessment of building on- and off-ramps near Citi Field.
"There's too cozy a relationship," Lipsky charged of the two agencies.
Still, the city doesn't expect plans to redevelop the area to be hindered in any way.
The EDC plans to submit the environmental assessment by early next month, sources said.
The plans will then go under public review to create a revised Access Modification Report - a detailed summary of the project. It must be approved by both the state DOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
The EDC obviously is scared of allowing the public to hear and see what has been going on behind closed doors. We're here to lift the veil.
Stay tuned, this is going to get good.
...some land owners - bitter over a cancelled state hearing on the project scheduled for this week - said a controversial ramp project for the Van Wyck Expressway should red light the plan.
"We could be at the beginning of a long process," said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the local business owners' group, Willets Point United. "This deal can't be done behind closed doors."
Some business owners had hoped to use the state Senate hearing as a platform to call for an independent review of the plan.
The meeting was to be chaired by state Sen. Martin Malave Dilan (D-Brooklyn), head of the Transportation Committee. It was cancelled two days after it was planned because of a scheduling conflict, a Dilan spokesman said.
"It's disappointing to us and mysterious that it was cancelled within 48 hours [of being scheduled]," said Lipsky...
Dozens of land owners in the so-called Iron Triangle are also calling for more transparency in conversations between the city Economic Development Corp. and state Department of Transportation as they try to hammer out an environmental assessment of building on- and off-ramps near Citi Field.
"There's too cozy a relationship," Lipsky charged of the two agencies.
Still, the city doesn't expect plans to redevelop the area to be hindered in any way.
The EDC plans to submit the environmental assessment by early next month, sources said.
The plans will then go under public review to create a revised Access Modification Report - a detailed summary of the project. It must be approved by both the state DOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
The EDC obviously is scared of allowing the public to hear and see what has been going on behind closed doors. We're here to lift the veil.
Stay tuned, this is going to get good.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
DOT responds to NRDC letter
From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
NYSDOT has finally responded to the NRDC request in a letter dated July, 2, 2010-but is claiming that there is no need for an independent review: "The NEPA documents that are being developed are an Environmental Assessment and a revised Access Modification Report....We understand the request for an independent review but believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the data will be based on sound data."
This is, without a doubt, a simply breathtaking assertion in the light of the contradictory and fallacious submissions from the very development corp that is now been made a valued collaborator with the state agency empowered to render fair and accurate judgments in these kinds of matters. It is, at the same time, inexplicable in the light of the Ketcham findings that the Van Wyck Expressway cannot accommodate even a tiny fraction of Willets Point traffic. The only way to do so would be to widen the expressway to four lanes in each direction for several miles. NYSDOT simply does not have the money to do this and the cost of widening the elevated structures would total a billion of dollars or more, another subsidy to developers when critical transportation projects all over New York State are being shelved.
All of this implies a gross negligence by NYSDOT of its statutory oversight responsibility-and indicates that the agency, instead of clearing the air-as NRDC suggests-through an independent review, is actively colluding in a bag job; as its resistance to WPU's freedom of information requests dramatizes quite well. The question now is where does the FHWA stand? Will they really rubber stamp this buffoonery or will they step up and kill what has already been demonstrated as an abject failure?
NYSDOT has finally responded to the NRDC request in a letter dated July, 2, 2010-but is claiming that there is no need for an independent review: "The NEPA documents that are being developed are an Environmental Assessment and a revised Access Modification Report....We understand the request for an independent review but believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the data will be based on sound data."
This is, without a doubt, a simply breathtaking assertion in the light of the contradictory and fallacious submissions from the very development corp that is now been made a valued collaborator with the state agency empowered to render fair and accurate judgments in these kinds of matters. It is, at the same time, inexplicable in the light of the Ketcham findings that the Van Wyck Expressway cannot accommodate even a tiny fraction of Willets Point traffic. The only way to do so would be to widen the expressway to four lanes in each direction for several miles. NYSDOT simply does not have the money to do this and the cost of widening the elevated structures would total a billion of dollars or more, another subsidy to developers when critical transportation projects all over New York State are being shelved.
All of this implies a gross negligence by NYSDOT of its statutory oversight responsibility-and indicates that the agency, instead of clearing the air-as NRDC suggests-through an independent review, is actively colluding in a bag job; as its resistance to WPU's freedom of information requests dramatizes quite well. The question now is where does the FHWA stand? Will they really rubber stamp this buffoonery or will they step up and kill what has already been demonstrated as an abject failure?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Let's build Shangri-La next to an asphalt plant...
