DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Hudson Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Hudson Local Waterfront Revitalization Program CITY OF HUDSON LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM CITY OF HUDSON COLUMBIA COUNTY, NEW YORK FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Accepted: September 26, 2011 CITY OF HUDSON LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM (LWRP) FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FGEIS) Accepted: September 26, 2011 FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FGEIS) City of Hudson Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Lead Agency: City of Hudson Common Council City Hall 520 Warren Street Hudson, New York 12534 Columbia County Contact: Mayor Richard Scalera (518) 828-1030 Prepared by: BFJ Planning 115 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Contact: Frank S. Fish (212) 353-7476 Applicant: None Direct Action by Common Council Date DGEIS Accepted: December 15, 2009 Date of Public Hearing: January 20, 2010 Closing Date of Comment Period: March 15, 2010 Date FEIS Accepted: September 26, 2011 Web address for electronic copy of this FGEIS: http://cityofhudson.org/content/Generic/View/3 This document was prepared for the New York State Department of State with funds provided under title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1-1 2 .0 CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................ 2-1 3. 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .............................................................. 3-1 3.1 General Comments .................................................................................3-6 3.2 Executive Summary ..................................................................................3-93 3.3 Project Description ...................................................................................3-97 3.4 Land Use and Zoning ...............................................................................3-104 3.5 Geology, Topography, and Soils ...............................................................3-113 3.6 Natural Resources ....................................................................................3-114 3.7 Surface Water and Hydrology ...................................................................3-117 3.8 Traffic and Transportation ........................................................................3-121 3.9 Utilities and Services .................................................................................3-124 3.10 Cultural and Visual Resources ...................................................................3-124 3.11 Air Quality and Noise ..............................................................................3-125 3.12 Socioeconomic Resources .........................................................................3-126 3.13 Analysis of Alternatives .............................................................................3-126 3.14 O&G South Bay Causeway Truck Route .....................................................3-127 3.15 Other Environmental Impacts ...................................................................3-145 3.16 Future Actions ..........................................................................................3-146 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Comments Received on the DGEIS Appendix B: LWRP Petitions Appendix C: O&G Correspondence Appendix D: NYSDOT Correspondence Appendix E: DEC Correspondence Appendix F: OGS Correspondence Appendix G: DEC Settlement Appendix H: Municipal Correspondence Appendix I: Potentially New and Significant Information Appendix J: “Biological Surveys of a Transect Through South Bay and Adjoining Uplands,” Hudsonia Ltd. Appendix K: Common Council Hearing Record from GEIS/LWRP Public Hearing dated January 20, 2010 CITY OF HUDSON LWRP FGEIS i Accepted: September 26, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES 1-1: Regional Location 1-3 1-2: LWRP Boundary 1-5 1-3: Core Areas 1-7 1-4: Existing Land Use Map 1-8 1-5: Existing Zoning 1-10 2-1: Revised Proposed Zoning Map 2-3 2-2: LB Furniture Public Road Alternative 2-7 2-3: Ownership Map 2-9 2-4: Revised LWRP Figure 26 210 DGEIS 3.1-8: Proposed Inland Recreation Projects and Pedestrian Network 3-63 DGEIS Figure 2-6: Proposed Land Use Map 3-99 DGEIS Figure 3.1-4: Proposed Land Use 3-105 DGEIS Figure 3.4-1: Natural Features 3-119 LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Written Comments Received on the DEIS 3-1 3-2 Commenters at the Public Hearing 3-5 CITY OF HUDSON LWRP FGEIS ii Accepted: September 26, 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) has been prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617). Under those regulations, the FGEIS serves as the basis for the Lead Agency Findings. The City of Hudson Common Council is the lead agency for this environmental review. This FGEIS was prepared to respond to all substantive comments made on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), which was accepted by the City of Hudson Common Council for circulation and comment on December 16, 2009. In accordance with Section 617.9(b) (7) of the SEQRA regulations, this FGEIS incorporates by reference the City of Hudson Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and DGEIS. The City of Hudson Common Council, as lead agency, proposes to adopt a LWRP and associated amendments to the City Code and Charter, including amendments to the Zoning Code and Official Zoning Map and the adoption of a Local Consistency Review Law (see Appendix C and Appendix D of the LWRP). These actions constitute the ‘‘Proposed Action.’’ It is the City’s primary goal through the adoption of the LWRP, its enabling legislation and associated Zoning Code and Map amendments, to reconnect the Hudson River and the waterfront land to the City. The City’s LWRP is intended to guide and support, through zoning changes and other agreements, development within the waterfront boundary area which supports and continues the regional shift away from water dependent industrial uses to a mix of compatible, higher economically valued mixed uses that include commercial, residential, tourism, retail, shipping and office uses, water dependant and enhanced recreational uses and the preservation of open space. Therefore, the City intends to rezone much of the land within the waterfront boundary area from industrial use to zoning which provides for a mix of commercial, residential, conservation, industrial and shipping activities (allowed by conditional use permit), to ensure that any shipping or transportation activities occurring within the new Core Riverfront Zone are compatible with the overall long term planning objective. The public comment period on the DGEIS opened on December 16, 2009, and extended through March 15, 2010. During that period, a joint public hearing on the LWRP and DGEIS was held on January 20, 2010, and written comments were also received from the public and involved and interested agencies. Copies of the transcript from the public hearing and written comments received on the DGEIS are provided in this FGEIS as Appendix A. In addition to the comments received on the DGEIS by the Common Council, SEQR Lead Agency for the proposed project, two petitions on the draft LWRP were circulated garnering approximately 886 signatures. The first petition was an online petition, which garnered 706 signatures that was prepared and circulated in February CITY OF HUDSON LWRP FGEIS 1-1 Accepted: September 26, 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION and March 2010 by Save the South Bay on the draft LWRP. The second petition, a hardcopy form letter, which garnered approximately 180 signatures, was also circulated during February and March 2010. Copies of the petitions are included as FGEIS Appendix B. In response to verbal comments received at the public hearing and written comments received during the public comment period, the Common Council has made a number of substantive changes to the proposed action to address and respond to concerns raised by members of the public and representatives of involved and interested agencies. The draft LWRP and its enabling legislation have been revised to reflect these proposed changes; the changes to the proposed action are described in Section II of this FGEIS. The revised LWRP and its associated enabling legislation are incorporated herein by reference; changes to both the revised Program and the legislative amendments have been made in redline/strikeout for ease of review. The FGEIS is organized into three chapters. Chapter 1.0 describes the project’s location and environmental setting, and the review process to date; Chapter 2.0 describes the changes that have been made to the proposed action in response to issues and concerns raised during the public comment period. Chapter 2.0 also contains a discussion of information that may be considered “new and significant” information submitted or raised after the release of the draft proposed final GEIS and LWRP in May 2011. Materials considered “new and significant” are contained in Appendix I. Chapter 3.0 contains a summary of all “substantive” DGEIS public hearing and written comments and provides responses to each of those substantive comments as required by SEQRA regulations at 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(8). Comments have been categorized by commenter (letters and public hearing transcripts are contained in FGEIS Appendix A), and a response is provided for each substantive comment. As the comments contained in the two petitions received (see FGEIS Appendix B) are all of a similar nature
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jersey City’S Premier Office Destination on the Vibrant Hudson Waterfront
