Atlantic Basin News: NYCEDC Wants MORE Trucks at Pier 11. Beaks Promise to Red Hook on Public / Cultural Use in Portion of Pier's Shed. UPDATE: Star Review Confirms Phoenix Move

The New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) has just put out an RFP (Request for Proposals) for an operator for 100% of the Pier 11 shed, a structure that lies along the Eastern edge of the Atlantic Basin on the Red Hook waterfront (on the left of the photo, above). A portion of this shed and surrounding site, including 600 feet of Atlantic Basin water frontage, was supposed to be the home of PortSide NewYork and their ship, the Mary A. Whalen, which they use for their cultural, educational and community outreach programs. PortSide is now looking for a new home as they have been kicked out of the Atlantic Basin and the EDC's promise to allow them to make a permanent home at this site has been withdrawn. The EDC, through the new RFP, is asking for a respondent (developer) to sub-lease the site to operate and develop "cargo industrial warehousing and distribution operations".

You can see and download the RFP here.

The creation of this RFP must mean that Phoenix Beverages, the beer trucking company that currently uses the Pier 11 shed for recycling and garbage, will be moving out of that site and consolidating their entire operations at Pier 7, at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue. This is where most of their activities already take place.

UPDATE (10/10/12): The Red Hook Star Review (story HERE) confirms that Phoenix Beverages will consolidate their operations at Pier 7. The Star Review story, however, makes no mention of PortSide's inauspicious removal from the plans for the Pier 11 shed and Atlantic Basin, nor the fact that the EDC's new RFP excludes ANY community use, public space, waterfront access at the site, as was promised.

It would seem like an obvious and logical move to accommodate Phoenix at a single location - in fact, many of us have been advocating for this for a while. The main reason Phoenix (a.k.a. Long Feng Trucking) trucks have been a problem for our neighborhoods is because of the EDC's insistence, when the final and contentious deal was done in 2009, that Phoenix split their operations between Pier 7 (bottom of Atlantic Ave) and Pier 11(bottom of Pioneer Street), which meant that their trucks had to shuttle through local streets between the two locations, noisily rattling and racing through Red Hook and Columbia Street's residential neighborhoods, imperiling pedestrians along the way. This problem was "solved" when community uproar about broken promises (my post here), which were made to keep the trucks on "internal roads" within the container terminal, forced politicians to step in and, with the co-operation of the Teamsters, the Phoenix truck drivers were directed to use the BQE to get from one end of the neighborhood to the other. If the comments on this blog are anything to go by, trucks re-routing along the often congested BQE regularly costs the drivers up to 30 additional minutes (without overtime pay) at the end of their work day - something I bet they'll be happy to be rid of, when (or if) this consolidation at Pier 7 does take place.

But that doesn't mean we'll have fewer trucks coming in and out of the Pier 11/ Atlantic Basin location.

Unfortunately, the RFP - calling for 100% of the shed to be used for "cargo industrial warehousing and distribution operations" - will mean MORE trucks for this site. If what we suspect is happening, Phoenix's 200+ truck trips a day will come in and out of their Pier 7 location (Atlantic Ave), and the operations of the new "developer" at Pier 11 will bring additional truck trips in and out of the Red Hook location (as of yet unknown in weight, size, number and type), entering and exiting on Bowne Street, feeding out into our neighborhoods and onto our streets.

That doesn't sound like what we were promised back in 2009.

You see, one of the assurances made to our community when the deal was done to move Phoenix to the Red Hook waterfront - and, inexplicably into BOTH Piers 7 and 11 (when they only ever wanted one pier) - was that, when Phoenix moved in to Pier 11, a portion of the shed and the surrounding site around the Atlantic Basin would be allocated for community, cultural use, public and open space, accommodation of the Brooklyn Greenway, waterfront access, transportation, etc.

It must be remembered that previous EDC plans, Community Board 6 guidelines for the development of Piers 7-12, and Red Hook's own 197a Plan, have all called for industrial maritime use to be maintained on the waterfront, but also called for the creation of community-friendly elements - we're talking open space, public access to the water, cultural and educational uses, and better waterborne public transportation. In 2007, when the Red Hook Container Terminal secured its lease to remain on the Red Hook waterfront, that lease fulfilled the requirement for significant maritime-industrial use of the piers. The Container Terminal retained Piers 7, 8, 9, 9a and 10. After that lease was signed, the only remaining parcel of property that could possibly be used to fulfill the other needs -  those for the community-friendly elements - was the Atlantic Basin and the Pier 11 shed. That was all that was left!

That's why, in 2009 when we found out that the EDC wanted to also "take over" the Pier 11 shed (and the Atlantic Basin) by leasing it to Phoenix Beverages, the community was in full revolt.

In an attempt to placate community concerns about the Phoenix plan - including questions about congestion, pollution, appropriate use of precious, publicly-owned waterfront land, etc. - the local non-profit organization, PortSide New York, was tapped by the EDC to take on the task of making the "community-friendly elements" a reality, using part of the shed and a 600 foot length of the Atlantic Basin. At the time I wrote it was a "small concession", but at least it was something! Representatives from the EDC, including Vice Presidents Venetia Lannon and Andrew Genn, assured us at meeting after meeting that PortSide was an integral part of the whole deal, and we were told we shouldn't worry about being shut out or cut off from the waterfront to which our community - both residential and commercial - was craving more connection.

That's what we were promised.

Well, that promise was broken. Initially, things seemed to be heading in the right direction. Since 2009, PortSide has been given the opportunity to create a few very successful events in the Atlantic Basin using temporary, short-term permits. There were "Tanker Concerts" (pic below) in collaboration with with local venue, "Jalopy", the Dutch Flat Bottomed Boats event (pic above), community sailing trips with tall ship, Clipper City, and more. But, earlier this year, PortSide were inauspiciously kicked out, ridiculed by the Port Authority as being like a "gypsy" camping out at "Terminal 2 at JFK" ... and now, they are looking for a new home - possibly, at great loss to our community, outside of Brooklyn.

To add insult to injury, we see now that the EDC is not even looking for a replacement for PortSide. They want to take over the whole site for warehousing and industrial use. There is no mention of the community-friendly elements - not even accommodation of the long and carefully planned Brooklyn Greenway! Why are they ignoring the clearly articulated needs of our community? This goes against all of the rhetoric previously coming out of government and the community itself.

Time after time - in Red Hook's 197a Plan, to the 2003 and 2006 Community Board 6 Guidelines for the development of Piers 7-12, in statements from local representatives, Red Hook Civic Association, the EDC and even the Port Authority themselves - the consensus has been that our mixed use neighborhood needed more access to the waterfront, more public space, waterborne transportation, connection of local businesses to the waterfront - what everyone called a "balanced" use of the waterfront.

Even recent studies, including efforts supported by the City, have called for more "balanced use of the waterfront".

The Vision 2020 NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, which was hashed out in 2010, stated that the area around the Atlantic Basin and the adjacent cruise terminal should be assessed for further "public use", "active water related public use", "proper alignment of Brooklyn Greenway", "recreational and educational programming" (my post here).

If the EDC is looking for someone to develop 100% of the Pier 11 shed for industrial use and warehousing, doesn't that torpedo any possibility of realizing these community-friendly elements?

Can someone tell me, what was the point of that whole Vision 2020 thing?!!