From the Queens Tribune:The City is hoping to make pothole repairs more efficient and environmentally friendly, using the plant, which uses recycled asphalt, to dispatch repair trucks and asphalt that are closer to the Bronx, Queens and Upper Manhattan.
However, the City also has plans to redevelop the area directly adjacent to the plant, removing and relocating the industrial businesses that currently reside there.
Previously, the City Council passed a redevelopment plan for the "Iron Triangle" at Willets Point, a process that lurched forward in June 2008 when Community Board 7 approved the project; it established a precedent for trying to buy out all of the industrial companies there to make room for the redevelopment.
When business owners refused to leave the City Council held a public hearing regarding the plan and voted in November 2008 to approve the redevelopment plan, which includes the potential use of eminent domain to acquire property claiming the area was blighted. "The city has neglected us for 30 years. They let it get like that. We have no sewers, no sidewalks; they left us here," said Jerry Antonacci, owner of Crown Container and President of Willets Point United, a group of business owners who have banded together to fight their removal and redevelopment of the area.
In March 2010, the City purchased the Asphalt Plant for $30 million to make use of it in repairing roads. Bloomberg said it would "help make the streets feel brand new," as well as save taxpayers $5 million annually.
Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for Willets Point United, said this was "Par for the course with the City," stating that it was operating "asphalt backwards" in purchasing and using an industrial plant while to trying to relocate others from the same neighborhood.
From the Times Ledger:
The plant is located a stone’s throw from Willets Point, a 62-acre plot of land populated by manufacturers, auto repair shops and other industrial businesses.
On the city’s slate of places due to get a makeover in coming years, the city is working to upgrade the area by relocating or purchasing businesses in the area to make way for a multibillion-dollar mixed-use development project. The area is ridden with crater-like potholes as much as a foot deep that turn into deep, dangerous pools of murky water whenever it rains.
And whose fault is that? Richard Lipsky knows:
Is it only us? Are we the only people who think that siting an asphalt plant next to Willets Point isn’t the best idea? Apparently we aren’t since the folks over at Queens Crapper forwarded us this report from the local papers-along with the following comment: “Stupid is as stupid does. Let's develop Shangri-la next to an asphalt plant…”
How right they are. But it actually gets even more ridiculous because of the justifying statement made by Mayor Bloomberg: “The new facility will allow us to resurface and repair more streets faster, in a more environmentally sound fashion and at a lower cost at a time when we are looking at all possible options to reduce expenses,” the mayor said. “By producing more recycled asphalt, we’ll avoid 2 million miles of annual truck trips that are used to carry milled asphalt to landfills, reducing congestion, pollution and wear-and-tear on our streets.”
So, let’s get this straight. They are going to build this plant next to the 9 million square foot Willets Point development-the one that will generate 80,000 car and truck trips a day-and there rationale is, “reducing congestion?” Is there a better reason for believing that the term city planning is an oxymoron?
Not to be outdone, NYC’s own Sadik weighs in as well: “Janette Sadik-Khan, commissioner of the DOT, said the new plant will help the city keep pace with design and repair demands without sacrificing time and money. “Continued investments that combine the safety and good repair of our streets with the need to reduce our city’s carbon footprint are helping New York City remain an international leader in sustainable practices,” she said.”
And to show we have a sense of humor, we will put the “sustainable practices,” asphalt plant right next to an unsustainable Willets Point.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
It all comes down to the ramps...
From the Queens Courier:
At issue is whether the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State Department of Transportation (DOT) will approve two new highway ramps on the Van Wyck Expressway in order to help alleviate some of the additional traffic that is expected in the area. So, it’s not surprising that advocates from each side have very different views on the issue.
“We think that the highways cannot physically handle the massive amount of traffic that the Willets Point project would dump on it,” said Michael Gerrard, a lawyer representing WPU. “Merely adding ramps doesn’t increase the mainline capacity of the Van Wyck that will remain a chokepoint.”
Dave Lombino, a spokesperson for the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC), which is the lead agency working on the Willets Point project, said that the approval for the ramps is all part of the redevelopment process and that lobbyists for the WPU are trying to create a false impression of uncertainty around a critical project that will generate thousands of jobs and economic development for the city.
