NYC Welcomes "Norwegian Breakaway" - West Side Residents Welcome More Unmitigated Pollution! (UPDATED: West Coast Stories)

Photo from NYCEDC blog.

This week, New York added a new cruise ship to the list of vessels calling our city's ports home. That ship is the "Norwegian Breakaway", which is the largest cruise ship to homeport in Manhattan. (The largest cruise ship that homeports in NYC - the Queen Mary 2 - berths at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook). Mayor Bloomberg, New York Cruise and the New York City Economic Development Corporation were all abuzz about the arrival of this ship and its imminent "christening".

The NYCEDC blog described the event this way:

This week, NYCEDC and Mayor Bloomberg joined Norwegian Cruise Line and the Rockettes to christen the Norwegian Breakaway, the largest cruise ship ever to port in NYC! The enormous 4,000-passenger vessel with Peter Max’s signature artwork on its hull was a sight to behold at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal at Pier 88.
“The arrival of the Norwegian Breakaway—the largest cruise ship to homeport in Manhattan—is another proof point of the growth and success of New York City’s $200 million cruise sector, a cornerstone of the City’s $55 billion tourism industry,” said Mayor Bloomberg.

The City and NYCEDC are always talking about the economic benefits of the cruise industry, but never talk about the economic and environmental impact of this industry - due to pollution, health impacts, and other factors. (Not to mention the fact that the cruise industry has a pretty poor record regarding labor law and in paying taxes. For example, over the past 5 years, Carnival paid only 1.1% in tax).

The lack of acknowledgement of this impact, particularly regarding the health impacts that the emissions of these visiting ships is having on our city's residents, prompted me to write this comment on the NYCEDC blog website:

Are your readers aware that these huge ships - like all ocean-going ships that visit the ports of New York (cruise, container and cargo) - are constantly idling while in port? While they berth at our city's terminals, often next to our most dense residential neighborhoods, they are continuously running their dirty diesel engines to supply the ship's electrical needs.

 The emissions that these ships' engines create while in port - equivalent to up to 30,000 cars - are high in sulfur and soot and the EPA regards them to be carcinogenic and asthma inducing, among their various well-documented negative health impacts. These impacts, says the EPA, are most acutely shouldered by our most vulnerable - our children, people with respiratory ailments (like asthma), the elderly and low income or minority communities.

As toxic as they are, there is a way to stop these harmful substances being emitted while the ships are in port. That is to "plug-in" the ships to the city's electric grid - using what is called "shore power" - thereby allowing the ships to turn off their dirty diesel engines while in port (this is a practice called "cold ironing"). Despite the fact that this practice has been used widely in many places - like on the West Coast (Ports of LA, Long Beach, etc.) - and has been used by the US Navy for over 50 years, East Coast ports have not one single port with "shore power" in use. (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in New York is supposed to be the first on the East Coast to do so in 2014 - after a long fought effort by the community to make it happen - but no infrastructure has yet been built, and until it is up and running, no one is counting that chicken).

The Ports of NY and NJ make up the third largest port complex in the nation - behind the West Coast ports I mentioned. Compared to the actions taken by the mayors, etc. of those West Coast cities, why hasn't the administration of this city taken the emissions of these ships seriously, especially when there is a way to actually eliminate those emissions - one that is tried and proven in those other port cities?

Yes, the cruise industry and shipping industry is having a positive impact on our city's economy, but without these pollution mitigating technologies, there is a tremendous price being paid - often unknowingly - by our port-side residents. Are the residents of the West Side of Manhattan even aware that these huge ships - sometimes 3 at a time - are all idling while berthed at the edge of their neighborhood, spewing fumes over their heads and into their children's lungs? Why don't they know? Isn't it the City's obligation to educate these residents about the poisons that are being injected by these ships into their air?

The fact is, the City never acknowledges the burden that is being shouldered by our city's residents in negative health impacts due to the emissions of ships and other port activities.

The City and NYCEDC are constantly touting the economic benefits of our cruise industry, but never a mention of any of the negative impacts - on our health and environment. For an administration that prides itself on its "green" credentials, that is shameful. History will not look kindly on the inaction of Mayor Bloomberg, the NYCEDC and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in tackling the impact of port emissions over the last 10 years.

There's still time to do something, but the record - as of now - is a pretty sorry one.