Just to list a few of the broken promises made by the EDC about uses for this site:

*Phoenix trucks will use internal roadways
*Inclusion of Governors Island Ferry
*More public waterborne transportation - East River Ferry, perhaps?
*Enable creation of new home for PortSide NewYork
*Berth and 600 foot water frontage for Mary A. Whalen and other commercial boats on Atlantic Basin
*Open space
*Recreational / educational uses
*Increased public access
*Community use for Cruse Terminal / Parking lot
*Accommodation of Brooklyn Greenway
*Creation of view-ways
*Connection to Van Brunt Street commercial strip

..... and the list goes on!

Yet again, the EDC is letting our community down. Depriving us of meaningful access to our publicly owned waterfront. Making bad decisions that impact our community with trucks and pollution - I haven't even mentioned the EDC's role in bringing unmitigated, polluting cruise ships to our residential neighborhood, spreading asthma-inducing emissions over our kids' heads and into their lungs (an evil notorious enough to have a cameo in Spike Lee's new movie, "Red Hook Summer"), and the EDC's role in sending relentlessly noisy helicopters into our air space.

I really don't know what the EDC is thinking - but shouldn't we let them know a few of our thoughts?

Maybe people would like to attend one of these site visits:


Should NYCEDC elect to keep the RFP open for additional Submission Dates, additional information sessions/site visits will be held at 10AM on the following days:

Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013


Those who wish to attend should RSVP by email to Pier11SubleaseRFP@nycedc.com 

From the EDC's RFP - click to enlarge

.

California's Proposition 23 May Undercut Clean Port Initiatives - NATION-WIDE

For those of us who are advocating for cleaner and greener ports - including the reduction or elimination of cancer causing and otherwise harmful sulfur, nitrogen and particulate emissions from ship and truck smokestack pollution and the reduction of the negative health impacts that the activities of ports have on the residents of port cities and, most acutely, on the residential neighborhoods that the ports abut - the recent news that there is a possibility for the successful adoption of an Oil Industry bankrolled initiative on the ballot in California this November - Proposition 23 - is a worrying development.

Proposition 23 (given the rather Orwellian title, "California Jobs Initiative") is an attempt to roll back California's Clean Air Law - AB32. "Prop 23" is sponsored by Valery Energy and Tesaro, two Texas based Oil refining companies, as well as by David and Charles Koch (pronounced "Coke"), the billionaire brother owners of the oil giant Koch Industries, who have also financed the dissemination of climate change misinformation, fought legislation to address climate change or reduce pollution, and successfully lobbied the EPA to refrain from naming formaldehyde, a chemical produced by Koch Industries, as being a "known carcinogen" - which it is. The Koch brothers have also been involved, though keeping a low profile, in other political activities including their support of the "Tea Party" and establishing "grass roots" organizations such as "Americans for Prosperity", a group that opposed health care reform. Their many activities were detailed by Greenpeace earlier this year in a report titled, "Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine.", and more recently in Jane Mayer's revelatory article in the New Yorker, "Covert Operations: The Billionaire Brothers who are Waging War against Obama".

There are many troubling things about Prop 23, and not only that it aims to wind back greenhouse gas regulation enacted in AB-32 - a law that, as the LA Times reports," is designed to cut the state's emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the end of this decade" with a significant chunk of these reductions coming through "regulations aimed at fostering alternative fuels and generating electricity from solar, wind and other alternative energy sources."

If the attack on greenhouse gas reduction/clean energy legislation wasn't troubling enough, the worry is that the adoption of Prop 23 will have flow-on effects to other anti-pollution measures that are in place in California. One of these may be the many clean port initiatives that have been implemented in California over the last number of years, including the initiatives to connect cruise and container ships to "shore power" while they are in port, allowing them to turn off their extra-dirty diesel burning engines (a practice called "cold ironing") instead of "idling" in port - as ships do in Red Hook, Brooklyn and throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey, for example.

The news from Long Beach, California, via this article from Kristopher Hanson in the Press-Telegram, is this -

Policy experts believe Proposition 23, which seeks to suspend AB 32, California's landmark greenhouse gases law, could have significant impacts on recent measures passed to curb port emissions.

Among them are rules approved or pending by the California Air Resources Board to slash emissions from ships, trucks and trains - pollution generators blamed for thousands of cancer and heart disease cases annually in communities surrounding San Pedro Bay.

For example, the Air Resources Board in late 2007 adopted a plan requiring that ships turn off their auxiliary engines, use exhaust filters or plug into electrical outlets while visiting ports.

That measure could be suspended under Prop 23.

The article continues -

As for the health impacts of AB 32's suspension, a nonpartisan report estimates Prop 23 would probably lead to increased hospitalizations and public health costs.

The study was issued by the California Legislative Analyst's Office.

"Suspending some (CARB) measures could halt air quality improvements that would have public health benefits, such as reduced respiratory illnesses," the report notes. "These public health benefits translate into economic benefits, such as increased worker productivity and reduced government and business costs for health care."

The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are considered the largest fixed source of emissions in the state, with freight ships alone spewing more than 400,000 tons of carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas - into local skies in 2008, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Port pollution is also a prime reason why children in communities around the ports suffer from the highest asthma rates in California.

As for potentially life-threatening illness, the ports are again a top contributor.

Numerous epidemiological studies show about 1,200 out of every million people locally develop cancer from air toxins during their lifetime.

However, the federal government lists the "acceptable" cancer rate from air pollution as no higher than 10 in a million.

Another article in the Press-Telegram, by Art Marroquin, conveyed the information that an updated "Clean Air Action Plan" for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles was "expected to reduce the risk of cancer from port-related diesel emissions by 85 percent over the next decade".

If the previous reporting is right, these potential savings in human life and health costs will also be under threat if Prop 23 is adopted.

This is truly troubling, and if the proponents of the status quo, polluters and protectors of 'oil profits at the expense of human health' that support Prop 23 are successful, it doesn't bode well for the expansion of such pollution mitigating and life saving measures in other port cities outside of California, including ours.

For example, the "Clean Truck Program" that has been started in California was challenged in court recently, but the supporters of the program won (article here) and that program will continue - for now. There's also a similar program being proposed for the Ports of New York and New Jersey, initiated by Rep. Jerry Nadler, with the legislation being written to hopefully avoid such litigation. This was a matter that was extensively discussed in the New York City Council's Committee on Waterfronts' hearing convened in June titled, "Oversight - Clearing the Air: Greening New York City's Working Waterfront". My post here. (A full transcript of the hearing can be found at the NYC Council site, here).

So we have to make sure that Proposition 23 doesn't succeed - doesn't get in the way of these green port initiatives - and make sure that the people who are funding it and the politicians who support it, like California's Assemblyman Dan Logue (story here) and others, know that we know what they're up to.

If Prop 23 is defeated and California can succeed in reducing greenhouse emissions, while also reducing harmful emissions such as the type created by the activities of ports - including sulfur, nitrogen oxides and particulates from dirty diesel burning ships, trucks and trains - then we can all hope for such much needed improvements in our port cities and look forward to the accompanying health benefits to our port-side residents.

.

Sign the Petition To Confine Phoenix Beverages Operations to Pier 7 to Reduce Truck Traffic on our Residential Streets.

The previous post, below, laid out the assurances, now shown to be lies, that Phoenix Beverages and the EDC made to the community in many meetings that preceded the relocation of their operations to the Red Hook waterfront in Brooklyn, at Pier 7 at the bottom of Pioneer Street and Pier 11 at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue.