    Second to None Jersey City’s Premier Office Destination on the Vibrant Hudson Waterfront 360° Views Connected Amenities Efficiency Availability Infrastructure Specifications Grow NJ Incentives 360° Views With an unobstructed window line on all four façades, 3 Second Street at Harborside boasts spectacular waterfront views of the Hudson River, World Trade Center, Lower Manhattan and the Empire State Building. Enjoy the changing sunlight, sparkling water and dramatic New York City skyline every day. Connected Located just minutes from Lower Manhattan, 3 Second Street at Harborside is a premier Class A office destination at the heart of the Hudson Waterfront in Jersey City. The building is easily accessed by an extensive underground and above-ground transportation network. Just 7 minutes from the World Trade Center on the PATH train to NYC, 3 Second Street offers convenient access to NY Penn Station, the Holland Tunnel, Newark Liberty International Airport and Hoboken Terminal via NJ Transit trains and buses, NY Waterway ferries and Amtrak. The Harborside Light Rail station is one block away, connecting to Newport and Hoboken. Abundant on-site surface parking is available at a ratio of 0.8/1,000 SF for those office workers and tenant visitors that drive. Citi Bike share stops are very proximate. Whether tenants live in New Jersey, Manhattan or one of the outer boroughs, 3 Second Street provides an extremely convenient commuting connection. Amenities 3 Second Street at Harborside provides tenants with a variety of on-site and nearby amenities along the Jersey City waterfront. With the newly opened Ground Connection café and coffee bar, first-class lobby with concierge services, a new tenant lounge complete with large screen TV and Wi-Fi, and outdoor seating at the adjacent waterfront park, tenants have many meeting place alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Annual Message to the Legislature 1972
    You are viewing an archived copy from the New Jersey State Library FREE LlB:IARY E /~- 111~imMjflji~~~~!11 . of fhii_'r;ei~~;::: 3 2222 04358 8294 Fe n .";) "1972 P!.lbJ[c Documents SECOND Dq;~rtment ANNUAL MESSAGE William T. Cahill GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY To The Legislature January 11, 1972 You are viewing an archived copy from the New Jersey State Library CONTENTS Introduction 1 Institutions and Agencies 4 Mental Health 8 Correctional Reform 9 Parole Reform 13 County Jails 14 Juvenile Justice 15 Health 19 Health Facilities 20 Health Services and Care 20 War on Disease 21 Elementary Education 24 Higher Education 27 Environmental Protection 29 Agriculture-Open Space 33 Catastrophies 35 Transportation 36 Highway Transportation 36 Bus Transportation 37 Rail Transportation 39 Law Enforcement and Justice 40 Narcotics 43 Public Trust 45 Consumer Protection 46 Labor and Industry 48 Industrial Development 48 Manpower 49 Protection of the Worker 51 Hudson Waterfront 52 Insurance 55 Off-Track Betting 56 Pension Benefits 58 The Judicial System 58 Conclusion 60 You are viewing an archived copy from the New Jersey State Library INTRODUCTION Today I stand before this Legislature at the midpoint of my Administration as the chief executive of the State of New Jersey. While my first two years in office were marked by substantial progress, it is my personal conviction that the second half of my term holds the clear potential to be the most significant period in New Jersey history. Let me recall another significant period in our history! Twenty­ five years ago our State faced major problems in coping with the post World War II era.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan
    NEW YORK CITY CoMPREHENSWE WATERFRONT PLAN Reclaiming the City's Edge For Public Discussion Summer 1992 DAVID N. DINKINS, Mayor City of New lVrk RICHARD L. SCHAFFER, Director Department of City Planning NYC DCP 92-27 NEW YORK CITY COMPREHENSIVE WATERFRONT PLAN CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMA RY 1 INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE COURSE 1 2 PLANNING FRA MEWORK 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5 LEGAL CONTEXT 7 REGULATORY CONTEXT 10 3 THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 17 WATERFRONT RESOURCES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 17 Wetlands 18 Significant Coastal Habitats 21 Beaches and Coastal Erosion Areas 22 Water Quality 26 THE PLAN FOR THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 33 Citywide Strategy 33 Special Natural Waterfront Areas 35 4 THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 51 THE EXISTING PUBLIC WATERFRONT 52 THE ACCESSIBLE WATERFRONT: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 63 THE PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 70 Regulatory Strategy 70 Public Access Opportunities 71 5 THE WORKING WATERFRONT 83 HISTORY 83 THE WORKING WATERFRONT TODAY 85 WORKING WATERFRONT ISSUES 101 THE PLAN FOR THE WORKING WATERFRONT 106 Designation Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas 107 JFK and LaGuardia Airport Areas 114 Citywide Strategy fo r the Wo rking Waterfront 115 6 THE REDEVELOPING WATER FRONT 119 THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT TODAY 119 THE IMPORTANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT 122 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 125 REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 127 THE PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT 128 7 WATER FRONT ZONING PROPOSAL 145 WATERFRONT AREA 146 ZONING LOTS 147 CALCULATING FLOOR AREA ON WATERFRONTAGE loTS 148 DEFINITION OF WATER DEPENDENT & WATERFRONT ENHANCING USES