UPDATE: WEST COAST STORIES

In case you wondered what was happening on the West Coast, check out these articles -

Ship and Bunker: "Millions of Dollars Being Spent on Shore Side Power"

Maritime Executive: "Long Beach: Port, Terminals, Ships Investing in Shore Power"

. 

Friends of the Earth's "Annual Report 2012 : The Faces of Change" Highlights Our Efforts to Eliminate Cruise Ship Pollution in Red Hook

Friends of the Earth just published their Annual Report for 2012 (from this page you can download the whole report as a PDF). This year they are calling their report "The Faces of Change" and in it you will, in their words, "read the stories of everyday individuals who are fighting heroically to protect the environment from the abuses of corporations seeking to maximize profit while ignoring environmental impacts, or standing up to government agencies and policies that fail to protect the environment, or working to rebuild after extreme weather disasters like Superstorm Sandy."

In this year's report, Friends of the Earth decided to focus on seven individuals, and I am honored to say that they chose to include me, this blog, our community and the efforts we have all made, over many years, to eliminate cruise ship pollution in Red Hook.

The piece on Red Hook highlights the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal "shore power" plan, which will allow the idling cruise ships to turn off their dirty-diesel engines while in port and plug into the city's electricity grid, thereby eliminating tons of dangerous emissions - NOx, SOx, PM (soot), CO2 - which currently spew over our neighborhood (and beyond) and into our residents' lungs. NOTE: Although the shore power plan was approved nearly 2 years ago, as this South Brooklyn Post article reminds us, it has yet to come "on-line". The most recent statements from the City state that the plan will be up and running in 2014. Meanwhile, these carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances still continue to pump out of the idling cruise ships (and container ships too - but that's another story) that berth at our residential neighborhood's waterfront.

Please find below excerpts from the Friends of the Earth "Annual Report 2012: Faces of Change" (click on the images to enlarge)

I am certainly grateful to Friends of the Earth for highlighting our local story and this important issue. I would like to thank John Kaltenstein who works on these issues for Friends of the Earth and advocates for better maritime environmental standards at the IMO (International Maritime Organization) and elsewhere. He contacted me many years ago when he saw that I was trying to raise awareness of the dangers of port pollution in Red Hook and throughout the ports of New York and New Jersey - from the emissions of ships, trucks and other sources - and he encouraged me to keep getting out the word, sharing information, and himself sharing information with me and drawing attention to the issue in articles like this in Sustainable Shipping - "The Big Apple's Big Shipping Pollution Problem". John made the suggestion to his colleague, Lisa Stone, who is the publications manager at FOE, to include our story in this year's report. FOE has played a tremendous role in raising awareness of the dangers of ship emissions, whether from cruise ships, container ships, or other large oceangoing vessels. They have worked on establishing better emissions standards for ships, through the use of lower sulfur fuels and the establishment of "Emissions Control Areas", as is being implemented in the coastal waters of North America, and have pressed for the use of shore power. They have highlighted the environmental impacts of the cruise industry, and every year release a "Cruise Report Card" which allows potential vacationers to assess and compare a cruise ship or cruise line's "environmental and human health impacts". (FYI - The Queen Mary 2 gets an "F" for "air pollution reduction"). Their work on these matters has been exemplary.

Our inclusion in the Annual Report is heartening recognition of the effort that our community has made on these important issues. But it's still important to recognize that we've still got a long way to go - in Red Hook, our city, and around the country.

As I stated, the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal "shore power" plan still isn't up and running. I haven't heard that there has been any negative impact on that plan resulting from the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy - whether it be delays or otherwise - but the NYCEDC and Port Authority haven't been the most communicative entities in the City, so we'll just have to hope everything is going according to plan.

Also, this shouldn't be the end of the establishment of shore power at our city's ports, it should be the beginning. There should be a plan to use this technology throughout our ports  - the third largest in the country - at cruise ship terminals (hello West Side!) and container terminals, as is being done on the West Coast and elsewhere. Mayor Bloomberg has not been very outspoken on these issues, and though the acknowledgment of "port pollution" made it into the City's "Vision 2020 - Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" (barely, because initial drafts of the plan made no mention of the pollution impacts of ships, ports, etc. - nor ways to mitigate that pollution!), the issue gets no exposure through the Mayor's office, nor - to its great shame - through the press. Perhaps a new Mayor will be more "out front" on port pollution issues, as any mayor of a great port city should be, but we'll have to see about that.

