Comments on the DGEIS / Amended GPP Submitted through LMDC Website Development Comments # name organization profile category address city_stat telephone email comments dt_rec fname lname city state zip e_zip 1 Joseph NULL Survivor of Other 375 South End 212/321-3328 [email protected] Constructing a tunnel (of any length) under West Street will 3/14/04 Joseph Parent New NY 10280- Parente 9/11 Avenue, Apt. m be a nightmare for the residents of our Battery Park City 10:27 e York 1080 26-S community. Travel in and out of the area will be next to PM impossible - cabs will refuse to come down here as they did long after the attack on the WTC. Foot traffic will be impeded and our long-standing businesses will be driven out. The environmental impact will also be enormous - noise, pollution, etc. will cause even more residents to flee the area. And, just looking at other such tunnels in the city, the final result will be an ugly, unhealthy, unsafe mess for all of us down here. We all are trying to get our lives back to "normal" as much as that is possible, but this idiotic idea, and outrageous waste of money that many experts agree will provide no improvement in traffic flow will surely make any normalcy a fiction. Also, the Gateway buildings' common areas (hallways, rugs, etc.) were never replaced, and the venting systems not cleaned. The money for this ridiculous tunnel should be used to take care of these health issues. 2 Michael R Ramapo Resident of Neighborho 505 Ramapo 201-684-7745 medelste@ram TESTIMONY ON THE LMDC FGEIS Michael R. Edelstein, 3/14/04 Michael Edelst Mah NJ 7430 Edelstein College of NYC outside ods Valley Road apo.edu Ph.D. Ramapo College of New Jersey I wish to make several 9:01 R ein wah New Jersey of Lower brief comments on the LMDC FGEIS. 1. Both NEPA and PM Manhattan SEQR place a high value on public input. Given the length and scope of this document, the public was not afforded sufficient time and access to the document before the public hearing. 2. The FGEIS poses as a criteria for significant impact whether the effects of the rebuilding of lower Manhattan will result in impacts in excess of those present at the time of the World Trade Center. However, because the World Trade Center was not subject to an Environmental Impact Statement and significant effects were caused by that project, the LMDC position is not appropriate. Therefore, the LMDC FGEIS and subsequent site-specific proposals must consider impacts of redevelopment projects in and of themselves, not just when they are viewed as exceeding conditions present at the dawn of 9/11. As one case of many in point, the fact that fish were killed by the intake of cooling water at the World Trade Center does not create a threshhold for considering fish kills due to the rebuilding effort. Such potential impacts should be mitigated as de novo effects and the decisions of rebuilding should be framed such that the decision makers might decide not to carry out an action even though the impacts that serve as the basis for denial are less than the impacts caused by the World Trade Center but are nevertheless deemed significant. 3. There is lacking in the FGEIS any comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the disaster on the community, a necessary baseline assessment, and, therefore, the potential role of the proposed rebuilding projects in mitigating these impacts. Specifically, there is only minimal consideration of the impacts on the community of the rebuilding effort, particularly in light of the impacts to the community of the disaster and of subsequent community changes. How have individuals and core local institutions been impacted by changes in perceived 1226348.1 # name organization profile category address city_stat telephone email comments dt_rec fname lname city state zip e_zip health, economic viability, trust, personal and community control, community character, livability, and safety and can these values be restored by the proposed project and the way it is carried out? 4. Despite an effort to provide some degree of cumulative impact assessment, there are many changes pending in the community that need to be considered but have not been. All known and anticipated changes should be incorporated into the cumulative assessment. 5. Although sustainability issues are discussed, they are restricted to the matter of how green the new buildings will be. Clearly, some exciting innovations in green building design are contemplated. However, the promotion of sustainability incorporates much more than green buildings. The proper consideration of the FGEIS should instead focus upon how the rebuilding effort in Lower Manhattan can promote this area as a sustainable community. 