Greg Brayman, Phoenix's owner, is now saying that his promise that Phoenix trucks would use internal streets, within the container terminal site, as much as possible, actually only applied to the larger container carrying trucks - not the delivery trucks - despite the fact that the delivery trucks were the only trucks ever discussed in the multiple meetings and included in the Power Point presentations, etc., that my family and I (and many of my neighbors) attended.

Mr. Brayman is also now saying, contrary to all that our community was previously told,

"There's really no other way to get from point A to point B," (Quote from Daily News article)

In other words, the only way to get his delivery trucks from "Point A" (Pier 11) to "Point B" (Pier 7) is via Columbia Street.

Well, that that goes totally counter to the assurances that Phoenix and the EDC made, and if what Mr. Brayman says is true, then the only solution is that Phoenix use ONLY Pier 7 at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue, with that location's close proximity to the BQE exits/entrances. This will alleviate any need to use Columbia Street to shuttle their trucks between the two piers.

This should be no imposition for Phoenix. They only ever wanted one pier, and Pier 7 was their first choice. Also, the Pier 7 shed is much bigger than that of Pier 11, the one that the EDC initially wanted to hand over to Phoenix when one pier seemed enough - that was before the dodgy deal to lock up two of our piers and much of our publicly owned waterfront, including the precious, unique and historic Atlantic Basin, for 20-years. The result of this befuddling and less than transparent process was little public waterfront access and little given back to the community between the Brooklyn Bridge Park and Valentino Pier - a decision that ran contrary not only to community sentiment, but contrary to our to our hard fought 197a Plan and our widely supported Community Board 6 guidelines.

So - if you agree that Phoenix has mislead our community (if not violated the terms of their lease which should result in its termination) and you agree that a easy and quick antidote for the trucks that are barreling down our residential streets is that Phoenix's operations should be confined to Pier 7, please sign this petition, below.

Thanks.


SIGN THE PETITION HERE

.

Phoenix Beverages and the NYCEDC are LIARS

The mystery of why Phoenix Beverages (a.k.a. Long Feng Trucking) delivery trucks are roaring through the streets of Red Hook and the Columbia Waterfront, instead of using the internal roadways of the container terminal, as per the many assurances made through Phoenix's owner, Greg Brayman, and the agency who brought the beer distribution company to the Red Hook waterfront, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) under the leadership of Venetia Lannon, has been solved.

"Oh," says Phoenix and the EDC, "you mean those trucks?"

Apparently, when Phoenix and the EDC made their presentations to the different neighborhoods that would be feeling the impact of the additional 200+ truck trips a day, and they assured us that the trucks would use the 'internal' roads as much as possible, they weren't actually referring to the delivery trucks .... no, not those trucks ... the ones and the only ones that they had included photos of in their glossy PowerPoint presentations, all nice and shiny with the added assurance that they would soon be converted from dirty diesel to cleaner CNG (if we just gave them 7 years to do so). The only ones that anyone ever spoke of. No they weren't referring to those trucks - the ones that would be making the additional 200 delivery trips a day, the impact of which we were all so concerned about. They were actually ... silly me ... referring to the container trucks that moved the big shipping containers that were being brought in on the container ships - when they were talking about trucks using the internal roadways as much as possible it was to those trucks that they were actually referring.

We'll you could have fooled me - and apparently they did and everyone else in those meetings.

Because, if there's any truth to this latest Daily News article, the EDC, through spokesman David Lombino (someone I've never seen nor heard of before) is saying

"We're working ... to find a solution for lighter delivery trucks that would avoid more residential blocks,"

The article continues to say that,

"City officials promised before Phoenix moved onto the Red Hook waterfront last year that the company's container trucks would use roads inside the port instead of neighborhood streets. But they said that pledge didn't apply to the smaller delivery trucks now flooding Columbia St."

Well that is an outright lie - and if not, then the EDC and Phoenix were parsing their words at those many, many meetings on a Clintonesque level - somewhat like, "That depends on what the meaning of "is" is" - according to the EDC and Phoenix it depends on what the meaning of "truck" is.

Well, all who attended those meetings - unlike Mr. Lombino, who did not - know what the EDC and Phoenix meant (or perhaps were hoping we thought they meant). All the "truck" conversations centered on the delivery trucks. The ones they had the photos of. The ones that are now rocketing down Columbia Street with their doors open, banging and noisily clattering as they go over bumps, shuttling between Pier 11 at the bottom of Pioneer Street, to Pier 7 at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue. Everyone was concerned that they would have an impact on local traffic, congestion and pollution and that was why we were given assurances - promises, in fact - that they would use internal roads, and exit via either Atlantic Ave or Bowne Street which were both close to BQE exits/entrances.

That's what people said - from the EDC - from their Maritime dept. VPs, Venetia Lannon and Andrew Genn, to Executive Vice President Madelyn Wils and even the President of the EDC, Seth Pinsky. They also talked about "balance" and a "new paradigm" that Phoenix would bring. What bullsh*t artists. Meanwhile our kids are sucking in smoke and carcinogenic pollution, without any mitigation, in a neighborhood that has 40% asthma rates and they are dodging more trucks in an already overly-burdened residential ... yes guys, residential neighborhood. That's some great "new paradigm", Ms. Wils.

Greg Brayman, whose family owns Phoenix Beverages, and his father said the same. The younger Mr. Brayman even said that he would be "more or less living on site" so any negative impacts would be addressed thoroughly because they would be borne by him and his family too. Yeah, right!

There have been so many disingenuous statements about this matter - from the claim from the EDC that they and Phoenix would be happy with Pier 7 (and not 11) if they could get it. To the promises about the cleaner CNG trucks .... if only we can wait 7 years. To the whittled down assurances on public access and open space around the Atlantic Basin, the Governors Island Ferry, water taxi - the false claim that they were adhering to "Community Board guidelines", the whole dodgy deal that went down at the Port Authority General Meeting .... can anybody please explain what that was all about? - was it just money, some swap with ASI for rent at Howland Hook or something? I don't know. Chris Ward, the PA's Executive Officer, said it was "just business", but why were Red Hook screwed so badly? .... and why were Phoenix more or less forced to take both Pier 7 and Pier 11 when clearly Pier 7 was more than enough, being much bigger than Pier 11, and all that their taking of Pier 11 ensured was the tying up of that space and the Atlantic Basin for 20 years, and the reoccupation of most of Pier 11 by ASI/American Stevedoring (it's included in their own site map now) .... despite Chris Ward's assurance to his board that American Stevedoring had nothing to gain from this Phoenix deal? What the hell is going on here?

Unfortunately, it's just another chapter in the long history of the residents of Red Hook, and now the Columbia Street Waterfront, being lied to and then becoming 'collateral damage' in the name of "economic development". When it comes to the likes of the EDC and their plans for our waterfront, all they seem to bring is more trucks, more dirty diesel burning ships, 5-storey salt piles, cement plants, unmitigated carcinogenic pollution, underhanded tactics, disingenuous statements and dodgy deals with zero transparency and no regard for the health of our children ... really, NO F'ING REGARD ..... they don't seem to give a damn about any of the residents, or even the small businesses .... oh, sorry, I forgot ....

..... there is that bus parking lot in the Cruise Ship Terminal they're handing over to the "community" on non-cruise days.

Thanks EDC!!! You're the best.

And Phoenix - or Long Feng Trucking - you're right up there, too.