It's clear that these issues are also gaining awareness around the country and world. I constantly see stories (though rarely in our local press) about the impacts of port pollution, the health and environmental burden that portside communities are bearing for the "economic benefit" of cruise terminals, container ports, and other stories about these issues. Look at the current debate in Savannah, Georgia where they are considering building a cruise terminal and note the impact that a similar cruise terminal in Charleston, S.C. has had on its community - "A Savannah Cruise Port: Host Cities Pay the Price". Referring to the "bunker fuel" that large ocean-going ships burn while at sea and while idling in port, the Savannah Morning News article states:

“Bunker fuel is so dirty that even the cleaner bunker fuel is hundreds of times dirtier than on-road diesel fuel,” Keever said, referring to the fact that the current fuel is 650 times dirtier than truck diesel fuel. 

Cruise ships run their engines while in port to power the cabins for passengers and crew.
For a 2,500-passenger ship with a crew of 1,000, the sulfur dioxide emissions for a 10-hour stay equal that of more than 34,000 diesel trucks idling for the same amount of time, based on calculations vetted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Then there is the story from Maritime Professional about Hong Kong - "Ship Emissions an Afterthought at Hong Kong Cruise Terminal".

This is a very familiar story to the residents of Red Hook.

There is much being done to try to fight for measures to reduce this pollution and its terrible health impacts - whether locally or globally - on our port-side communities, often borne by the most vulnerable. Friends of the Earth have been at the forefront of that fight.

I so appreciate Friends of the Earth raising the awareness of Red Hook's part of the story, and I am honored to be included in their Annual Report 2012 as someone who has played a role in that story - as a "Face of Change".

AA

.

A Personal Post: Red Hook - A Week After Sandy

I don't usually write posts of a personal nature on this blog, but I wrote an email to my family in Australia about the week we've had here in Red Hook, and I thought some others might like to read about our experience through Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath.

(I edited it a little to make it more suitable for this blog)

It's been a tumultuous week. After the initial shock of the flood - and finding out that our house's garden apartment had been submerged to the ceiling - the first days after Hurricane Sandy had taken its terrible toll on our neighborhood were both euphoric and sadly surreal.

The first morning after the hurricane, all we could do was walk down to the neighborhood and survey the damage that had been inflicted on our house. Through the debris strewn streets, passing by cars lifted and dumped by the floodwaters, left parked at weird angles in strange places, stepping over the broken branches and tree limbs lying in Coffey Park, we walked to our street - Pioneer Street. The roadway was covered in a thick blanket of leaves - presumably originating from the park - carried with a river of refuse into Pioneer Street by the massive storm surge. Our garden apartment was still flooded, filled with a few feet of water which was slowly going down. Looking through the open broken door - lock smashed open by the force of the water - every surface of the apartment was coated in muck - a mixture of dirt, oil, potting mix from the plants and large planters washed inside - and the place was scattered with destroyed furniture. A jumble of shelves, mattresses, various unidentifiable household objects floated in dark, stinking water. Ceilings, walls and appliances were coated in the mucky dirt, and the refrigerator lay on its side, resting between the stove top and a kitchen counter, lifted and placed there as if it was a giant Jenga block. The back door was blown open, too. Our yard in the back was strewn with furniture, plants wilting from the soaking of brackish water. Neighbors came by, home and shop owners, all shell-shocked in disbelief that the damage had been so bad and the waters had risen so high - to waist height in the middle of the street. So many of our Red Hook neighbors in the same situation as we were. Houses wrecked and lives upended.

The next day was spent cleaning out all of the muck in our house. We had no electricity, but we had lots of help - friends, friends of friends, and our tenant (now ex-tenant) who had been renting the flood-wrecked apartment. He had a lot of people over cleaning up stuff - furnishings, kitchen stuff, beds, etc - and either trying to salvage them or throw them out on the street. The day proceeded well and by the end of the day we had pretty much cleaned the apartment out - hosed out, with all of the weird refuse - including crazy amounts of leaves mixed with other stinky muck, plants, garbage bins, furniture from who knows where - all removed. Everyone on the street was staying positive, helping each other out and talking about cleaning up, rebuilding, and how our little neighborhood of Red Hook would get through all of this - and come out the other side even stronger.

During the day the street had accumulated growing piles of stuff, all up and down - furniture, clothes, electronics - piled on the footpaths in huge mounds and spilling on to the street. This was the scene throughout Red Hook.