    [Show full text]
  • I. Goals and Objectives Ii. Land Use Plan
    I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS ........................................................................................................................................................ I-2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. I-3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. I-3 Housing.................................................................................................................................................... I-7 Circulation ................................................................................................................................................ I-8 Economic Development ......................................................................................................................... I-10 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................... I-11 Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... I-12 Community Facilities ............................................................................................................................. I-13 Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Recreation Space Along the Hudson River Waterfront in Jersey City, NJ
    New Jersey Institute of Technology Digital Commons @ NJIT Theses Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 5-31-1998 Assessment of recreation space along the Hudson river waterfront in Jersey City, NJ Darren M. Davidowich New Jersey Institute of Technology Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/theses Part of the Sustainability Commons Recommended Citation Davidowich, Darren M., "Assessment of recreation space along the Hudson river waterfront in Jersey City, NJ" (1998). Theses. 893. https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/theses/893 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Digital Commons @ NJIT. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ NJIT. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright Warning & Restrictions The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a, user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use” that user may be liable for copyright infringement, This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT ADAPTATION MASTER PLAN City of Jersey City Hudson County, New Jersey
    DRAFT ADAPTATION MASTER PLAN City of Jersey City Hudson County, New Jersey March 23, 2017 Prepared by: Jersey City Planning Board Christopher Langston, Chairman ___________________________________ Dr. Orlando Gonzalez, Vice Chairman Kobi Ruthenberg, B.Arch, SMarchS Edwardo Torres Registered Architect in Israel #1267374 Michael Sims ORG Permanent Modernity John Seborowski Joyce E. Watterman, Councilwoman Allison Solowsky ___________________________________ Dr. Vijaya Desai Sean Moronski, P.P., AICP Eric Fleming N.J. Professional Planners License # 5601 Harkesh Thakur Matrix New World Jersey City Mayor Steven M. Fulop ___________________________________ Peter Van Den Kooy, P.P., AICP Jersey City Planning Staff N.J. Professional Planners License # 5918 MaryAnn Bucci-Carter, PP, AICP, Acting Director Tanya Marione, PP, AICP, Senior Planner Matrix New World Katherine Lawrence, Senior Planner Matt Ward, PP, AICP, Senior Planner Prepared By: ___________________________________ Kristin J. Russell, P.P., AICP N.J. Professional Planners License #585800 Maser Consulting, PA ___________________________________ Deborah Alaimo Lawlor, P.P., FAICP N.J. Professional Planners License #428400 Maser Consulting, PA Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Project Background ..........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TR-2933 Street Scale Modeling of Storm Surge Inundation Along The
    TR-2933 Street Scale Modeling of Storm Surge Inundation along the New Jersey Hudson River Waterfront Alan Blumberg, Thomas Herrington, Larry Yin, and Nickitas Georgas Davidson Laboratory Technical Report TR-2933 Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ October 2014 1 TR-2933 Executive Summary A new, high-resolution, hydrodynamic model that encompasses the urban coastal waters and coastal flood plain of New Jersey along the Hudson River waterfront opposite New York City has been developed and validated. 