“But we’re hopeful there will not be any significant delay in the approvals, and we’re confident we will remain on target to complete the project on the timetable we’ve set forth,” Lombino said.
In February, the city submitted its preliminary draft environmental assessment to representatives from the two agencies, and Brian Ketcham, a traffic engineer hired by the WPU, said the report was fraught with errors. He believes that EDC is under-estimating the additional traffic that will result from the development of Willets Point and the nearby Flushing Commons development at downtown Municipal Lot 1.
Ketcham said that the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for both projects conceded that in 2017 there would be gridlock traffic conditions on the highway, but the initial AMR projections for 2035 showed significantly less traffic.
“I cannot imagine what goes through the minds of EDC when they have two projects that are reporting gridlock conditions, and then they turn around and they say there will be free-flowing traffic,” Ketcham said.
Jake Bono, a third generation owner of Bono Sawdust that has called Willets Point home for nearly 80 years, said that the city’s initial presentation to the FHWA and DOT was not surprising because they have been employing the same tactics from the beginning.
“They are committed to doing whatever it takes to get the project done. If it’s illegal, if it’s immoral, it doesn’t matter,” Bono said. “At the end of the day they can never produce a report that will work.”
At issue is whether the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State Department of Transportation (DOT) will approve two new highway ramps on the Van Wyck Expressway in order to help alleviate some of the additional traffic that is expected in the area. So, it’s not surprising that advocates from each side have very different views on the issue.
“We think that the highways cannot physically handle the massive amount of traffic that the Willets Point project would dump on it,” said Michael Gerrard, a lawyer representing WPU. “Merely adding ramps doesn’t increase the mainline capacity of the Van Wyck that will remain a chokepoint.”
Dave Lombino, a spokesperson for the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC), which is the lead agency working on the Willets Point project, said that the approval for the ramps is all part of the redevelopment process and that lobbyists for the WPU are trying to create a false impression of uncertainty around a critical project that will generate thousands of jobs and economic development for the city.
“But we’re hopeful there will not be any significant delay in the approvals, and we’re confident we will remain on target to complete the project on the timetable we’ve set forth,” Lombino said.
In February, the city submitted its preliminary draft environmental assessment to representatives from the two agencies, and Brian Ketcham, a traffic engineer hired by the WPU, said the report was fraught with errors. He believes that EDC is under-estimating the additional traffic that will result from the development of Willets Point and the nearby Flushing Commons development at downtown Municipal Lot 1.
Ketcham said that the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for both projects conceded that in 2017 there would be gridlock traffic conditions on the highway, but the initial AMR projections for 2035 showed significantly less traffic.
“I cannot imagine what goes through the minds of EDC when they have two projects that are reporting gridlock conditions, and then they turn around and they say there will be free-flowing traffic,” Ketcham said.
Jake Bono, a third generation owner of Bono Sawdust that has called Willets Point home for nearly 80 years, said that the city’s initial presentation to the FHWA and DOT was not surprising because they have been employing the same tactics from the beginning.
“They are committed to doing whatever it takes to get the project done. If it’s illegal, if it’s immoral, it doesn’t matter,” Bono said. “At the end of the day they can never produce a report that will work.”
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
State kicks traffic report back to EDC
From the Daily News:
A group of Willets Point business owners fired another shot last week at the $3 billion plan to redevelop the Iron Triangle, but city officials don't expect to fall behind schedule.
The business owners - facing potential eviction when construction begins - charged that the traffic report from the city's Economic Development Corp. is flawed and is reason enough to bring the megadevelopment plan to a halt.
A traffic engineer hired by Willets Point United argued that the city misrepresented congestion on the Van Wyck Expressway created by other nearby projects in its proposal to build on-ramps and off-ramps near the gritty industrial area in the vicinity of Citi Field.
"There does not seem to be any area-wide planning going on for this community," said engineer Brian Ketcham. "They haven't done their analysis correctly."
The EDC's Access Modification Report, which outlines potential congestion on the Van Wyck, did not properly account for the added traffic from other developments, such as Flushing Commons and Sky View Parc, Ketcham said.
"They're trying to whitewash the impact of these projects," he said.
The state Department of Transportation kicked the report back to the EDC a few weeks ago, but agency officials said they are confident it will pass soon.
Richard Lipsky explains what is really going on here and here.
