DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Statement SOUTH PIER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 29TH STREET AND 2ND AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK SUBMITTED TO New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits, Region II 47-40 21st Street Long Island City, New York 11101 APPLICANT Astoria Generating Company, L.P. a USPowerGen Company 505 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10017 PREPARED BY ESS Group, Inc. 401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400 East Providence, Rhode Island 02915 ESS Project No. U160-001 FILING DATE September 16, 2009 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT South Pier Improvement Project 29th Street and 2nd Avenue Brooklyn, New York Submitted To New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits, Region II 47-40 21st Street Long Island City, New York 11101 Applicant: Astoria Generating Company, L.P. a USPowerGen Company 505 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10017 Prepared By: ESS Group, Inc. 401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400 East Providence, Rhode Island 02915 ESS Project No. U160-001 Filing Date: September 16, 2009 Please note this is a double sided document. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER A: DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CHAPTER B: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: SOUTH PIER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT............................ 1 1.1 Proposed Facility Layout and Design ..................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 Project Components.................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1.1 LMS100............................................................................................................. 4 1.1.1.2 Demineralized Water System............................................................................... 4 1.1.1.3 Fuel .................................................................................................................. 4 1.1.1.4 Exhaust Stack .................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1.5 Cooling System .................................................................................................. 5 1.1.1.6 Emission Control Systems ................................................................................... 6 1.1.1.7 Utility lnterconnects............................................................................................ 6 1.1.2 Materials Storage, Handling and Disposal...................................................................... 7 1.1.2.1 Water Storage ................................................................................................... 7 1.1.2.2 Chemical Storage and Handling ........................................................................... 7 1.1.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal .......................................................................................... 8 1.2 Construction Plan and Project Schedule ................................................................................. 8 1.3 Construction and Operation Overview.................................................................................... 9 1.4 Reviews, Approvals, and Other Compliance Determinations................................................... 11 1.4.1 NYS Public Service Commission - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Pursuant to Public Service Law Section 68............................................................................ 11 1.4.2 State/City Environmental Review and City Permitting ................................................... 12 1.4.3 Anticipated Notifications, Actions, Permits and Approvals.............................................. 13 1.5 Decommissioning .............................................................................................................. 15 2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND PUBLIC NEED ..................................................................................... 16 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES.............................. 18 3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography........................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1.1 Topography ..................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1.2 Bedrock Geology .............................................................................................. 18 3.1.1.3 Surficial Geology .............................................................................................. 19 3.1.1.4 Soils................................................................................................................ 19 3.1.1.5 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations ........................................................ 20 3.1.2 Potential Impacts...................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2.1 Potential Impacts to Soils and Surficial Geology .................................................. 20 3.1.2.2 Potential Impacts to Bedrock............................................................................. 21 3.1.2.3 Potential Releases of Oil and Hazardous Materials ............................................... 21 3.1.2.4 Potential Construction Impacts .......................................................................... 21 3.1.2.5 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations ........................................................ 22 3.1.2.6 Seismic Considerations ..................................................................................... 22 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation .................................................................................................. 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION PAGE 3.1.3.1 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation ......................................................................... 22 3.1.3.2 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials ...................................................... 23 3.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1.1 Surface Waters ................................................................................................ 24 3.2.1.2 New York City Department of City Planning (DCP)............................................... 24 3.2.1.3 Flood Area Designation..................................................................................... 