DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 10: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS1 A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 10: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS1 A Chapter 10: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS1 A. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) summarizes and responds to substantive comments received during the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), issued on March 22, 2019, for the proposed NYC Borough-Based Jail System. City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) requires a public hearing on the DEIS as part of the environmental review process. The DEIS public hearing was held on July 10, 2019, at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Theater, 524 West 59th Street, New York, NY at 10:00 AM. The comment period remained open through Monday, July 22, 2019. Section B contains a summary of relevant comments on the DEIS and a response to each. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made, but do not necessarily quote the comments verbatim. Comments are organized by subject matter and generally parallel the chapter structure of the DEIS. Where more than one commenter expressed similar views, those comments have been grouped and addressed together. Commenters who expressed general support or general opposition but did not provide substantive comments on the DEIS are listed at the end of Section B. A list of organizations and individuals who commented can be found in Section C. All written comments are included in Appendix K, “Written Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Where relevant, in response to comments on the DEIS, changes have been made and are shown with double underlines in the FEIS. B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Comment 1: CB1 is on record objecting to the administration’s “opaque site selection and lack of community input” for the Manhattan BBJ project, and CB1 continues to believe the administration should reconsider its selection of the Manhattan site in conjunction with a process of meaningful community engagement on site selection. (CB1_015) The Kew Gardens community was only informed of the proposed jail facility by the August 15 press release. The City has failed to undertake community and neighborhood engagement in Queens. (CB9_018) 1 This chapter is new to the FEIS. 10-1 NYC Borough-Based Jail System EIS Before any sites are considered, there has to be meaningful dialogue with all community stakeholders with consensus there has to be agreement about the size and scale of any facility that would meet the goals of maintaining the connection between the incarcerated and their families. (Katz_021) The responsibility for eliminating harmful impacts on the Chinatown community must include strong cooperation with local stakeholders not only during construction of the proposed facility but especially during the planning and design stages when community input is critical. (Brewer_019) I ask you to call a town hall meeting in every borough with a transparent plan. (Oliver_031) Communities citywide are outraged by the lack of community participation in the planning stages and the rush by the mayor and City Council speak to start the ULURP process before the facts are known. The City must fully involve the surrounding communities in the planning and design process (Balboza_042) The process hasn’t been transparent. (Brandston_309) This plan has been well discussed among residents in this area. Mayor should not make decisions only by himself and ignoring people’s voices against the project. (Yang_495) I am just wondering why Kew Gardens residents were not informed of this hearing. And why only the “activist” group hired by developers were informed and was there in full force. Here is a post from an online blog: Bill Sidis July 11th 2019. Exactly what notice gets sent to local residents of these hearings? NONE. The lobbying jail group gets notices direct and one has to wonder if they have jobs or most are on public assistance so that wasting an entire day is no problem for them. And if you’ve been to any of the hearings, these people are given first chance to speak so it is usually hours until any local person affected has a chance to talk. Let’s be honest. This is just a charade and it’s why the Mayor’s office didn’t care one iota to prioritize neighborhood residents. (Brown_499) The Queens Borough President has requested that the planning process for the Borough Based jail be started over again, from the beginning, to allow for sufficient community involvement and input, which has not been provided by the City. The Borough President's request for the planning process to be started again, should be granted. The City Planning Commission should not approve a plan that has not had adequate community involvement and input. The City Council Member representing the City Council District in which the jail is proposed, expressed her support of the proposed jail before the plan for that jail was 10-2 Chapter 10: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS made known to the community. She has persisted in her support for