Ed note: Re: Picture above. As a commenter has noted, this may not be a Phoenix/ Long Feng Beverages truck, but it's a beverage truck on Columbia Street jamming up traffic as the B61 tries to get past. I took the photo last year and I've used it on previous posts about the congestion on Columbia Street - about 3 times. As I have used this photo many times, I thought it to be a fair illustration of what we're dealing with. I had no intention to mislead the readers of this blog, and I hoped regular readers would have seen that it was a reuse of an older photo. I have, however, witnessed first hand, as many have, the chaos that Phoenix's trucks are creating on Columbia Street. The photo at the top of this post is a Phoenix Beverages truck that I snapped last week as it raced in front of me from Bowne Street to Atlantic Ave., via Columbia Street, with its doors wide open, rattling through the streets.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Mayor Bloomberg re-commit to Sunset Park Container Terminal

In my one of my previous posts, commenting on the challenges regarding the long-term viability - both environmentally and practically - of the Red Hook Container Port, I referred to the proposal to develop a Container Port at Sunset Park - something that was part of the City's 1999 "Strategic Plan for the Redevelopment of the Port of New York". This part of the plan had seemed to have fallen of the agenda for the last number of years, but a recent announcement from the City has put the proposed Sunset Park terminal back in the spotlight.

Regarding the announcement, Rep. Jerrold Nadler made this comment -

“This blueprint will reaffirm the City’s commitment to preserving, protecting and investing in our precious maritime and industrial infrastructure, and will build upon the Mayor’s support of the development of a major container port in Sunset Park"

Nadler is referring to the City's newly announce Waterfront Vision and Enhancement Strategy (WAVES).

From the City's press release (here) -

"The WAVES strategy – to be developed over the next nine months – will include two core components: the Vision 2020 – The New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan that will establish long-term goals for the next decade and beyond, and the New York City Waterfront Action Agenda that will set forth priority initiatives to be implemented within three years. Together, the initiatives will provide a blueprint for the City’s waterfront and waterways, and focus on the following categories: open space and recreation, the working waterfront, housing and economic development, natural habitats, climate change adaptation and waterborne transportation."

I wrote about the "Vision 2020" thing in a previous post (here) where I mentioned the opportunity to attend meetings, comment on-line and to have a say in the direction of the plan.

The interesting this about the latest announcement was the serious re-committal to the Sunset Park Container Port from the Mayor, Speaker Quinn and Rep. Nadler.

Jerry Nadler has long been a supporter of a container port at Sunset Park, saying that this location's larger size and proximity to the proposed "cross harbor freight rail tunnel", of which he is the strongest advocate, gave it a logical advantage.

Nadler went on, as quoted in this Brooklyn Eagle story (here) about the merits of the proposal -

"Our roads cannot handle the truck traffic that exists today, let alone the projected increases of the coming years. For that reason, the trucking of freight is not now and has never been a sustainable or long-term solution.”

Nadler seems to be saying here that the transportation of freight should, whenever possible, be done by rail, thereby alleviating the toll taken on the environment, roads and buildings by heavy truck traffic.

This damage is something that Red Hook knows a bit about as we suffer from not only the harmful emissions from the ships at the container and cruise terminals, but the pollution, congestion and structural damage done to our buildings by trucks - with more to come with the imminent relocation of Phoenix Beverages to Pier 11 and 7, bringing 200 more truck trips a day to our neighborhood's streets. Red Hook's terminal has no rail connection, so is totally reliant on trucks to move its freight - something that Nadler says is neither "sustainable" nor a "long-term solution".

What this re-commitment to the Container Terminal at Sunset Park means for the Red Hook terminal is unclear. When the City had plans to shut down the Red Hook terminal in 2006, one of the main objections, made by Nadler, Quinn and others, was that Brooklyn needed a container terminal, and until the alternately proposed Sunset Park terminal was up and running, the inefficient and under-productive operation at Red Hook should be maintained.

However, Nadler and the City, in the recent press release, talk of the "protection" of the maritime and industrial infrastructure. Phoenix Beverages, who NYCEDC President, Seth Pinsky, referred to as the "new anchor tenant for the Red Hook Container Terminal" has a 20-year lease on the Red Hook Piers giving the Container Terminal operators, American Stevedoring (ASI), by proxy, control of a majority of Pier 11 for that time (though ASI only has a 10-year lease of the piers - supposedly). So whether that means that the Red Hook terminal would continue operating despite a Sunset Park terminal coming on line - whenever that might be - is hard to say.

What is clear is that there is some serious thinking going on about the long-term plans for the city's waterfront - that can be seen in the City's WAVES Strategy.

If that means that we're thinking of smarter, cleaner and more balanced ways to use the waterfront then I'm all for it.

If it means that the City is serious about hearing from the residents about what they want and need from their waterfront, then I say "great" and encourage you to make your voices heard at meetings (schedule here) or by making comments on-line (here).

If it means there's a push to create a cleaner Port of New York, with less reliance on trucks and more on rail with new rail links, the building of shore power infrastructure and the promotion of no-idling "cold ironing" for the ships - wherever they dock - then, to paraphrase Dennis Holt, from the Brooklyn Eagle ...

Bring it on.

.

Ships Vs. Trucks - It's the Sulphur, stupid! (and all that other nasty stuff)

We've had some good news in the last week or so regarding the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announcing the first steps toward implementing a "clean truck program" at their ports, including Brooklyn's Red Hook Container Terminal. The Word on Columbia Street blog has a post (here) on the announcement from the Port Authority via the EPA (press release here). This is part of the Port Authority's clean air strategy that was announced in October 2009.

It's a welcome announcement, and one for which I'm thankful, having encouraged such a plan in my second ever post on this blog, (here). But when I say "first steps", it's because this is only the beginnings of what really should be a more robust plan to replace the dirty, older trucks with cleaner, newer ones, thereby reducing diesel emissions from those sources at the ports and in our communities while providing better conditions for the drivers.

As John Petro, Urban Policy Analyst at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, writes in this article, titled, "Killing at the Seaport: Port Pollution a Silent Killer" -

The PA of NY/NJ clean port program "isn't nearly as ambitious as it should be. The Port Authority currently has money available to replace 630 dirty trucks, but this is only about one quarter of the number of trucks that need to be replaced."

The overall "Clean Air Strategy" plan, in fact, which addresses mitigating pollution from all sources at the ports (trucks, ships, port machinery, harbor craft, trains, etc.), proposes reductions of SOx, NOx and particulate matter (PM) and sets a goal for reducing these harmful emissions by 30%. However, John Kaltenstein, Clean Vessels Program Manager for Friends of the Earth, writes this in his article in "Sustainable Shipping", titled "The Big Apple's big shipping pollution problem", comparing and contrasting the efforts of the East and West Coast ports -

"The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (the largest port complex in the United States), however, set a more impressive benchmark five years ago, with a goal of 45% emission reductions by 2012. According to 2008 data, they have achieved 35% reductions so far."

Which brings me, again, to the ships.

The Port Authority's "Clean Air Strategy" seems fairly tame regarding mitigating pollution from the ships themselves. The main proposals seem to center around a "vessel speed reduction incentive program", some other incentives to use lower sulphur fuels in the ports, and the plan to have cruise ships hook up to "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and, sometime in the future, at the Manhattan Cruise terminals. It's all good, but there's no mention here of looking at expanding the use of "shore power" to container and cargo ships, as is being done on the West Coast and elsewhere.

Now, I hear you say, "but ships are the least of our problems".