24 3.2.1.4 Wetlands......................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1.5 Groundwater ................................................................................................... 25 3.2.1.6 Water Supply and Wastewater Management....................................................... 26 3.2.2 Potential Impacts...................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2.1 Potential Construction Impacts .......................................................................... 26 3.2.2.2 Potential Operational Impacts on Water Supply and Wastewater Discharge........... 27 3.2.2.3 Potential Impacts to Groundwater ..................................................................... 27 3.2.2.4 Potential Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands.............................................. 27 3.2.2.5 Potential Impacts to the Recreational and Educational use of Gowanus Bay .......... 27 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation .................................................................................................. 28 3.2.3.1 Soil Erosion and Siltation................................................................................... 28 3.2.3.2 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials ...................................................... 29 3.3 Biological, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology ........................................................................... 30 3.3.1 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1.1 Vegetation and Rare Plant Species..................................................................... 30 3.3.1.2 Fish and Wildlife............................................................................................... 30 3.3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species...................................................... 35 3.3.1.4 Critical Environmental Areas.............................................................................. 36 3.3.2 Potential Impacts...................................................................................................... 36 3.3.2.1 Vegetation and Rare Plant Species..................................................................... 36 3.3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife............................................................................................... 37 3.3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................. 37 3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation .................................................................................................. 37 3.4 Climate and Air Quality .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Innovations & Accomplishments
    INNOVATIONS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS East River Bridges A $2.8 billion reconstruction program is underway to rehabilitate all four East River crossings. In 2002, these bridges carried some 467,080 vehicles per day. In 2002, working in coordination with the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies, the Division implemented enhanced security measures on these bridges. This work is ongoing. BROOKLYN BRIDGE The Brooklyn Bridge carried some 121,145 vehicles per day in 2002. The $467 million reconstruction commenced in 1980 with Contract #1, will continue with Contract #6, currently in the design phase and scheduled for completion in 2012, and will end with a seismic retrofit of the bridge, slated for completion in 2013. Work completed on the bridge to date includes reconditioning of the main cables, replacement of the suspenders and cable stays, rehabilitation of the stiffening trusses, and the replacement of the suspended spans deck. The next work scheduled for the bridge is a project to replace the existing travelers with a state of the art technology system. Construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2005 and conclude in the spring of 2007. Brooklyn Bridge in 1909 Pedestrian Vibration Study The major blackout of August 14, 2003 forced City officials to close the bridge to vehicular traffic and open the entire bridge to pedestrians. During this mass exodus, several pedestrians reported that the bridge was vibrating and thus causing them great anxiety. At the request of the Office of Emergency Management, an emergency inspection of the bridge was performed that evening as a result of these complaints of “swaying”; no structural problems were found.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 148/Tuesday, August 1, 2000/Rules
    46870 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations significant economic impact on a Civil Justice Reform Dated: July 19, 2000. substantial number of small entities. G.N. Naccara, ``Small entities'' comprises small This rule meets applicable standards Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, businesses, not-for-profit organizations in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive First Coast Guard District. that are independently owned and Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to [FR Doc. 00±19396 Filed 7±31±00; 8:45 am] operated and are not dominant in their minimize litigation, eliminate BILLING CODE 4910±15±P fields, and governmental jurisdictions ambiguity, and reduce burden. with populations less than 50,000. Protection of Children The Coast Guard certifies under 5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have We have analyzed this rule under a significant economic impact on a Executive Order 13045, Protection of Coast Guard substantial number of small entities. Children from Environmental Health 33 CFR Part 117 This conclusion is based on the fact that Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not three of the bridges presently open after an economically significant rule and a six-hour notice May 1 through does not concern an environmental risk [CGD01±99±069] September 30, which is greater than the to health or risk to safety that may proposed two-hour notice during those disproportionately affect children. RIN 2115±AE47 five months. The Coast Guard believes that the Environment Drawbridge Operation Regulations: two-hour advance notice October 1 Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, English The Coast Guard considered the through April 30 is reasonable because Kills and their tributaries, New York the bridges will still open on signal environmental impact of this rule and provided the two-hour notice is given.