3.1m model grid resolution combined with high-resolution LiDAR elevation datasets permit a street by street focus to inundation modeling. The waterfront inundation model (NJWIM) is a sECOM model application, nested into a larger New York Bight sECOM model (NYHOPS), itself nested to an even larger Northwest Atlantic sECOM model (SNAP). Robust wetting and drying of land in the model physics provides for the dynamic prediction of flood elevations and velocities across land features during inundation events. NJWIM was forced by water levels from the NYHOPS hindcast of Hurricane Sandy. The hindcast utilized Sandy over ocean wind field and atmospheric pressure data, offshore wave and tidal boundary forcing, atmospheric heat fluxes, and interior streamflow data. Validation against 56 water marks and 16 edgemarks provided via the USGS and through an extensive crowd sourcing effort consisting of photographs, videos and personal stories shows that the model is capable of computing overland water elevations quite accurately. The correlation coefficient (R2) between the water mark observations and the model results is 0.92. The standard deviation of the residual error is 0.07 m. The simulated water levels at 78% of the data measurement locations have less than 20% error.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Hudson River Access Plan Poughkeepsie to Rensselaer
    2020 HUDSON RIVER ACCESS PLAN POUGHKEEPSIE TO RENSSELAER FINAL REPORT GEORGE STAFFORD MARCH 2020 Photo courtesy of Jeanne Casatelli ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Hundreds of individuals, elected officials, agencies and organizations have contributed to the development of this document through their words and actions. They include: • People passionate about improved access to the Hudson River who attended public meetings, provided more than 1,000 comments and 5,000 votes on places where they use or wish to use the river, and have been directly involved in keeping access points open by taking part in cleanups along the shorelines and other activities. • Elected federal, state and local officials from Poughkeepsie to Rensselaer who provided letters and resolutions contained in this report, participated in phone interviews, facilitated public meeting sites, and elevated the importance of saving and increasing access points through their support of local plans and reports issued in recent years. • Individuals and organizations who collaborated on the Hudson River Access Forum that issued “Between the Railroad and the River—Public Access Issues and Opportunities along the Tidal Hudson.” This 1989 publication remains extremely relevant. • Finally, we wish to thank Matthew Atkinson, who authored “On the Wrong Side of the Railroad Tracks: Public Access to the Hudson River” (1996) for the Pace Environmental Law Review. This work provides a phenomenal review of the public trust doctrine and the legal principles governing the railroads’ obligation to provide river access. Mr. Atkinson’s advice during the development of this document proved invaluable. CONTACT / PRIMARY AUTHORS CONTACT Jeffrey Anzevino, AICP Director of Land Use Advocacy Scenic Hudson, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • State Vets Bonus Sought in New Mohr
    T« WEBOEND FAMILY PICTURE NEWSPAPER" MISTER HFJ HEM VOLUME 2 NUMBER 9 FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1960 Price 10 Cent* HIS THfRI SEEK WAR RECOGNITION Hrs IVERY- WHIM! SNITCH STATE VETS BONUS SOUGHT MANY ATTEMPTS have been made to tear the veil IN NEW MOHR-CHRISTIE PLAN from tb« mystery of file. (SEE PAGE FOURTEEN) I1»ose who ehum to have been given a brief glimpse of a past ASST. SCHOOL SUPER existence are so ridiculed they refute to discuss their ex. periencee. Such is the ease of HAUSER HEADS HUDSON LAWYERS a local woman now in her fifties. When sha was in her (SEE PAGE I 01 early twenties she visited die Egyptian wing of a museum. ARTHRITIS VICTIM There aha saw a mommy. To na attendant standing nearby ah* said, "I know how he was A WOMAN APPEALS TO US ALL InSeoV The attendant thought (SEE PAGE TfiREE) band you'd discover Ibat time X'Rays .1OFUB the the woman's name Of «**»• be a%e wa« fact a j X-Rar*d it was by a head wound. The and asked, ?How did imowbowdse T« hi fjw** » warrior and • the story but the «ny mor*. The whole thing toakes ye* look «By, be said. Pot *Wf* «• W»r P«opto worki fat a •tier • • e> OLD AND ALONE, mot fivsnf nW &e of wfateh fanftW plots would subject you to. Instoad, she k <ss hap^r as ft hsaitfij kitten H^V •! —••!• «vannnj ^Wlal «#nj food days aad despite h» in he* so max imimiiM -4 age wuinot t to her system, a LLJL LITTLE LEAGUE TEAM pMad La* Kiely of Cleveland Indians with questions about big league baseball, Kiely, center she is s* of the gra«a>, —• iml aO apeitioni and said ha tbooiat the jackets presented to the players were iwe'l.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Future of Pier 76 Opportunities and Strategies Urban Planning