A group of Willets Point business owners fired another shot last week at the $3 billion plan to redevelop the Iron Triangle, but city officials don't expect to fall behind schedule.
The business owners - facing potential eviction when construction begins - charged that the traffic report from the city's Economic Development Corp. is flawed and is reason enough to bring the megadevelopment plan to a halt.
A traffic engineer hired by Willets Point United argued that the city misrepresented congestion on the Van Wyck Expressway created by other nearby projects in its proposal to build on-ramps and off-ramps near the gritty industrial area in the vicinity of Citi Field.
"There does not seem to be any area-wide planning going on for this community," said engineer Brian Ketcham. "They haven't done their analysis correctly."
The EDC's Access Modification Report, which outlines potential congestion on the Van Wyck, did not properly account for the added traffic from other developments, such as Flushing Commons and Sky View Parc, Ketcham said.
"They're trying to whitewash the impact of these projects," he said.
The state Department of Transportation kicked the report back to the EDC a few weeks ago, but agency officials said they are confident it will pass soon.
Richard Lipsky explains what is really going on here and here.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Vince Tabone's letter to the DOT & FHWA
Tabone Letter
The Northeast Queens Community Action Network has joined with the Natural Resources Defense Council to call fora full, independent environmental review with regards to the proposed Van Wyck ramps.
The Northeast Queens Community Action Network has joined with the Natural Resources Defense Council to call fora full, independent environmental review with regards to the proposed Van Wyck ramps.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Precedent for ramp rejection
From Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
Well, one thing is really good to know. When state DOT finds that ramps are not in the community's interest they get busy to jettison them-even when the ramps in question are their own idea. That's exactly what happened with ramps that the agency planned to build off of the Deegan, and the Mott Haven Herald has the story: "Pummeled by public outcry against a plan to extend the off-ramps on the Major Deegan Expressway, the State Department of Transportation has abandoned the project. Much-needed repairs will be made to the aging roadway over Mott Haven, but the plan to extend the highway’s exit ramps in order to calm the traffic that backs up as cars merge onto Exterior Street is on hold indefinitely, said DOT spokesman Adam Levine."
So this post now becomes a tale of two ramp projects-and the Mott Haven victory demonstrates that state DOT does listen to the voice of the community; and needs to do just that when it considers whether or not to build ramps off the Van Wyck in order to facilitate the Willets Point development. In fact, the Van Wyck ramps need to undergo the same vigorous community review that the ones in the Bronx went through.
As the MH Herald tells us: "Every speaker at a public hearing at Hostos Community College on Nov. 9 denounced the state proposal. Some speakers also expressed concern that efforts to ease congestion would simply attract more cars, and more pollution. Others criticized plans to use eminent domain to seize existing businesses in order to make room for the new ramps. “We need more jobs, more affordable housing, more clean air, not more highway,” said Mychal Johnson, a member of Community Board 1 who initiated a petition campaign against the state plan. “The Deegan should be repaired, but not expanded,” he said in an interview."
So, as WPU continues to present its critique of the city-sponsored Van Wyck ramps to impacted community groups, it is incumbent upon NYSDOT to initiate its own community review process-Flushing, Corona, College Point and all of the surrounding Queens nabes deserve no less.. And the more facts we find out about these ramps-and the faulty report submitted by DOT-the worse they look. Put simply, they are exacerbators not mitigators.
Well, one thing is really good to know. When state DOT finds that ramps are not in the community's interest they get busy to jettison them-even when the ramps in question are their own idea. That's exactly what happened with ramps that the agency planned to build off of the Deegan, and the Mott Haven Herald has the story: "Pummeled by public outcry against a plan to extend the off-ramps on the Major Deegan Expressway, the State Department of Transportation has abandoned the project. Much-needed repairs will be made to the aging roadway over Mott Haven, but the plan to extend the highway’s exit ramps in order to calm the traffic that backs up as cars merge onto Exterior Street is on hold indefinitely, said DOT spokesman Adam Levine."
So this post now becomes a tale of two ramp projects-and the Mott Haven victory demonstrates that state DOT does listen to the voice of the community; and needs to do just that when it considers whether or not to build ramps off the Van Wyck in order to facilitate the Willets Point development. In fact, the Van Wyck ramps need to undergo the same vigorous community review that the ones in the Bronx went through.