    [Show full text]
  • A Look at Bridges: a Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture Cody Chase Connecticut College
    Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College Architectural Studies Integrative Projects Art History and Architectural Studies 2015 A Look at Bridges: A Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture Cody Chase Connecticut College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/archstudintproj Recommended Citation Chase, Cody, "A Look at Bridges: A Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture" (2015). Architectural Studies Integrative Projects. Paper 73. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/archstudintproj/73 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Art History and Architectural Studies at Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Architectural Studies Integrative Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. CODY CHASE SENIOR INTEGRATIVE PROJECT: INDEPENDENT STUDY ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES CONNECTICUT COLLEGE 2015 A"LOOK"INTO"BRIDGES" A"Study"of"Types,"Histories,"and"the"Marriage"of" Engineering"and"Architecture" " Cody"Chase"‘15" Architectural"Studies"Major,"Art"History"Minor" Senior"IntegraHve"Project" " Why Bridges? Where to begin? TYPES OTHER • Arch • Glossary • Beam/Girder/Stringer • Materials • Truss • History of Failures • Suspension • Models • Cable-Stayed • Moveable Span What makes a bridge stand up? FORCES ***Compression:
    [Show full text]
  • 1 NYC Bridge and Screenline Traffic Volumes Dashboard Metadata
    NYC Bridge and Screenline Traffic Volumes Dashboard Metadata Data Methodology Vehicular traffic volumes are collected annually for a two week period either during the fall months of September, October, and November or during the spring months of March, April, May, and June. Most of these traffic volumes are collected using Automated Traffic Recorders (ATRs), which record each vehicle as it passes over a pneumatic tube. A small percentage are collected using cameras. Average hourly volumes and an average daily volume are calculated from valid midweek days (Tuesday through Thursday). Dashboard Visuals The line graph on the “Average Daily Traffic Volumes per Facility per Year” page (page 1 of 2) represents a bidirectional (where applicable) average daily volume per location dating back to 1981 for most locations. The line graph on the “Average Hourly Traffic Volumes per Facility” page (page 2 of 2) represents the average bidirectional (where applicable) hourly volumes per location. This graph displays the end of the hour for each traffic volume on the x axis. For example, in the year of 2019 for Brooklyn Bridge, the traffic volume of 7,931 occurs during the 11:00 PM to 12:00 AM time period. Similarly, the traffic volume of 5,333 occurs during the 12:00 AM to 1:00 PM time period, and so on. The "Group" and the "Facility" filters will apply to both graphs. The "Year" filter will only alter the "Average Hourly Traffic Volumes per Facility" line graph. Each graph can display a maximum of only 60 facilities (lines) due to a limitation with Power BI.
    [Show full text]
  • 108Th Congress 181
    NEW YORK 108th Congress 181 Office Listings http://www.house.gov/weiner 501 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 .................................... (202) 225–6616 Chief of Staff.—Veronica Sullivan. FAX: 226–7253 Executive Assistant.—Amy Kletnick. Special Assistant.—Debi Roder. Senior Policy Advisor.—Lamar Robertson. 80–02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 5000, Kew Gardens, NY 11415 ............................ (718) 520–9001 90–16 Rockaway Beach Boulevard, Rockaway, NY 11693 ....................................... (718) 318–9255 1800 Sheepshead Bay Road, Brooklyn, NY 11235 ..................................................... (718) 743–0441 District Director.—Veronica Sullivan. Counties: KINGS COUNTY (part). CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS: Bergen Beach, Brighton Beach, Canasie, Flatbush, Flatlands, Gerritsen Beach, Georgetowne, Kensington, Manhattan Beach, Marine Park, Midwood, Mill Basin, Park Slope, Parkville, Sheepshead Bay, Windsor Terrace. QUEENS COUNTY (part). CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS: Belle Harbor, Breezy Point, Briarwood, Broad Channel, Corona, Elmhurst, Far Rockaway, Forest Hills, Glendale, Hamilton Beach, Howard Beach, Kew Gardens, Lindenwood, Middle Village, Neponsit, Ozone Park, Rego Park, Richmond Hill, Ridgewood, Rockway Point, Roxbury, West Lawrence, and Woodhaven. Population (2000), 654,360. ZIP Codes: 11204, 11208, 11210, 11218, 11223, 11229–30, 11234–36, 11358, 11361, 11364–67, 11373–75, 11378–79, 11381, 11385, 11414–18, 11421, 11424, 11427, 11432, 11435, 11693–95, 11697 *** TENTH DISTRICT EDOLPHUS TOWNS, Democrat, of Brooklyn,
    [Show full text]
  • Park Slope Historic District Extension II Designation Report April 12, 2016