An often repeated statement at meetings convened by New York City Economic Development Corporation and the Port Authority, when the plans for the expansion of the Red Hook container terminal were announced last year, (without Environmental Impact Study nor proposals for pollution mitigation at the port), was that "ships are the most efficient and cleanest way to move goods around the globe"... so, what were we worried about?

This is part of the common wisdom that shipping as generally "clean" and that the pollution that it creates, in the big picture, is not worth worrying about. In a recent NY Times article, "Slow Trip Across Sea Aids Profit and Environment", by Elizabeth Rosenthal, the subject is the speed reduction measures that shipping companies, such as Danish giant, Maersk, are undertaking in order to reduce emissions from their ships and to save money. This is called "slow (or super-slow) steaming". Again, it's a good idea, and one that reduces consumption of fuel and emissions from the ships by up to 30%. But what got me a little bristly was, in the article, when the writer states -

"Of course, mile per mile, shipping even at conventional speeds is far more efficient than road travel. Shipping a ton of toys from Shanghai to northern Germany churns out lower emissions than trucking them south to Berlin afterward."

But which emissions - and where do they have their impact? The concerns regarding shipping relate not to only to its overall polluting impacts on the globe - which some argue are not worth worrying about - but to the impact that shipping pollution has locally on the cities and contiguous port communities in which ships dock.

It's true that shipping any given tonnage of goods over a long distance is more energy efficient and creates less greenhouse gasses (mainly CO2) than trucks would. It's also important to acknowledge that the impact of ships' CO2 emissions is still substantial, and efforts to reduce shipping's contribution to CO2 emissions should be of extremely high importance.

This, from Marc Gunther at "The Energy Collective" (here) -

According to Richard Branson’s new NGO, which is called the Carbon War Room, the global shipping fleet is the equivalent of the sixth most polluting country in the world:

Annual CO2 emissions currently exceed one million tons and are projected to grow to 18% of all manmade CO2 emissions by 2050. Yet existing technology presents an opportunity for up to 75% gains in efficiency, with required investments repaid in just a few years.

Perhaps this is what he's talking about - (article here)

Still, ton-for-ton, shipping does create less CO2 than trucks or trains, and no-one gets sick or dies from inhaling CO2, right? - at least at these concentrations.

The real villains in the shipping pollution story, from the point of view of their negative impact on the health of humans - particularly on residents of port communities and their home cities - are the other pollutants :- Sulphur Oxides (SOx), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM).

These are the substances that the EPA described as "likely carcinogens" that also contribute to asthma, other lung and heart disease (among others) and contribute to the creation of smog. These are the substances that are created by the burning of extra-dirty diesel, as ships currently do while idling in port and at sea, at concentrations far above that of truck and train pollution with sulphur at levels up to 2000 times more than regular diesel. This is one of the reasons there are cancer clusters around ports, globally.

At the Ports of New York and New Jersey, the contribution of ships to the total pollution created by the port are as follows (by their own 2006 numbers) -

Ocean-going Vessels (ships)

SOx - 91%

NOx - 47%

Particulates - 62%

CO2 - 33%

As a comparison, here is the contribution from trucks -

Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (trucks)

SOx - 1%

NOx - 25%

Particulate - 12%

CO2 - 37%

So, even though there's the recognition that truck pollution is a big problem that needs to be urgently addressed, it's clearly the ships that are creating the lion's share of the non-CO2 pollution - particularly when it comes to Sulphur, with a 91% contribution, and particulates with 62%.

John Kaltenstein's aforementioned article, noting that business at the Ports of NY and NJ has grown 100% since 1998, and is projected to double by 2020, puts the impact of these ship emissions in stark relief -

"EPA estimates that, in 2002, marine vessels in the port complex produced about 7,200 metric tonnes of nitrogen oxide, 570 metric tonnes of fine particulate matter, and 4,600 metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide.

A report from Environmental Defense Fund asserts that these ship emissions are equivalent to the emissions from 7.8 million new cars. Moreover, a recent study commissioned by the Coastal Conservation League finds that air emissions from an expanded Charleston, SC port could result in up to $81 million per year in monetized health costs."

This is something I wrote about here. John continues -

"Since the NY-NJ Port Authority dwarfs the Port of Charleston (Charleston has less than one-third the container volume of NY-NJ and less than one-eighth its cargo volume), its health costs, as well as premature mortality figures, are likely much greater." (my emphasis)

That's what we're worried about.

Yes, shipping is "more efficient" than trucks or trains - but it's really beside the point.

Shipping has a real responsibility to address its significant global impact - both with CO2 and these other dangerous emissions. When one of the world's biggest ships, in one year, creates as much SOx as 50 million cars - yes, 50 million! - it's a problem for the planet (check out this story). But additionally and importantly, it's the harmful health impact and resultant cost of shipping's SOx, NOx and PM emissions on the residents of cities and port communities that the shipping companies and operators of ports must address, and address urgently.

The Port Authority should be attacking this matter more aggressively. The "clean truck program" is a good start (a small but significant first step towards instigating a comprehensive and port-wide clean truck initiative and producing associated health benefits to the port communities). But the Port Authority's efforts on reducing emissions from the ships themselves need to be bolder. More initiatives moving toward the use of "shore power" at the container and cargo terminals around the area so ships can "turn off" and stop idling while in port. Strict regulations for the use of lower sulphur fuels in the area's ports and surrounding waters - preempting the U.S Government request, through the EPA, asking the International Maritime Organization to create a 240-mile emissions control area (ECA) - a pollution buffer zone - around the nation's coastline. (my post here)

This is what is needed from the Port Authority to ensure that ships truly live up to their somewhat ill-deserved environmentally friendly reputation. It's what's needed to reduce these emissions that the EPA describes as, "harmful to the pubic generally, and especially to our children, the elderly, people with lung disease, those who exercise outside, and low-income and minority communities located near ports."

So, good work of the truck front - but let's also deal with the elephant in the room.

The ships.

I'll leave the last word to Kim Thompson-Gaddy, a resident of Newark, Co-Chair of the North Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance and mother of three asthmatic children, who at Drum Major Institute's Marketplace of Ideas event, "Improving the Air and Job Quality at Our Nation's Ports" on October 14, 2008, discusses why she advocated creating a coalition to address the unhealthy air quality in the neighborhoods surrounding the ports of Newark and New Jersey.

Her words - "Environmental Health Injustice"

Wanna Sign Brad Lander's Petition for a Greener Port?

As noted in a previous post, Brad Lander, who is running for City Council in the 39th District, has spoken out in favor of a "greener" port in Brooklyn - especially considering the recent plans to expand the operations of the Container Port. Today he held a campaign event to promote that recently articulated stance. Unfortunately, I couldn't make it to the event on the Columbia Street Waterfront due to my car's insistence it didn't want to work today and it needed me to pay it some more attention - perhaps it was Mondayitis - or the heat.

Anyway, judging from the story in "The Word On Columbia Street" tonight (here), it seems as though many people did turn up in support of this call for action and many positive ideas, both short and long-term measures, were laid out for reducing the impact of the operations of the Brooklyn port on the surrounding residential neighborhoods of Red Hook, Columbia Street Waterfront, Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill. I won't regurgitate the entire content of what was said today - I'll leave it to you to read the excellent and comprehensive coverage in the previously mentioned "Word" story.

However, the main actions for which Mr. Lander is calling are laid out in this statement (from his campaign website) -

It is critical that all parties work together to reduce truck pollution and create a greener port.