As the MH Herald tells us: "Every speaker at a public hearing at Hostos Community College on Nov. 9 denounced the state proposal. Some speakers also expressed concern that efforts to ease congestion would simply attract more cars, and more pollution. Others criticized plans to use eminent domain to seize existing businesses in order to make room for the new ramps. “We need more jobs, more affordable housing, more clean air, not more highway,” said Mychal Johnson, a member of Community Board 1 who initiated a petition campaign against the state plan. “The Deegan should be repaired, but not expanded,” he said in an interview."
So, as WPU continues to present its critique of the city-sponsored Van Wyck ramps to impacted community groups, it is incumbent upon NYSDOT to initiate its own community review process-Flushing, Corona, College Point and all of the surrounding Queens nabes deserve no less.. And the more facts we find out about these ramps-and the faulty report submitted by DOT-the worse they look. Put simply, they are exacerbators not mitigators.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Could the FHWA be going our way?
From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
The team from Willets Point United met with the Federal Highway Administration in order to brief the agency about the complexity of the traffic impacts generated by the development at the site of the Iron Triangle-and the ramps that are supposed to mitigate said traffic. The FHWA, along with NYSDOT, need to approve these ramps if the the Willets Point project is to be able to go forward.
Now it is our contention that the entire review process should be subject to an independent evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Our rationale derives from the faulty and self serving traffic data submissions from the Economic Development Corporation and its hired guns from URS-something that we have already pointed out here, and here. EDC and its minions have proven to be-either through mendacity or inadequacy-simply not up to the task of providing quality data.
Now the glaring nature of this insufficiency is underscored by the discrepancies between the original EIS done for the ULURP application; and the subsequent report done exclusively for the ramp approval process (called an AMR report). Here's how consultant Brian Ketcham summarizes these inadequacies:
"1. Too many discrepancies between AMR and FGEIS for the AMR to be reliable assessment of ramps.
2. FGEIS reports severe traffic impacts even w/ramps; the AMR reports no problems.
3. Field observation confirms the FGEIS.
4. AMR greatly misrepresents future traffic growth.
5. AMR does not account for all Willets Point trips.
6. AMR shows that ramps make no difference.
7.Modeling shows the ramps are counter-productive for highway system, violating FHWA key criteria.
In the face of all of this, what choice is there? NYSDOT must disapprove the AMR."
These problems are also fatal when you examine what the federal highway guidelines are for the approval of ramps-as item 7 above highlights. Ketcham's work for WPU-and remember that Brian, as well as WPU attorney Mike Gerrard, were the young turks who brought down Westway-was damning enough to prompt the NYSDOT to spit back the first AMR to EDC for serious revision.
In fact, the glaring, and problematic nature of the city's work product, has prompted the following from the National Resources Defense Council-in a letter to NYSDOT and the FHWA "NRDC is not taking a position on advancing the Willets Point project or on constructing the ramps. But based on our preliminary review, we are concerned over the discrepancies in the study results, and also by the prospect that a project could impair regional mobility by disrupting a key highway like the Van Wyck."
And NRDC goes on to say that because of these discrepancies, "...we believe that the best course of action is for the FHWA and NYS DOT to undertake a full NEPA review of the access ramps and their impacts on traffic-including the Van Wyck-without undue reliance on the analysis performed by the City, the project's proponents."
Nothing less should be required here, because as we have seen with Columbia, there is alot of incestuous activity going on between the City and its hired guns-and the first victim in all of this is the truth. But the good news emanating from today's meeting is that the folks at FHWA believe that our (really Brian's) critique has serious merit-and it will be undertaking a comprehensive environmental assessment to determine what the appropriate course of action should be in the case of these ramps-taking the process out of the hands of biased, parochial interests.
The next step for WPU is to bring the message to the Queens civic groups so that they can see for themselves the traffic nightmare in their future if this Willets Point project is allowed to go forward. In the process, the self serving dealings of the city's lead economic development agency will be thoroughly hung out to dry for everyone to plainly see-from illegal lobbying and false city council testimony, to cooked traffic books; sunlight will be the best disinfectant.
The team from Willets Point United met with the Federal Highway Administration in order to brief the agency about the complexity of the traffic impacts generated by the development at the site of the Iron Triangle-and the ramps that are supposed to mitigate said traffic. The FHWA, along with NYSDOT, need to approve these ramps if the the Willets Point project is to be able to go forward.