3 Charles NULL Resident of Other 21 South End 212-786-0443 cwkerner@cris. I urge you to proceed with the plan to route the high volume 3/14/04 Charles Kerner New NY 10280 Kerner Lower Ave. PH1G com of through-traffic on West St. below grade in a tunnel. BPC 8:27 York Manhattan would be an even better place with the Brooklyn and FDR PM south of bound traffic out of sight and not causing safety and Houston environmental problems in our neighborhood and at the new Street, memorial site. The tunnel should ideally connect with the BP Owner of Underpass, but costs for this may be too high. The real estate incremental construction effort is not the huge deal the anti- in Lower development zealots make it to be. Manhattan 4 Helene BPCUnited NULL NULL 377 Rector 212 945-4979 HZSeeman@ao I am opposed to the West St. tunnel.It will wreck havoc for 3/14/04 Helene Seem NYC NULL NULL Seeman Place l.com many years.Why build another underground structure when 8:12 an 1028 street level will suffice beautifully.Why create another bathtub PM 0 problem in a fragile environment?I am also concerned about the other construction issues: trucks need to be retrofitted so emissions are not as harmful,air needs to be continually monitored AND a system of reporting regularly to neighborhood watchdog groups set up. 5 brian bcm Owner of WTC Site 377 rector pl NULL bcmfutures@ho I just wanted to make a statement that I oppose the 3/14/04 brian massa ny ny 10280 massa commodities real estate Planning 19e tmail.com construction of a tunnel at the west street location. There are 6:18 in Lower many reasons to not build which Im sure you are aware of. PM Manhattan The most obvious though is yet another target for terrorist attack. Also the massive traffic jams that will be caused for 6 years or for however long it would take to build. This is something that is completely unnecessary and a waste of time and money. 6 Paul NULL Commuter Transportat 3 Manor Road 203 775-1787 paul.liubicich@ I am a commodities broker at the NY Board of Trade in the 3/14/04 Paul Liubici Broo Conne 6804 Liubicich to Lower ion gte.net Mercantile Exchange building in the Financial Center. I am 5:50 ch kfield cticut Manhattan against building the West St. tunnel. It will adversely affect PM my commute for many years. 7 Janice C. Battery Park NULL Other 380 Rector 212-945-9167 Jansmith380@ I am opposed to the tunnel planned for the West Street 3/14/04 Janice Smith New NY 10280 Smith City resident Place, Apt. 21 J aol.com portion in front of the WTC. It is too costly a project for such 4:02 C. York questionable worth. Also, the additional construction in PM Battery Park City will be unbearable. 1226348.1 # name organization profile category address city_stat telephone email comments dt_rec fname lname city state zip e_zip 8 Robert none NULL Other 70 Battery Place 212.204.6385 [email protected] Please know that my wife and I, who have been residents of 3/14/04 Robert Mabry New NY 10280 Mabry om Battery Park since Mar 02, are opposed to the tunnel 3:16 York proposal for West St. When we moved down to Battery Park PM from the upper east side to be a part of the re-building of Lower Manhattan, this was not what we had in mind. We see few if any long term benefits that would justify the expense, disruption, and segmentation of our community by this proposal, and we sincerely hope that you will reconsider this "big dig". 9 Benjamin NULL Resident of Other 79 Sullivan (212) 925-6133 gothamexcelsio It appears to me that your Draft Generic Environmental 3/14/04 Benjami Hemri New NY 10012 Hemric Lower Street [email protected] Impact Statement is overlooking a number of very important 2:57 n c York Manhattan u possible negative impacts of the proposed redevelopment of PM south of Lower Manhattan and the city at large. Thus I hope further Houston efforts will examine the following: VEHICULAR TRAFFIC 1) Street For the almost thirty years that the WTC site blocked off Greenwich, it provided a method of traffic evaporation in Lower Manhattan, similar to the evaporation that happed in Greenwich Village with the closing of Fifth Ave. through Washington Sq. Park. What negative impacts of increased traffic will a Greenwich St. re-opened to vehicular traffic have? 2) Will opening Greenwich St. to vehicular traffic THROUGH "Ground Zero" have a negative affect on traffic in Lower Manhattan by attracting addtional automobiles and buses to Lower Manhattan as people try to see "Ground Zero" from inside a bus or to show "Ground Zero" to out-of- town friends and relatives? 3) Will the absence of a screening building on West St.