We therefore call on EDC, the Port Authority, American Stevedoring, and Phoenix to:

• Commit to a faster, specific timetable to convert trucks to cleaner natural gas engines.
• Keep truck traffic inside the port and develop a long-term traffic plan.
• Enhance the Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway by running it along Atlantic Basin.
• Connect docked ships to on-shore power, to reduce the use of highly-polluting generators.
• Establish a comprehensive green jobs local hiring program.

With these steps, we can turn the Columbia Waterfront Area, Red Hook, and ultimately the entire Port of New York into the greenest port on the eastern seaboard – making it a healthier place for workers and neighbors alike, and a vibrant and sustainable economic hub.

It's all pretty good stuff, to my way of thinking, and definitely a step in the right direction of finally taking some of the burden of the negative impact of the ports' operations off the shoulders of the already suffering residents and small businesses.

Mr. Lander isn't the only one who has spoken out on these issues. Two other hopefuls for the 39th District seat, Josh Skaller and Gary Reilly, have attended meetings and made statements in relation to the impacts created by the operations of the Brooklyn ports. Mr. Skaller has obvious "green" credentials and is also calling for the Superfunding of the Gowanus Canal. Mr. Reilly is someone who is an environmental lawyer and who has tried to raise awareness of and made statements about the problems of port pollution in the past, including in his blog .

However, Mr. Lander's stance seems to be the most articulate and high profile right now and his recent statements are a thankful addition to the many voices calling for solutions to the challenges faced by our neighborhoods.

He is also urging residents and other interested parties to sign his petition calling for these improvements.

You can read about it and sign the petition too, if you want, here.

....................................................................................................................................................

Brad Lander Steps Up to the Plate in Calling for a Greener Port

I received this information (below) from Brad Lander, who is running to replace Bill DiBlasio in Brooklyn's 39th City Council District.

It's great to see Mr. Lander calling for these measures to mitigate the negative impacts of the operations of the Brooklyn Port. Dangerous diesel emissions from ships, truck pollution and congestion have been long-held concerns of the residents of the Columbia Street Waterfront, Red Hook and our adjoining neighborhoods - Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill among them.

It seems Mr. Lander is taking on these concerns, pushing for solutions for them and is speaking out on behalf of the residents and businesses that he hopes to represent.

Even though the 39th District does not include Red Hook, south of Hamilton Avenue, it's good to see someone - either in power or hoping to be - advocating for a better outcome, environmentally or otherwise, for our neighborhood and its inhabitants.

..............................................................................................................................................................

City Council Candidate Brad Lander, Environmental & Neighborhood Leaders

to Call for Action to Reduce Truck Pollution & Plan for a Greener Port

DATE

Monday, August 10th, 10 a.m.

LOCATION

Columbia Street & DeGraw Steet

Columbia Waterfront Neighborhood

Brooklyn, New York

DESCRIPTION

City Council candidate Brad Lander will be joined by local residents and environmental leaders to call for action to reduce truck pollution in the Columbia Waterfront area and create a greener Port of New York. At the event, Lander will be endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voters.

Recent events at Piers 7 – 12 on the Brooklyn waterfront create both need and opportunity to work for a greener port. The NYC Economic Development Corporation recently reached a deal with the Port Authority of NY/NJ, American Stevedoring, and Phoenix Beverage to import beverages using Piers 7, 10, and 11. Using the port to bring in goods by ship is smart economic and environmental policy – it can be less polluting than long-haul trucks, and creates good jobs in Brooklyn.

However, more business in the port also leads to an increase in local truck traffic and emissions (from both ships and trucks). It is therefore critical that all parties – EDC, the Port Authority, ASI, Phoenix and others – take significant short-term and long-term steps to reduce truck pollution and create a greener port.

Lander and local residents will call short-term and long-term action to:

• Convert trucks serving the port to compressed natural gas (CNG) to reduce toxic emissions.
• Keep truck traffic internal to the port, and develop a long-term traffic plan.
• Enhance the Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway by running it along Atlantic Basin.
• Connect docket ships to on-shore power, to reduce the use of highly-polluting generators.
• Establish a comprehensive "first source/green jobs" local hiring program.

Brad Lander is running in Brooklyn's 39th Council District (Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens/Columbia Waterfront, Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Borough Park, and Kensington). Lander has the support of a wide range of community, environmental, and small business leaders.

EPA Awards Funding to Reduce Diesel Emissions - Red Hook's Cruise Terminal gets Nearly $3 Million

The good news came yesterday that the EPA, as part of a $17 million diesel pollution reduction initiative which is part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), had awarded funding to facilitate the installation of the infrastructure required to implement the use of "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The press release that came from the EPA started as follows -



(These are the ones that seem pertinent to Red Hook's port operations)

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey – Shore Power Installation at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal ($2,858,200): This project will install the land-side electrical infrastructure necessary for cruise vessels calling at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal to hook up to shore power while docked, eliminating the need to operate on-board generators. Carnival Cruise Lines has committed to use the facility.

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey – Regional Truck Replacement Program ($7,000,000): This project will replace up to 636 model year 1993 and older drayage trucks that service Port Authority facilities with cleaner, 2004 and newer model year trucks by offering truckers 25% off the cost of the newer truck.

The funds awarded by the EPA for the shore power infrastructure at Red Hook's Brooklyn Cruise Terminal will apparently supplement the roughly $3 million already committed by the Port Authority itself when it first pledged to build the infrastructure required for this practice back in January this year. (story here). Apparently the amount of money now required for construction of such infrastructure is more like $6 million.

This is obviously good news, and hopefully the extra EPA funds will help to get this work done in a timely and prudent manner. (Assuming the issue of the shore power tariff is resolved - story here).

The second piece of good news is the incentive plan for replacing older diesel trucks with new, less polluting models. This seems like it will help all the truckers serving the New York and New Jersey container ports replace pre-1993 trucks, not only the Red Hook ones, and looks similar to incentives offered on the West Coast at L.A. Ports that are instigating "clean truck" programs (see my previous post here). Whether the NY and NJ ports will put into place strict rules, as are applied in those West Coast ports, remains to be seen. It's nice to see some carrots, but perhaps some sticks will be required to get the truck upgrades and pollution reduction benefits in a reasonable time frame.

In their own press release, the Port Authority described the news of the EPA funding as follows -

A $7 million federal grant will help launch a $28 million program to replace pre-1994 trucks serving the port. The EPA grant money and an additional $21 million incentive fund from The Port Authority of NY & NJ will enable truck owners serving the port to replace their pre-1994 trucks with newer cleaner burning, less polluting vehicles.

About 16 percent of the trucks that frequently call at the port were built before 1994, and they contribute 33 percent of the fine Particulate Matter, 14 percent of the NOx and 10 percent of the Greenhouse Gas emissions each year. The program provides funding to replace an estimated 636 of these older trucks with newer vehicles, resulting in a reduction of approximately 118 tons of NOx, 14 tons of PM_2.5, and 1,675 tons of Greenhouse Gases per year.

In addition to the truck program grant, the Port Authority also received $2.8 million from the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of a shore power system at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The Brooklyn facility would be the first on the East Coast to provide shore power for docked vessels.

The grant will help provide the infrastructure required for ships to connect to the landside electrical grid instead of running their on-board diesel engines. Carnival Cruise Lines has committed to reconfiguring two cruise vessels that frequently call at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal with the capability to receive shore power, at an estimated cost of $2 million.