Now it is our contention that the entire review process should be subject to an independent evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Our rationale derives from the faulty and self serving traffic data submissions from the Economic Development Corporation and its hired guns from URS-something that we have already pointed out here, and here. EDC and its minions have proven to be-either through mendacity or inadequacy-simply not up to the task of providing quality data.
Now the glaring nature of this insufficiency is underscored by the discrepancies between the original EIS done for the ULURP application; and the subsequent report done exclusively for the ramp approval process (called an AMR report). Here's how consultant Brian Ketcham summarizes these inadequacies:
"1. Too many discrepancies between AMR and FGEIS for the AMR to be reliable assessment of ramps.
2. FGEIS reports severe traffic impacts even w/ramps; the AMR reports no problems.
3. Field observation confirms the FGEIS.
4. AMR greatly misrepresents future traffic growth.
5. AMR does not account for all Willets Point trips.
6. AMR shows that ramps make no difference.
7.Modeling shows the ramps are counter-productive for highway system, violating FHWA key criteria.
In the face of all of this, what choice is there? NYSDOT must disapprove the AMR."
These problems are also fatal when you examine what the federal highway guidelines are for the approval of ramps-as item 7 above highlights. Ketcham's work for WPU-and remember that Brian, as well as WPU attorney Mike Gerrard, were the young turks who brought down Westway-was damning enough to prompt the NYSDOT to spit back the first AMR to EDC for serious revision.
In fact, the glaring, and problematic nature of the city's work product, has prompted the following from the National Resources Defense Council-in a letter to NYSDOT and the FHWA "NRDC is not taking a position on advancing the Willets Point project or on constructing the ramps. But based on our preliminary review, we are concerned over the discrepancies in the study results, and also by the prospect that a project could impair regional mobility by disrupting a key highway like the Van Wyck."
And NRDC goes on to say that because of these discrepancies, "...we believe that the best course of action is for the FHWA and NYS DOT to undertake a full NEPA review of the access ramps and their impacts on traffic-including the Van Wyck-without undue reliance on the analysis performed by the City, the project's proponents."
Nothing less should be required here, because as we have seen with Columbia, there is alot of incestuous activity going on between the City and its hired guns-and the first victim in all of this is the truth. But the good news emanating from today's meeting is that the folks at FHWA believe that our (really Brian's) critique has serious merit-and it will be undertaking a comprehensive environmental assessment to determine what the appropriate course of action should be in the case of these ramps-taking the process out of the hands of biased, parochial interests.
The next step for WPU is to bring the message to the Queens civic groups so that they can see for themselves the traffic nightmare in their future if this Willets Point project is allowed to go forward. In the process, the self serving dealings of the city's lead economic development agency will be thoroughly hung out to dry for everyone to plainly see-from illegal lobbying and false city council testimony, to cooked traffic books; sunlight will be the best disinfectant.
Friday, February 19, 2010
WPU's traffic expert to meet with DOT
From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
Representatives of Willets Point United-joined by traffic expert Brian Ketcham-will be meeting with the regional staff of NYSDOT today to discuss just why the group believes that the agency shouldn't approve the city's (actually EDC's) application to build ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway. This should be quite an interesting get together.
Initially, NYSDOT had cancelled the originally scheduled meeting when it found out that representatives of state elected officials planned to attend in order to learn more about why WPU felt that the ramps were not feasible. The implication for the cancellation was that the meeting was becoming, "too political."
This is a situation that genuinely puzzled us. In close to thirty years of lobbying city and state agencies, we have never seen such skittishness about who's coming to a meeting-and the need to micromanage who should or shouldn't be there. Subsequent to the original cancellation, NYSDOT has tried to further restrict attendance-claiming that we shouldn't be there because the meeting is purely, "technical." Yet EDC, the lead political agency for the development, will be represented.
So what's motivating this need to restrict? In our view, it appears that EDC is playing an overbearing role-and if what we suspect is true, than the above board nature of the approval process is thrown into doubt. Now we know that NYSDOT doesn't have the in-house capacity to evaluate the work of URS, EDC's traffic consultants. And in the absence of that capacity, the agency is normally inclined to (relatively) uncritically accept the proffered work.