the proposed jail despite and throughout the period when her constituents were unanimously expressing opposition, asking questions and getting no answers. This clear case of unresponsiveness to community involvement regarding the building of a huge structure in the community should not be endorsed by the City Planning Commission. (Brown_643) Riker’s Island can be modernized, but the Mayor has not commissioned a transparent process to consider this option. (Doyle_657) The plan was approved without the proper process, and with little regard for our community's safety, well-being or best interests. (Fortson_688) This plan is neither well-though-out nor was the community involved until it was in place. (Kurz_773) The community was never asked or included in any mayors office research about building the jail and simply ignored on various meetings with the mayor and mayors office representatives. (L_540) We oppose the Borough-based jails because the entire process has: 1. no transparency and little/no engagement with the community; 2. constantly evolving data and information, but insufficient to have meaningful discussion on direction, design and/or plans; 3. many questions relating to mitigation plans and/or EIS; or analyses associated with recent projected impacts of Criminal Justice reform legislation/policies received a standard answer: "we are studying it and once we have the information, we will provide it". (Lai_528) The lack of transparency and input prior to the decision being made to place a fail at the tow pound site shows a complete lack of respect for the community, our worth and our efforts over the past twenty two years. For the reasons stated herein, we oppose the City’s plan to site a jail at 320 Concord Avenue and ask that the City Planning Commission vote no and work with the Borough President’s office to select a viable alternative site for the Bronx jail. (Parks_067) I strongly object to lack of input by local citizens, should be voted on, after thorough detail of the project (Quinn_705) We are opposed to the City’s plan to locate a jail on this site because of the manner in which the City rushed through SCOPING and EIS and consolidated separate developments in four boroughs into single ULURP process, which effectively deprives the local community critical scrutiny over the plan’s actual effectiveness and potential harm, as well as exploration of better alternatives. And it deprives all of NYC’s citizens in all five boroughs, except for four community boards, the opportunity to have their voices heard by their local community board representatives 10-3 NYC Borough-Based Jail System EIS on an issue that affects all of us—closing Rikers Island. This ULURP is fake public participation! (Reicher_464) Everything the mayor and the city has said about the jail completely ignored the concerns of the community. (Sinaw_721) The Lippman report also stated that communities must be engaged in the site selection of the BBJs, however in this case, there was a total lack of community engagement in the site selection. (Sung_064) We urge you to hold the city accountable by demanding that the process be rolled back, specifically, restart SCOPING and EIS with full community engagement as well as accurate site address (not 80 Center Street as a stand-in for 125 White Street ) and abide by the democratic principle of one review process per construction site.. (Tsai_082, Tsai_742) The city rushed through SCOPING and EIS and consolidated separate developments in four boroughs into one single ULURP process, which effectively deprived the public of critical scrutiny over the plan’s actual effectiveness and potential harm, as well as exploration of fiscally more responsible alternatives. (Tsai_742) One of the major flaws of the assessment of Section 5.13 is the use of words such as assumed, potential, perhaps, moderate, rare, significant, etc. the definition of these terms is in the eyes of the beholder and as the authors of this document have had no contact with the community (as was mandated by the Lippman Report). Plans for this massive Jail had been made, consultants hired and paid- years before the Communities of Kew and Briarwood became aware of the "Plan". From September to November there were no attempts to engage the communities - so called Queens Neighborhood Meetings were a farce. It is difficult to imagine how the decisions reached in this section were reached, certainly not by any visits with community members to our home, Kew Gardens. There was no attempt to really study the communities of Kew Gardens, Briarwood and Forest Hills and no attempt to engage with the people who will be most affected by this huge jail complex. There was also no communication with the communities before the plans were already on the drawing board and being circulated.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New York Rent Relief Application Snags Frustrate Landlords