This program is expected to reduce emissions from berthed cruise ships by 95.3 tons of NOx, 6.5 tons of PM, and 1,487 tons of Greenhouse Gasses each year.

One large piece of Red Hook's port emissions equation has not been addressed in this round of funding - the situation with the emissions from the container ships themselves. There is nothing here (so far) to help the initiation of the use of shore power for container ships at the Container Terminal. Hopefully the Port Authority has the wheels in motion to address this element as well - especially considering the growing awareness about the terrible toll these ships are taking on air quality and public health world-wide. Check out this story (here) in which the staggering statistic that the pollution emitted by just the world's 15 largest ships is equivalent to all - yes all - the pollution created by the world's 760 million cars.

Chris Ward, Executive Director of the Port Authority, is quoted in this press release as saying these recent commitments are an -

"important and innovative step forward in the Port Authority's ongoing efforts to be good environmental neighbors"

These initiatives announced yesterday are certainly a first step in giving validity to these words.

Hopefully there are more steps to come.

The Future of Red Hook and the Columbia Street Waterfront

The Columbia Waterfront Neighborhood Association had its general meeting last night at which the EDC presented their plans (now signed off on by the Port Authority) for the Red Hook and Columbia Street waterfront. It was much of the same, unfortunately, with very little new information about what impact this development will have on our neighborhoods.

The EDC's Vice President, Venetia Lannon, talked the meeting's attendees through the same "powerpoint" presentation that many of us had seen before. The same images of the shiny new Phoenix Beverages trucks were shown, along with the 2003 Community Board Six (CB6) goals for the entire piers - 7 - 12 . These goals seem to be always rolled out as justification for the decisions the EDC is making for the Atlantic Basin and Pier 11. Never is it mentioned that these goals were set for the entire piers - 7-12 - before the 10-year lease was given to ASI for the Container Terminal at Piers 7-10 - thus satisfying the goals set for maritime industrial use. The question of why all of these goals are now being imposed on the small portion remaining, i.e. the Atlantic Basin and Pier 11, has never been quite answered. Especially when the other CB6 goals - Water Transport, Integrated Public Access, and other "people-friendly" elements are being so poorly addressed.

Part of the presentation was filled with images from PortSide New York's renderings of what they foresee they can create at the Atlantic Basin. It was all very pleasing to the eye and ears, but again the EDC seemed to suggest that "public access" was a difficult hurdle over which to jump at a working port - which is always disconcerting considering their recent statements that the public access elements were not a "done deal".

The only couple of pieces of "news" to me were that the Governor's Island Ferry was back in the plan - it had been removed in the previous presentation made by the EDC on May 21st this year. This was perhaps a little good news, though the word "ultimately" was used when referring to the placement of the ferry at the Atlantic Basin, which given the EDC's predilection for using carefully qualifying language, does give me a little concern regarding when this will actually eventuate. The other statement of news was that the EDC had been talking to Tom Fox of New York Water Taxi about allowing him to use the Atlantic Basin for the mooring of his boats. What that means to his operations and their retention in Red Hook is not yet clear. We'll have to wait for Tom Fox to elaborate on what doors (or docks) this statement opens for his business.

There was much community opposition voiced for the EDC's plans. Of particular concern were the congestion and pollution impacts of the plan. Phoenix's owner, Greg Brayman, was present to field questions and complaints about the impact the 200 truck trips a day will have on our neighborhood. The questions regarding why Phoenix was given 7 years to convert their fleet of trucks to CNG was an early point of contention, with Mr. Brayman saying that the economic burden of doing it any sooner was too much to bear. It was suggested that the environmental and health burden our neighborhood and its inhabitants were bearing was also a heavy one - to which Mr. Brayman replied he would soon be one of those inhabitants, with he and his family members spending long hours in their offices in Red Hook. There was also the revelation that there were no goals or benchmarks to meet within this 7-year time frame for conversion, but that Phoenix's lease would be terminated if they didn't comply with this provision at the end of the 7 years.

The other point raised about the impact of the trucks was regarding the routes they would take. Mr. Brayman said that 70% or trucks would use internal roads and exit close to Pier 7 and Atlantic Avenue. However, the rest would presumably exit via Bowne Street and access the BQE via that route. There were many concerns about both of these exit points, with many residents voicing concerns about the trucks - when confronted with these often congested exit points - weaving their way through our residential streets. Store owners on Van Brunt Street noted that truck traffic was already taking a toll on the structural integrity of their buildings, and the residents on the Columbia Street side said that illegal truck traffic was already a huge problem for them. Venetia Lannon said that the truck traffic would be no more than what had already been the case when the port was receiving cocoa, a number of years ago. Befuddled residents replied that the traffic in the neighborhood had increased exponentially over the last few years, with many new residents, residences and stores, including IKEA and Fairway, so the comparison of the situation now to how it was then was not valid.

The other question raised about pollution was in reference to the impact of the emissions of the ships themselves. One questioner asked whether any Environmental Impact Statement was made, or whether a study of the impact of the new pollution created by the development was being called for. The answer, as always, was that in this case it was not required - and apparently not thought to be justified, legally, morally or otherwise.

In a previous presentation made by Frederick Fooy of CoWNA, the problems regarding air quality in the neighborhood were raised, with the observation that there was not good monitoring of certain air pollutants being practiced - particularly SOx, NOx, Carbon Monoxide, and more. I also raised the recent findings of the EPA (here) regarding cancer risk in our neighborhoods being 5 to 6 times higher than the national average - and that not even taking into account the impact of diesel emissions (a large contributor to the previously mentioned non-monitored pollutants).

This conversation set a back-drop for the ensuing discussion regarding why the Container Terminal and their incoming ships were not being asked to instigate the practice of "cold ironing" - the use of "shore power" when in port, allowing them to turn off their highly polluting diesel engines - especially given the expansion of the operations of the Container Terminal with Phoenix's recent 20-year lease, and especially considering the already problematic situation with air quality, proximity to the BQE, cancer clusters in our neighborhoods, high incidences of childhood asthma, etc.

The EDC's answer to why this wasn't being considered at at the Container Terminal, even though it was being proposed at the Cruise Ship Terminal, was that the cruise ships were "low hanging fruit", and their issues could be more easily addressed. Presumably the container ships are harder to get to comply, but with yesterday's EPA press release "EPA Proposes Stringent Standards for Large Ships", one would think that the time to address the situation at the Container Terminal is now.

As EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson states in this press release,

“Lowering emissions from American ships will help safeguard our port communities, and demonstrate American leadership in protecting our health and the environment around the globe."

A little bit of leadership from the EDC and Port Authority in this regard would be nice right now, and it would be great if they didn't wait years to look for a remedy while the community bore the negative impact, as happened with these entities' previous project, the "Brooklyn Cruise Terminal". Venetia Lannon also said she would like to convene a "round table" to address the issue of lack of integration of the Cruise Terminal and its underused parking-lot tarmac. She stated she would like to get input on how this space could be used for community uses and benefit to the surrounding neighborhood - something that has been been absent thus far.

This ties into the other issue raised in the meeting - the lack of reciprocity in the way this deal has been struck and how its benefits have been judged. Members of the community asked why the economic benefit of other uses at the Atlantic Basin and Pier 11 were not weighed, in comparison to what is now being proposed. Again, the EDC seemed to give no consideration of this, stating that the economic benefit of alternate plans were not studied. Indeed, only the Maritime Section of the EDC have ever made presentations at our community meetings regarding this project - and the concerns of store-owners regarding the lack of integration into the community and benefit to them have not been addressed adequately. This has been despite calls for more holistic approach to economic development goals in our neighborhood - i.e. not just looking at the waterfront as a sliver, but looking upland to the small businesses, store owners and entrepreneurs that hug the piers - and despite assurances from the EDC that their small business people would make an appearance at these meetings.