WPU has thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the normal review process by submitting-with today's power point presentation by forty year veteran Ketcham-a detailed rebuttal to the URS assertions. And the flawed nature of the submission will be revealed in an extremely harsh light. Put simply, the traffic ramp report (AMR) so thoroughly contradicts the original traffic study done for the ULURP EIS, that the good intentions of EDC must be called into question.
Representatives of Willets Point United-joined by traffic expert Brian Ketcham-will be meeting with the regional staff of NYSDOT today to discuss just why the group believes that the agency shouldn't approve the city's (actually EDC's) application to build ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway. This should be quite an interesting get together.
Initially, NYSDOT had cancelled the originally scheduled meeting when it found out that representatives of state elected officials planned to attend in order to learn more about why WPU felt that the ramps were not feasible. The implication for the cancellation was that the meeting was becoming, "too political."
This is a situation that genuinely puzzled us. In close to thirty years of lobbying city and state agencies, we have never seen such skittishness about who's coming to a meeting-and the need to micromanage who should or shouldn't be there. Subsequent to the original cancellation, NYSDOT has tried to further restrict attendance-claiming that we shouldn't be there because the meeting is purely, "technical." Yet EDC, the lead political agency for the development, will be represented.
So what's motivating this need to restrict? In our view, it appears that EDC is playing an overbearing role-and if what we suspect is true, than the above board nature of the approval process is thrown into doubt. Now we know that NYSDOT doesn't have the in-house capacity to evaluate the work of URS, EDC's traffic consultants. And in the absence of that capacity, the agency is normally inclined to (relatively) uncritically accept the proffered work.
WPU has thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the normal review process by submitting-with today's power point presentation by forty year veteran Ketcham-a detailed rebuttal to the URS assertions. And the flawed nature of the submission will be revealed in an extremely harsh light. Put simply, the traffic ramp report (AMR) so thoroughly contradicts the original traffic study done for the ULURP EIS, that the good intentions of EDC must be called into question.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
What are DOT & EDC hiding?
From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
In a lengthy piece on the Huffington Post, David Vines examines the proposed project, and some of the key issues that continue to vex the progress of the development:
"Willets Point sprawls across sixty-two acres between the Flushing River and the New York Mets' Citi Field in Queens. It is filled almost exclusively with small auto repair shops and junkyards--although it would be excusable for one to mistake the entire area for a junkyard. Almost all of the shops in Willets Point are family owned. There is not an AutoZone in sight...In May of 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a plan for urban renewal in Willets Point. Two years later, the New York City Economic Development Corporation announced that it would invest $100 million into infrastructure projects in Queens, including development in Willets Point. The NYCEDC aims to create more than 5,300 permanent jobs and 18,000 construction jobs with this project."
Vines goes on to cite our critique of the process: ""Any time you have eminent domain on the table, you're really negotiating with a gun to your head," says Richard Lipsky. Lipsky is a lobbyist for Willets Point United and the spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, where he fights for small businesses and against large-scale developments in New York. "The Willets Point businesses don't deserve to be thrown out on their behinds in a process that has been corrupted by political favoritism and the type of shenanigans that we've seen," Lipsky claims."
We were, of course, referring to the situation involving the phony Claire Shulman-led not-for-profit-and just where does that Cuomo investigation into the shenannigans stand today? Shulman, for her part, continues to lobby illegally while the AG drags his feet (while movinbg full speed ahead it seems in the case of Pedro Espada). As we told Vines: "The "shenanigans" of which he speaks involve the Flushing-Willets Point-Corona LDC (Local Development Corporation) whose acting President and CEO, Claire Shulman, registered her corporation with the IRS as one prohibited from lobbying. After Willets Point business owners complained, she was fined a record $59,000 last July for failing to register as a lobbyist."
The political weight behind this project may be weighing heavily on the AG's mind-and our dealings with the NYSDOT underscores this since the agency has been getting real skittish about meeting with us to discuss the inadequacy of the EDC-sponsored traffic study for ramps that are proposed off of ther Van Wyck (ramps that are, according to the original EIS, essential for the project to go forward). DOT has been trying to whittle down who should attend our meeting for Friday-after it was cancelled last week because the agency didn't want reps from various state senate offices to attend.
In our view, this means that the folks at EDC are throwing their weight around-trying to dictate who can, or cannot, come to a meeting. Which is truly curious since the meeting was requested by Willets Point United and it was DOT that decided to bring EDC into the picture. The cancellation of last week's meeting was based it appears on the fact that DOT was concerned that it was becoming too political! As if the presence of EDC represented only good government and the public interest.