    VolumeVol.Volume 66, No. 65,65, 80 No.No. 207207 MONDAY,MONDAY,THURSDAY, FEBRUARYFEBRUARY AUGUST 6,10,10, 2020 20202020 50¢ A tree fell across wires in Queens Village, knocking out power and upending a chunk of sidewalk. VolumeQUEENSQUEENS 65, No. 207 LIGHTSMONDAY, OUT FEBRUARY 10, 2020 Photo by Teresa Mettela 50¢ 57,000 QueensQueensQueens residents lose power Vol.VolumeVolume 66, No. 65, 65, 80 No. No. 207 207 MONDAY,MONDAY, FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 10, 10, 2020 2020 50¢50¢ VolumeVolumeVol.VolumeVol. 66,66,67, 65, No. No.65,65, No. 80 8053No.No. 207 207207 MONDAY,THURSDAY,MONDAY,MONDAY,THURSDAY,TUESDAY, FEBRUARY FEBRUARYFEBRUARYFEBRUARY AUGUST AUGUSTAUGUSTJUNE 29, 6,10, 6,10,6,10, 10,20212020 20202020 20202020 50¢50¢50¢ Volume 65, No. 207 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020 50¢ VolumeVol.TODAY 66, No.65, 80No. 207 MONDAY,THURSDAY, FEBRUARY AUGUST 6,10, 2020 2020 A tree fell across wires in50¢ TODAY AA tree tree fell fell across across wires wires in in TODAY QueensQueensQueens Village, Village, Village, knocking knocking knocking outoutout power power power and and and upending upending upending Advocates demand returnA treeaa chunk chunkfell across of of sidewalk. sidewalk. wires in a chunk of sidewalk. VolumeVolumeVolumeQUEENSQUEENSQUEENSQUEENS 65, 65,65, No. No.No. 207 207207 LIGHTSLIGHTSduring intenseMONDAY,MONDAY, OUTOUTOUT FEBRUARY FEBRUARYFEBRUARY 10, 10,10, 2020 20202020 QueensPhotoPhoto PhotoVillage, by by byTeresa Teresa Teresa knocking Mettela Mettela Mettela 50¢50¢50¢ QUEENS out power and upending 57,00057,000 Queens QueensQueensQueensQueensQueens
    [Show full text]
  • X735.82 Noise Barrier Workshop Brochure
    VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY (I-678) CAPACITY AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO JFK AIRPORT PROJECT ANTICIPATED TIMELINE: Noise Barriers FEBRUARY 1, 2019 MAY 22, 2019 FALL 2019 Project Background Release of FEIS DEIS Released for Ballots Returned The New York State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, is & Record of Public Review to NYSDOT preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Van Wyck Expressway (VWE) Capacity and Access Decision Improvements to JFK Airport Project. The Project is located along a 4.3-mile segment of the VWE, also known as Interstate 678, including the northbound and southbound service roads. The northern project limit is Hoover Avenue and the southern project limit is the southern end of Federal Circle at the entrance to JFK Airport. The purpose of the Project is to provide increased capacity on the VWE between the Kew Gardens Interchange RETURN OF BALLOTS (KGI) and JFK Airport to improve vehicular access to and from JFK Airport. The Project would add a fourth vehicular travel lane in each direction between JFK Airport and the KGI. The additional lane would be a managed-use lane Completed ballots may be submitted in one of the following ways: with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) restrictions. In addition, the Project will address operational, geometric, and structural deficiencies on the VWE between the KGI and JFK Airport. The Draft EIS (DEIS) for the Project was released for public review on February 1, 2019 and is available on the project website at: www.dot.ny.gov/vwe.
    [Show full text]
  • 32 City Council District Profiles
    QUEENS CITY Woodhaven, Ozone Park, Lindenwood, COUNCIL 2009 DISTRICT 32 Howard Beach, South Ozone Park Parks are an essential city service. They are the barometers of our city. From Flatbush to Flushing and Morrisania to Midtown, parks are the front and backyards of all New Yorkers. Well-maintained and designed parks offer recreation and solace, improve property values, reduce crime, and contribute to healthy communities. SHOWCASE : Rockaway Beach The Report Card on Beaches is modeled after New Yorkers for Parks’ award-winning Report Card on Parks. Through the results of independent inspections, it tells New Yorkers how well the City’s seven beaches are maintained in four key service areas: shorelines, pathways, bathrooms, and drink- ing fountains. The Report Card on Beaches is an effort to highlight these important facilities and ensure that New York City’s 14 miles of beaches are open, clean, and safe. Rockaway Beach is Police Officer Nicholas DeMutiis Playground, Ozone Park one of the seven public beaches The Bloomberg Administration’s physical barriers or crime. As a result, owned and operated by the City’s Parks Department. In 2007, PlaNYC is the first-ever effort to studies show significant increases in this beach was rated “challenged.” sustainably address the many infra- nearby real estate values. Greenways Its shoreline was impacted by structure needs of New York City, are expanding waterfront access broken glass. Visit www.ny4p.org including parks. With targets set for while creating safer routes for cyclists for more information on the stormwater management, air quality and pedestrians, and the new initia- Report Card on Beaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough-Based Jail System in Bronx Community District 1, Brooklyn Community District 2, Manhattan Community District 1 and Queens Community District 9
    CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 3, 2019 / Calendar No. 1 C 190333 PSY IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by the New York City Department of Correction, the NYC Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, and the NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services, pursuant to Section 197-c of the New York City Charter, for the site selection of property located at: 1. 745 East 141st Street (Block 2574, p/o Lot 1), Bronx Community District 1; 2. 275 Atlantic Avenue (Block 175, Lot 1), Brooklyn Community District 2; 3. 124 White Street (Block 198, Lot 1) and 125 White Street (Block 167, Lot 1), Manhattan Community District 1; and 4. 126-02 82nd Avenue (Block 9653, Lot 1), 80-25 126th Street (Block 9657, Lot 1), and the bed of 82nd Avenue between 126th and 132nd streets, Queens Community District 9; for borough-based jail facilities. This application (C 190333 PSY) for a site selection was filed by the New York City (NYC) Department of Correction (DOC), the NYC Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ) and the NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) (collectively, the “Applicant”) on March 22, 2019. The proposed action, along with the related actions, would facilitate the development of four detention facilities that comprise the NYC borough-based jail system in Bronx Community District 1, Brooklyn Community District 2, Manhattan Community District 1 and Queens Community District 9. RELATED ACTIONS In addition to the site selection, which is the subject of this report (C 190333 PSY), the following proposed actions are
    [Show full text]
  • Kew Gardens Interchange Infrastructure and Operational Improvement Project Grand Central Parkway
    KEW GARDENS INTERCHANGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PIN X051.60, Contract D900043 Request for Proposals Addendum #10 June 8, 2018 New York State Department of Transportation Modification to the Request for Proposals KEW GARDENS INTERCHANGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY Design-Build Project PIN X051.60, Contract D900043 Note to Proposers Differences between the deleted pages and the revised pages have been identified as follows: • Brackets have been inserted on the left-hand margin of the pages to indicate where changes have been made to the documents; and • Text additions have been shown in underlined red font and text deletions have been shown in crossed out red font. General Instructions Delete Page A-3 of the Instructions to Proposers, Appendix A, Project Information, and substitute the attached revised Page A-3. Delete Page C-9 of the Instructions to Proposers, Appendix C, Technical Submittal, and substitute the attached revised Page C-9. Delete Form SCD of the Instructions to Proposers, Appendix E, Forms, and substitute the attached revised Form SCD. Delete Pages 12, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 91, 92 and 101 of the DB Contract Documents, Part 3, Project Requirements, and substitute the attached revised Pages 12, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 91, 92 and 101. Please note, there are no tracked changes on Pages 56, 57, 58, 59 and 92, but the pages are included due to the shift of text resulting from the additions to Pages 55 and 91. Delete the OCMC Permit and substitute the attached revised signed OCMC Permit to the DB Contract Documents, Part 7 – Engineering Data.
    [Show full text]
  • NYCAR Membership
    NYCAR Membership LGA COMMITTEE JFK COMMITTEE U.S. House of Representatives # of Votes U.S. House of Representatives # of Votes US Congressional District 3 1 US Congressional District 3 1 US Congressional District 6 1 US Congressional District 4 1 US Congressional District 8 1 US Congressional District 5 1 US Congressional District 12 1 US Congressional District 5 1 US Congressional District 14 1 Queens Borough President # of Votes Queens Borough President # of Votes Queens Borough President 1 Queens Borough President 1 Queens Borough President 1 Queens Borough President 1 New York State Senate # of Votes New York State Senate # of Votes NYS Senate District 7 1 NYS Senate District 2 1 NYS Senate District 6 1 NYS Senate District 11 1 NYS Senate District 9 1 NYS Senate District 13 1 NYS Senate District 10 1 NYS Senate District 16 1 NYS Senate District 14 1 NYS Senate District 18 1 NYS Senate District 15 1 New York State Assembly # of Votes New York State Assembly # of Votes NYS Assembly District 26 1 NYS Assembly District 19 1 NYS Assembly District 27 1 NYS Assembly District 20 1 NYS Assembly District 34 1 NYS Assembly District 22 1 NYS Assembly District 35 1 NYS Assembly District 23 1 NYS Assembly District 36 1 NYS Assembly District 29 1 NYS Assembly District 40 1 NYS Assembly District 31 1 NYS Assembly District 85 1 NYS Assembly District 32 1 New York City Council # of Votes NYS Assembly District 33 1 NYC Council District 8 1 New York City Council # of Votes NYC Council District 19 1 NYC Council District 27 1 NYC Council District 20 1
    [Show full text]
  • NYSDOT Bid Date: 6/22/18 Time: 12:00 Pm Duration: 3/1/2022 Project Goal: DBE 14%