    Park Slope Historic District Extension II Designation Report April 12, 2016 Cover Photograph: 60 Prospect Place, built 1887, C.P.H. Gilbert architect, Queen Anne style. Photo: Jessica Baldwin, 2016 Park Slope Historic District Extension II Designation Report Essay Written by Donald G. Presa Building Profiles Prepared by Donald G. Presa, Theresa Noonan, and Jessica Baldwin Architects’ Appendix Researched and Written by Donald G. Presa Edited by Mary Beth Betts, Director of Research Photographs by Donald G. Presa, Theresa Noonan, and Jessica Baldwin Map by Daniel Heinz Watts Commissioners Meenakshi Srinivasan, Chair Frederick Bland Michael Goldblum Diana Chapin John Gustafsson Wellington Chen Adi Shamir-Baron Michael Devonshire Kim Vauss Sarah Carroll, Executive Director Mark Silberman, Counsel Lisa Kersavage, Director of Special Projects and Strategic Planning Jared Knowles, Director of Preservation PARK SLOPE HISTORIC DISTRICT EXTENSION II MAP ................................. after Contents TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................. 1 PARK SLOPE HISTORIC DISTRICT EXTENSION II BOUNDARIES ...................................... 1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 5 THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK SLOPE HISTORIC DISTRICT EXTENSION II Introduction ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes
    2016 New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes TM NEW YORK CITY Bill de Blasio Polly Trottenberg Mayor Commissioner A member of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 2016 New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes Contract C033467 2014-2015: PTDT14D00.E01 2015-2016: PTDT15D00.E01 2016-2017: PTDT16D00.E02 2017-2018: PTDT17D00.E02 The preparation of this report has been financed through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration or the State of New York. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. NYCDOT is grateful to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bridges and Tunnels (MTABT), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) for providing data used to develop this report. This 2016 New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes Report was funded through the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council SFY 2017 Unified Planning Work Program project, Data Management PTDT17D00.E02, which was funded through matching grants from the Federal Transit Administration and from the Federal Highway Administration. Title VI Statement The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council is committed to compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and all related rules and statutes.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC SCHOOL 39, 417 Sixth Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn
    Landmarks Preservation Commission March 8, 1977, Number 3 LP-0952 PUBLIC SCHOOL 39, 417 Sixth Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn. Bui It 1876-77; Samuel B. Leonard, Superintendent of Sui ldings for the Board of Education. Landmark Site: Borough of Brooklyn Tax Map Block 1000, Lot I. On January II, 1977, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of Public School 39 and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 5). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of 1law. Sixteen witnesses, including City Council Majority Leader Thomas Cuite and a delegation of students, faculty, and parents from the school, spoke in favor of designation. There were no speakers in opposition to designation. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS Public School 39, also known as the Henry Bristow School, has been a neighborhood institution in the southern section of Park Slope for one hundred years. Prominently sited at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Eighth Street, it is a handsome and distrinctive brick school building which combines features of the ltalianate and French Second Empire styles. Opened in 1877, the school is a symbolic I ink to the early history of education in Brooklyn. In 1661, the Town of Breuckelen organized its first public school in a small church. Although the early schools were free, the Dutch, not wishing to accept "charity", insisted on paying an annual tuition of three to four guilders per child. The English, shortly after taking control in 1664, abolished this free school system. It was not until 1795 that New York State passed an act for "the encouragement of schools" which provided for appropriations from the State Treasury for education.
    [Show full text]
  • 33 CFR Ch. I (7–1–99 Edition) § 116.55
    § 116.55 33 CFR Ch. I (7±1±99 Edition) Expired service life of old bridge llll PART 117ÐDRAWBRIDGE $llll Subtotal llll $llll OPERATION REGULATIONS Share to be borne by the bridge owner llll $llll Subpart AÐGeneral Requirements Contingencies llll $llll Sec. Total llll $llll 117.1 Purpose. Share to be borne by the United States 117.3 Applicability. llll $llll 117.4 Definitions. Contingencies llll $llll 117.5 When the draw shall open. Total llll $llll 117.7 General duties of drawbridge owners and tenders. (d) The Order of Apportionment of 117.9 Delaying opening of a draw. Costs will include the guaranty of 117.11 Unnecessary opening of the draw. costs. 117.15 Signals. 117.17 Signalling for contiguous draw- § 116.55 Appeals. bridges. 117.19 Signalling when two or more vessels (a) Except for the decision to issue an are approaching a drawbridge. Order to Alter, if a complainant dis- 117.21 Signalling for an opened drawbridge. agrees with a recommendation regard- 117.23 Installation of radiotelephones. ing obstruction or eligibility made by a 117.24 Radiotelephone installation identi- fication. District Commander, or the Chief, Of- 117.31 Operation of draw for emergency situ- fice of Bridge Administration, the com- ations. plainant may appeal that decision to 117.33 Closure of draw for natural disasters the Assistant Commandant for Oper- or civil disorders. ations. 117.35 Operations during repair or mainte- (b) The appeal must be submitted in nance. writing to the Assistant Commandant 117.37 Opening or closure of draw for public interest concerns. for Operations, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes
    2015 New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes TM NEW YORK CITY Bill de Blasio Polly Trottenberg Mayor Commissioner A member of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 2015 New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes Contract C033467 2014-2015: PTDT14D00.E01 2015-2016: PTDT15D00.E01 The preparation of this report was financed in part with funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, under the Federal Highway Act of 1956, as amended, and the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. This document is disseminated by the New York City Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. It reflects the views of the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The report does not necessarily reflect any official views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, or the State of New York. The report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. NYCDOT is grateful to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bridges and Tunnels (MTABT), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) for providing data used to develop this report. Prepared by: New York City Department of Transportation Polly Trottenberg Commissioner Margaret Forgione Chief Operating Officer Joseph Jarrin, Executive Deputy Commissioner for Strategic and Agency Services Ryan Russo Deputy Commissioner Charles Ukegbu, Assistant Commissioner, Regional & Strategic Planning Naim Rasheed Senior Director, Traffic Engineering & Planning Alexander M. Keating Director of Special Projects Richard P. Roan Special Projects Danny Yoder Special Projects Published October 2016 2015 NEW YORK CITY BRIDGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2,661,105 5.8% Decrease (‐6,428 Daily vehicles per day used the 47 toll‐free Vehicles) bridges monitored by the New York City Department of Transportation in Williamsburg Bridge over the East 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes 2005
    NEW YORK CITY BRIDGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2005 The City of New York Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor NEW YORK CITY New York City Department of Transportation Iris Weinshall, Commissioner A member of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council August 2006 New York City Bridge Traffic Volumes 2005 Contract D000642 2005-2006: PTDT05P00.01 2006-2007: PTDT06P00.01 The preparation of this report was financed in part with funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, under the Federal Highway Act of 1956, as amended, and the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. This document is disseminated by the New York City Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. It reflects the views of the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The report does not necessarily reflect any official views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, or the State of New York. The report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. NYCDOT is grateful to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bridges and Tunnels (MTABT), and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), for providing data used to develop this report. Prepared by: New York City Department of Transportation Iris Weinshall Commissioner Judith E. Bergtraum First Deputy Commissioner David Woloch Deputy Commissioner/Senior Policy Advisor Michael Primeggia Deputy Commissioner Naim Rasheed Director, Traffic Planning Ann Marie Sledge-Doherty Deputy Director, Traffic Planning Richard P. Roan Traffic Planning TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . 7 SUMMARY .
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Brooklyn, August 27-29, 1776 a Walking Guide to Sites and Monuments
    The Battle of Brooklyn, August 27-29, 1776 A Walking Guide to Sites and Monuments Old Stone House & Washington Park 336 Third Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues P.O. Box 150613, Brooklyn, NY 11215 718.768.3195 www.theoldstonehouse.org Using This Guide This guide is offered as a means through which visi- Transportation Resources The following sites are in geographic proximity and can be tors may experience the 1776 Battle of Brooklyn as it Walking: Due to the immense area of the battlefield and the visited together. developed in the fields, orchards, creeks, and country long distances between some of the sites, a walking tour of all sites Sites 1, 21 (The British Landing at Gravesend, Mile- lanes that later became nearly invisible in Brooklyn’s is not very practical. Nearby sites and other attractions which are stone Park, New Utrecht Liberty Pole) densely inhabited nineteenth and twentieth century within walking distance (although here, too, distances might be too Sites 11, 12 (The Red Lion Inn,* Battle Hill in urban expansion. great for some walkers) are listed for each site. Point-to-point tran- Green-Wood Cemetery) It is intended to be much more than a requiem for sit/walking directions are available from www.hopstop.com. Sites 13, 15, 25 (Flatbush Pass/Battle Pass, Mount Car: the dead and wounded of the battle. Land use evolves Curbside parking is problematic in the extreme at some Prospect, Lefferts Homestead) over time, and Brooklyn offers a prism through which locations, easier in others, and easier in general on weekends and Sites 16, 22, 24 (Litchfield Villa, Old First Re- visitors may consider nearly four centuries of the chang- holidays.
    [Show full text]