You have to wonder about the government being offended by the presence of other members of the government at a meeting to discuss a public project...
In a lengthy piece on the Huffington Post, David Vines examines the proposed project, and some of the key issues that continue to vex the progress of the development:
"Willets Point sprawls across sixty-two acres between the Flushing River and the New York Mets' Citi Field in Queens. It is filled almost exclusively with small auto repair shops and junkyards--although it would be excusable for one to mistake the entire area for a junkyard. Almost all of the shops in Willets Point are family owned. There is not an AutoZone in sight...In May of 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a plan for urban renewal in Willets Point. Two years later, the New York City Economic Development Corporation announced that it would invest $100 million into infrastructure projects in Queens, including development in Willets Point. The NYCEDC aims to create more than 5,300 permanent jobs and 18,000 construction jobs with this project."
Vines goes on to cite our critique of the process: ""Any time you have eminent domain on the table, you're really negotiating with a gun to your head," says Richard Lipsky. Lipsky is a lobbyist for Willets Point United and the spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, where he fights for small businesses and against large-scale developments in New York. "The Willets Point businesses don't deserve to be thrown out on their behinds in a process that has been corrupted by political favoritism and the type of shenanigans that we've seen," Lipsky claims."
We were, of course, referring to the situation involving the phony Claire Shulman-led not-for-profit-and just where does that Cuomo investigation into the shenannigans stand today? Shulman, for her part, continues to lobby illegally while the AG drags his feet (while movinbg full speed ahead it seems in the case of Pedro Espada). As we told Vines: "The "shenanigans" of which he speaks involve the Flushing-Willets Point-Corona LDC (Local Development Corporation) whose acting President and CEO, Claire Shulman, registered her corporation with the IRS as one prohibited from lobbying. After Willets Point business owners complained, she was fined a record $59,000 last July for failing to register as a lobbyist."
The political weight behind this project may be weighing heavily on the AG's mind-and our dealings with the NYSDOT underscores this since the agency has been getting real skittish about meeting with us to discuss the inadequacy of the EDC-sponsored traffic study for ramps that are proposed off of ther Van Wyck (ramps that are, according to the original EIS, essential for the project to go forward). DOT has been trying to whittle down who should attend our meeting for Friday-after it was cancelled last week because the agency didn't want reps from various state senate offices to attend.
In our view, this means that the folks at EDC are throwing their weight around-trying to dictate who can, or cannot, come to a meeting. Which is truly curious since the meeting was requested by Willets Point United and it was DOT that decided to bring EDC into the picture. The cancellation of last week's meeting was based it appears on the fact that DOT was concerned that it was becoming too political! As if the presence of EDC represented only good government and the public interest.
You have to wonder about the government being offended by the presence of other members of the government at a meeting to discuss a public project...
Julia Vitullo-Martin's cognitive dissonance
From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:
...as we have been pointing out, the EDC proposed development would create new environmental hazards-like 80,000 new vehicle trips a day in and out of the new development. [Julia] Vitullo Martin, a shill for development who castigated the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory deal, scoffs at the suggestion: "When asked about Lipsky's concern that developing the area would create 80,000 new vehicle trips in Flushing every weekday, therefore clogging traffic and increasing the city's carbon footprint, Martin chuckles. "I don't believe that's worthy of a response," she says.
Interestingly, Julia is opposed to the Atlantic Yards development plan in part because of the unmitigated traffic impacts that would result. Yet laughs at the notion that Willets Point, a project 3 times larger than Atlantic Yards, would have any impact.
But that's our Julia...
...as we have been pointing out, the EDC proposed development would create new environmental hazards-like 80,000 new vehicle trips a day in and out of the new development. [Julia] Vitullo Martin, a shill for development who castigated the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory deal, scoffs at the suggestion: "When asked about Lipsky's concern that developing the area would create 80,000 new vehicle trips in Flushing every weekday, therefore clogging traffic and increasing the city's carbon footprint, Martin chuckles. "I don't believe that's worthy of a response," she says.
Interestingly, Julia is opposed to the Atlantic Yards development plan in part because of the unmitigated traffic impacts that would result. Yet laughs at the notion that Willets Point, a project 3 times larger than Atlantic Yards, would have any impact.
But that's our Julia...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