    SCHIAVONE Construction Co. LLC CONSTRUCTORS & ENGINEERS 150 MEADOWLANDS PARKWAY • SECOND FLOOR • SECAUCUS, N.J. 07094-1589 PHONE (201) 867-5070 OUTREACH EVENT Kew Interchange Constructors, JV invites all DBE business enterprises that are seeking potential business opportunities to attend an Outreach Event at Hilton New York JFK Airport, 144‐02 135th Avenue, Jamaica, NY Monday, April 23rd from 9:00am – Noon. We will have two presentations starting at 9:30 and 11:15 AND breakfast will be provided. Registration is required prior to this event. Please complete and return the required information to Colleen Connors‐Casenta [email protected] NO LATER THAN Thursday, April 19th Company Name: ________________________________ Contact Person: _____________________________ Trade(s): __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________ Phone: _______________________ Cell: __________________________ Email: ________________________________________________________ Please attach a copy of your certification with this form COMPLETELY filled out ______ Yes, we will bid _______ No, we will not bid ______ Yes, we are a union contractor ______________ Confirm Certifying Agency Owner: Owner: NYSDOT Bid Date: 6/22/18 Time: 12:00 pm Duration: 3/1/2022 Project Goal: DBE 14% Project: Contract: Kew Gardens Interchange Infrastructure and Operational Improvement Project Grand Central Parkway Pin X051.60 Contract No. D900043 If you are interested in reviewing contract documents, contact Colleen Connors‐Casenta at [email protected] for a copy of our Non‐Disclosure Agreement (NDA), which will need to be signed and emailed back prior to downloading drawings and specs from our FTP website. Confidential Information: Keep all information furnished by the Authority Confidential. Confidential Information includes specifications, drawings, plans, diagrams, sketches, renderings, and other technical data and information.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracking Vision Zero in Queens
    Tracking Vision Zero in Queens Queens (Borough-Wide) August 2017 Are we bending the curve downward on traffic injuries? Traffic Injuries & Fatalities in Previous 12 Months Total Traffic Fatalities in Previous 12 Months 20,000 120 18,000 16,000 100 14,000 12,000 80 10,000 8,000 60 6,000 4,000 40 2,000 Injuries Injuries &Fatalities 20 Previous 12 Months 0 2013 0 Pedestrians Cyclists Motorists & Passengers 2013 Are we increasing enforcement of traffic laws? Quick Facts Past 12 Change vs. Change vs. Tickets Issued in Previous 12 Months This Month Months Prev. Year 2013 2013 60,000 Injuries Pedestrians 168 2,636 + 1% 2,801 - 6% 50,000 Cyclists 90 933 + 8% 826 + 13% 40,000 Motorists and Passengers 1,303 14,298 + 4% 11,895 + 20% Total 1,561 17,867 + 3% 15,522 + 15% 30,000 Fatalities Tickets Pedestrians 3 32 - 6% 52 - 38% 20,000 Cyclists 0 2 - 33% 2 0% Motorists and Passengers 3 21 - 40% 39 - 46% 10,000 Total 6 55 - 24% 93 - 41% Tickets Issued 0 Illegal Cell Phone Use 1,240 14,876 - 2% 26,967 - 45% Disobeying Red Signal 892 11,872 + 14% 7,538 + 57% Not Giving Rt of Way to Ped 754 10,548 + 29% 3,647 + 189% Speeding 961 15,424 + 33% 7,132 + 116% Speeding Not Giving Way to Pedestrians Total 3,847 52,720 + 16% 45,284 + 16% Disobeying Red Signal Illegal Cell Phone Use 2013 Tracking Vision Zero Bronx August 2017 Are we bending the curve downward on traffic injuries? Traffic Injuries & Fatalities in Previous 12 Months Total Traffic Fatalities in Previous 12 Months 12,000 70 10,000 60 8,000 50 6,000 40 4,000 30 20 2,000 Previous 12 Months Injuries Injuries &Fatalities 0 10 2013 0 Pedestrians Cyclists Motorists & Passengers 2013 Are we increasing enforcement of traffic laws? Quick Facts Past 12 Change vs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Freight NEEDS– NEW YORK
    GREATEST The Case for Freight NEEDS– NEW YORK Increasing capacity on “The Kew Gardens Interchange—built in the 1930s, well before interstate our nation’s standards were developed or the world economy of today emerged—is transportation now a key link serving thousands of trucks traveling each day to and system will: from John F. Kennedy International Airport, the busiest air freight facility • Unlock Gridlock, in the nation. It is critical that this complex urban highway be upgraded • Generate Jobs, not only to meet current safety standards and travel needs, but to • Deliver Freight, adequately and efficiently accommodate the national and international- • Access Energy, bound freight that passes through this interchange each day.” • Connect Communities —Stanley Gee, New York State Department of Transportation Acting Commissioner Did you know? Freight Capacity Needs • The amount of freight Kew Gardens Interchange Reconstruction moved in this coun- try—from milk, tooth- paste and toilet paper The Kew Gardens Interchange, located in the Queens borough of New York City, is the confluence of three major limited-access freeways, two major highways, and numerous to sparkplugs, wheat local streets. The interchange is a critical node on the Van Wyck Expressway (Inter- and wind turbines—is state 678) which serves as the only commercial limited-access link to JFK International expected to double in Airport, and it is essential for freight movement. Additionally, the interchange serves the the next 40 years? Grand Central Parkway, a major commuter route to Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long • The Interstate High- Island and the primary access route to LaGuardia Airport.