Business owners, the community they serve and in which they often live were not getting anything out of this deal, it was stated - the question was asked ... Why?

Getting back to the leadership issue - it was great in the meeting to see Ellen Whelan-Wuest, a representative of State Senator Daniel Squadron, make the earlier presentation regarding Brooklyn Bridge Park and its future. She articulated the Senator's concerns about the divisiveness of the decisions regarding the park's planning, but stated that the Senator was making his goal "consensus building". He was speaking out on the problems as he saw them - funding issues and the reliance on obtaining this funding through condo construction - and proposing solutions to these obstacles. His idea involved something called PIRC - which would allow the park to be funded by taking some of the anticipated revenues from property value increases due to these properties' proximity to the park, the resulting property taxes raised, and the use of these revenues for the funding of the park. A win-win situation, as he saw it, one in which everyone had a vested interest, while avoiding the perils of "entitlement" that might be created when condos are built within the park, funding the park, and therefore the owners feeling that they have some ownership of the park. A situation no-one would want in a public park.

This notion of "consensus building" has been sadly lacking in the dealings the EDC and Port Authority have been having with our communities.

As a final thought - it would have been great to have some of our "leaders" show up to the meeting to ask the hard questions of the EDC and to propose some solutions.

Aspiring Public Advocate Bill DiBlasio's representative, Tom Gray, was supposed to attend - but didn't.

Three of his possible replacements for City Council did show up -

Josh Skaller asked a question regarding whether the Phoenix Beverages jobs, mostly truckers, were unionized. (They are - unlike the truckers who were - are?- moving the infamous salt pile around)

Brad Lander showed up at the end - not sure if he was there for any of the meeting - but it would have been nice if he had asked a few questions of the EDC and spoken on behalf of the community he hopes to represent.

Gary Reilly was also present, someone who is an environmental lawyer and who has tried to raise awareness of and made statements about the problems of port pollution in the past in his blog - http://firstandcourt.blogspot.com/

Sarah Gonzalez was not present.

L.A Times - "Ship pollution: EPA 'not responsive,' inspector says"

There was an article recently in the L.A Times (here), calling out the E.P.A. for its failure to protect Americans from pollution from oceangoing ships.

I discovered it when I was looking at some information on port pollution at the Natural Resources Defense Council's web site (here). If you search for "port pollution" on the NRDC web site, you will find many stories, blog entries, etc. about port pollution.

My awareness of the L.A Times article, and its discussion of the EPA's Office of the Inspector General (IG) recently issued 80-page report, came via the writing of David Pettit in his blog (here).

There is much other interesting information in his piece -

E.P.A Gives Port Pollution Failing Grade

David Pettit
Director, Southern California Air Program, Santa Monica, CA
Blog | About

Posted March 26, 2009 in Curbing Pollution

In his post, David refers to -

"a July 2008 NOAA study (that) "found that emissions from shipping have a significant impact on air quality and health on both local and regional scales. Extensive measurements of the emissions of light absorbing carbon aerosol, or soot, from commercial shipping showed increased concentrations of this aerosol at U.S. ports on the East Coast, West Coast, and Gulf Coast. The study also suggested that large oceangoing vessels may emit up to twice as much aerosol as previously estimated."

He also says -

"the EPA itself recently conducted an initial screening level analysis on the size of the U.S. population living near 47 marine ports and 37 rail yards. The results indicate that at least 13 million people, including a disproportionate number of low-income households -- many African-American and Hispanic families -- live in the vicinity of port-related facilities and are exposed to toxic levels ambient diesel particulate matter."

This is not news to anyone who has been reading this blog. There are statements made by the EPA itself on the sidebar of this blog that refer to the carcinogenic effect of these emissions and that speak directly to the danger they pose to our most vulnerable - children included. However, it's heartening to see that more people are writing about these important issues - ones that affect all of our neighborhoods of Red Hook, Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill - and are therefore raising awareness of it.

Once people realize what an important issue this is, hopefully there will be pressure put on the likes of the E.P.A., and on the EDC and Port Authority, considering the decisions being made by them affecting our community (the expansion of Red Hook container terminal, more container ships, more truck pollution, etc.) to act to protect people from the impact of these emissions and ensuring the already available solutions are put in place to mitigate these impacts.

Where is Red Hook's Clean Truck Program?

I don't have anything against trucks, per se, ... but as for the guy that drove his 18 wheeler into my car today, without leaving a note (though a conscientious by-stander did, complete with description, the name of the trucking company - FDR Trucking - licence plate number and truck#) ... that's another story. Nice!

Surprisingly, the subject of trucks has been on my mind, and I was thinking, couldn't Red Hook's Container Port do with a "clean truck program"? Such a plan is being instigated (despite some resitance) in the port of Los Angeles as part of that city's Clean Air Action Plan which aims to reduce port-related emissions at least 45 percent by the year 2012, cutting pollution from trains, ships, trucks and equipment used to move cargo. The Los Angeles truck plan has 5 elements, as explained by Arlene M. Roberts in the article, "Clean Trucks and Green Collar Jobs".

- "Dirty trucks" are not allowed. All pre-1989 trucks are banned. By the year 2012, all trucks must meet 2007 level standards or will be prohibited from entering the port.

- Environmental Cargo Fee was introduced -- $35 per container -- generating about $40,000 annually in revenues. The only exemptions allowed are post-2007 diesel trucks or trucks that utilize alternative fuel.

- Implemented Transportation Worker Identification Card as a matter of national security, even in advance of the federal government's schedule.

- Installed "concession program" which allowed the port and trucking company to transition into an employee-based program.

- Self-financing scheme was established wherein the fund cleans trucks in the port. The port will pay up to 80 percent of the cost of a new, environmentally friendly truck, but owners must also turn in old trucks so that they are not reintroduced elsewhere.

Recently, there was an opinion piece in the NY Daily News - "Keep on truckin': An overhaul of New York’s port rules would bring vital jobs to the state", by Jerrold Nadler and Andrea Batista Schlesinger, in which they argued that the instigation of such a clean truck program in New York would not only have environmental benefits, but also bring better paying jobs, with better conditions for the drivers as a result its implementation. In the piece, they state that such a truck plan plan ...

"... mandates that all port truck drivers are treated as full employees, enabling them to bargain collectively for fair wages and benefits. It also compels trucking companies and their giant shipping clients like Wal-Mart, Target and Nike to take responsibility for cleaner truck technology.

When they earn higher wages and benefits, port truck drivers can contribute more to their local economies while performing the necessary maintenance on their vehicles to keep their surrounding communities healthy and free of hazardous emissions."

In the piece, the authors further state,

"[the current] structure of the trucking industry passes off huge labor and environmental costs to the rest of us. Ordinary citizens are paying for the environmental effects of diesel emissions, for the health care of drivers and their families who can't afford insurance and for the congestion on freight routes that often run through residential neighborhoods"

I think we know a bit about that in Red Hook.

Wouldn't it be a good result to have a plan that promotes less pollution and better quality jobs? That's the kind of "2-fer" I like.

Maybe the plan could insist on a few driving lessons as well!