    The Future of Pier 76 Opportunities and strategies Urban Planning Studio, Spring 2019 Wednesdays, 3:00 to 7:00 pm 300 Avery Location: Manhattan, New York City Professors: Anthony Borelli ([email protected]) Maxine Griffith ([email protected]) TA: Michael Montilla ([email protected]) Key Dates: First Class Wednesday, January 23 Mid-Term Review Wednesday, March 6 (12 – 6pm) Spring Break Monday, March 18 – Friday, March 22 Final Review Wednesday, May 8 (10am – 6pm) End of Year Show Opening on Saturday, May 18 Overview For most of human history the waterfront represented sustenance and commerce. Waters were fished, goods were shipped and trade was generated up and down the world’s waterways. Even the merchants of the Silk Road traveled via the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. In the 19th century water also became a source of power; great dams and waterworks fueled industry. Still later, urban residents were cut off from their waterfronts as massive highways were built circumventing the City. However, as container shipping, commercial air transport and a moribund industrial sector freed up these spaces, the relationship between the worlds’ people and its waterfront changed. In this studio we will address the planning challenges of one specific place where land and water meet. We will look at Pier 76 through the prism of history, government policy, community needs and fiscal realities. We will talk to stakeholders, interview officials and research best practices and relevant emerging technologies. We will arrive at a set of viable recommendations that serve both the community and the city as a whole and that add to the body of knowledge around these important issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson County, NJ Getaway Guide
    GETAWAY GUIDE Hudson County, New JerseyBY STEPHANIE VERMILLION Just eight kilometres from crowded Times Square, travellers can find respite from tourist attractions in an unexpected locale: Hudson County. This New Jersey county, set west of Manhattan along the Hudson River, is an emerging destination attracting travellers and food lovers alike. We can hardly blame them. With significantly fewer Skinner's Loft in Jersey City tourists than neighbouring Manhattan and shortcuts to major landmarks we’re betting it won’t stay that way for long. A diverse culinary scene, good value hotels and splendid New York City views attract new visitors each year. Here’s how to visit Hudson County while it’s still hidden in plain sight: EAT & DRINK Hudson County is one of the most culturally diverse places SEE & DO in the United States, and nowhere is this more apparent than its food scene. Take Son Cubano, a trendy restaurant with vintage vibes from glamourous 1950s Cuba. This waterfront Most travellers visit the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Hyatt Regency Jersey City on the Hudson institution pairs cultural classics like churrasco and ropa vieja Island National Museum of Immigration from Lower with late-night fun; live music and festive dancing fill the Manhattan, but lines are long and the boats are packed. West New York hot spot every weekend. Instead, head to Jersey City’s Liberty State Park. The Despite its size, dining options abound in Hoboken. With park offers the area’s quickest access to the Statue and longstanding establishments like the classic Amanda’s Res- Ellis Island - tickets are available from Statue Cruises at taurant and the upscale Blue Eyes Restaurant (named the Central Railroad Terminal Building - but that hardly STAY & SLEEP after former resident Frank Sinatra), visitors never have to scratches the surface of this 485-hectacre green space.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson–Bergen Light Rail System and Economic Development on the Waterfront
    LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AND TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Hudson–Bergen Light Rail System and Economic Development on the Waterfront NEAL FITZSIMMONS Booz Allen Hamilton WHITNEY BIRCH Booz Allen Hamilton he introduction of the Hudson–Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) line on the Hudson River waterfront T in April 2000 was the result of a long planning and construction process that largely started in the mid-1980s. The system has both benefited from and helped shape an even longer cycle of economic recovery, redevelopment, and expansion in Jersey City, New Jersey, and on the waterfront. Development activity in the area, key HBLR project milestones, and some lessons learned along the way are described. While it would be unreasonable to directly attribute the many economic successes on the waterfront to the development of the light rail line, clearly there is a symbiotic relationship between the two that has existed over the past 15 years as the system has been planned, constructed, and implemented. Major development projects were constructed on the waterfront in the late 1980s and through the 1990s because of factors such as the proximity to New York City and the access provided by Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH), the aggressive upfront planning process, and the available tax incentives or other economic benefits that could be realized. Now, as light rail has been implemented, the pace of development appears to have quickened, and the expansion is beginning to move away from the core waterfront areas developed first. Developers have begun to shift away from the PATH stations hubs. They are investing in properties along the light rail alignment, they are showing more attention to the residential market, and they are “selling” the amenities and connectivity that the light rail line provides.
    [Show full text]