    [Show full text]
  • ATLANTIC AVENUE PHASE II: GREAT STREETS Presentation to Queens Community Board 9
    ATLANTIC AVENUE PHASE II: GREAT STREETS Presentation to Queens Community Board 9 January 9th, 2018 Lily Gordon-Koven Research, Implementation, & Safety 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW Atlantic Avenue Phase I Atlantic Avenue Phase II Georgia Ave to Logan St Logan St to Rockaway Blvd 1.2 miles 1.0 miles Brooklyn CB 5 Brooklyn CB 5/Queens CB 9 Design completed Design underway Construction scheduled to began in 2017 Construction scheduled to begin in 2019 nyc.gov/visionzero 2 PROJECT TIMELINE November 2015: Safety Workshop for Phase I & II at P.S. 89 December 2015: Project Presentation to Brooklyn CB 5 on Phase I Fall 2015 – Fall 2017: Online Feedback Portal Spring 2017: Street Ambassador Outreach Summer – Fall 2017: Project Briefings for community stakeholders Winter 2018: Project Presentations to Brooklyn CB 5 & Queens CB 9 on Phase II Late 2017: Initial construction began on Phase I 2019: Construction scheduled to begin on Phase II nyc.gov/visionzero 3 SAFETY PRIORITIES Vision Zero • Multi-agency effort to reduce traffic fatalities in New York City • Borough Action Plans released in 2015 • Priority Intersections, Corridors, and Areas identified for each borough • Atlantic Ave is a Priority Corridor with 6.5 pedestrians killed or severely injured per mile* and in a Priority Area Great Streets • Atlantic Ave is one of four arterial streets designated city funds as part of this Vision Zero Capital Program by Mayor de Blasio Priority Bicycle District • Identified in 2017 Safer Cycling report • Community Boards with a high number of cyclists killed or severely injured and few bicycle facilities • Brooklyn Community Board 5 is a Priority Bicycle District *Pedestrian KSI per mile given for Atlantic Ave in Queens only.
    [Show full text]
  • Utility Requirements
    KEW GARDENS INTERCHANGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY PIN X051.60, Contract D900043 DB CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PART 4 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS Final MARCH 16, 2018 This page is intentionally left blank. New York State Department of Transportation Table of Contents PART 4 - UTILITY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................... 1 4.1 SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 4.2 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 1 4.2.1 Utility Coordination ................................................................................................................ 1 4.2.2 Utility Coordination Manager ................................................................................................. 2 4.2.3 Utility Relocation Design ....................................................................................................... 2 4.2.4 Scheduling Utility Relocation Work ........................................................................................ 3 4.2.5 Utility Design and Construction Constraints ........................................................................... 3 4.2.6 Standard of Care Applicable to Utility Work ........................................................................... 3 4.2.7 Coordination with Utility Owners ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 21: Response to Comments1
    1 Chapter 21: Response to Comments A. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) summarizes and responds to the substantive oral and written comments received during the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center (NTC) Strategic Vision. The public hearing on the DEIS was held concurrently with the hearing on the project’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) draft application on April 24, 2013 at Spector Hall at the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) located at 22 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007. The comment period for the DEIS remained open until 5:00 PM on Monday, May 6, 2013. Written comments received on the DEIS are included in Appendix G. Section B identifies the organizations and individuals who provided relevant comments on the DEIS. Section C contains a summary of these relevant comments and a response to each. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made, but do not necessarily quote the comments verbatim. B. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ELECTED OFFICIALS 1. Tony Avella, State Senator, oral and written testimony presented by Ivan Acosta dated April 24, 2013 (Avella) 2. Helen Marshall, President, Borough of Queens, written recommendation dated April 11, 2013 (Marshall) COMMUNITY BOARDS 3. Queens Community Board 3 Resolution dated March 18, 2013, and oral testimony by Marta LeBreton, Chair, dated April 24, 2013 (CB3) 4. Queens Community Board 4 Resolution dated March 15, 2013 (CB4) 5. Queens Community Board 6 Resolution dated March 15, 2013 (CB6) 6.
    [Show full text]