We finished the day feeling like we'd got a lot done, and when we came back to our friends' place, where we had been staying since evacuating (which is only a 10 minute walk away in the area called Carroll Gardens) it was another world - tranquil, neat, beautiful houses, windows glowing with warm lights -  seemingly cocooned from the chaos and disaster that is Red Hook.

On the next day, school cancelled, the city in virtual shut-down with no subway, tunnels flooded, etc., and leaving the kids with friends, my wife and I went back to the neighborhood. At that stage we felt like we had done enough to clean out our house (at least for the time being), so we went to friends and neighbors on our street who were struggling - not only with the clean out, but with the enormity of the event and its ramifications. Some were paralyzed, refusing to let anyone help or remove any prized, damaged possessions. Back yards were littered with the detritus of the storm, concrete block fences collapsed and trees washed onto their sides. One friend had lost his entire life's work as a film maker, one had his collection of movie memorabilia and models lying in stinking sludge, another young woman - recently moved in -  had lost all of her belongings. It was sad. We did our best to help whoever we could - cleaning kitchens out, cutting up furniture so it could be removed, running errands. It was tough, but at the very least we felt like things were moving forward. Many friends and volunteers came down and helped - organized by local groups. Store and restaurant owners were getting stuff cleaned up as best they could - still without electricity - but were still finding the energy to set up barbecues to feed people and making free coffee for all. It was very inspiring. Again, we returned to our cozy temporary home to chat about elections, have a nice meal and collapse in bed - exhausted.

On Friday, my wife had to go to an appointment so she rode her bike into Manhattan as the subways were still not operating, and the bridges were requiring 3 people minimum in a car to cross. She went off early, and after breakfast I took my 9 year old son down to Red Hook to see what we could do - help friends, etc. When we got to the house there was a pretty bad smell upstairs - in the "unaffected" part of our house, where our family lives. My son didn't want to stay or even enter as it smelled so bad. We went down to the lower floor and saw that the ceiling was looking black in spots and the whole place generally looking pretty bad - ceiling and walls saggy and funky. At that point I knew I had to pull everything out of the ceiling - at least. The water - and whatever else was in  it - had risen above the ceiling in the flood, and now I realized that the sheetrock and insulation above it was still soaking and filled with the floodwater. I took my son back to our friends to stay with our 15 year old daughter - and I picked up some tools and went back to the house, knowing I had to pull everything out of the ceiling. Coming back to the block I could see heavy moving equipment, sent in by the City, shoveling all of the refuse on the street into garbage trucks and trying to clear the debris-strewn street and sidewalks. I spent the day pulling all of the ceiling and insulation - all dripping wet - out and onto the street. Despite some lovely friends coming by with a hot pot of chili, sharing it with anyone on the street who was cold and hungry - it was a pretty miserable day. I checked in on a few neighbors and everyone was feeling pretty low - some teary, and all depressed at the prospect of dealing with the aftermath of the flood. We were hearing the stories of some of our favorite local stores devastated by the flooding. The Fairway supermarket had to throw out its entire contents - piles of food and produce spoilt. It will be closed for months. Home/Made, the Good Fork, and other local restaurants had been flooded over their table tops and needed to rip everything out and start again - who knows when they'll open. The same with local liquor stores, winemakers, furniture makers, delicatessens, lobster vendors, bakers, record distributors, artists, etc. It was rough. Frustratingly, there was no electricity and some still had water in their basements. We had a meeting - packed with residents - where FEMA came to talk to us about disaster assistance. It was reassuring, but unclear exactly how much we could expect. The stories also came - tales of escapes up stairs as windows were broken and water started filling houses, people trapped in cars with kids trying to escape, wading waist deep in storm water, storm surge coming from all directions. The frantic efforts to move stuff to higher floors, as the water rose 8 feet in 15 minutes. Scary. Our friend had been in Staten Island and had woken up to water at her chest, only just being able to escape through a window. She lost everything - car, clothes, furniture, TV - everything. There were the horrific stories from Rockaway, Breezy Point, Coney Island and the Jersey Shore and all up and down the coast . The whole picture - in Red Hook, New York and elsewhere - was shocking and depressing. I was about to head home and then spotted the National Guard in their many military vehicles lined up in the next street. They were there to deliver food and water to the thousands of people in public houses - many who had also been without water, food, heat and electricity - some trapped in their high-rise buildings with no working elevators. There was a line of hundreds of people waiting for help - it was a nice thing to see. The most positive thing that happened that day.

Saturday was a better day. While my wife took my son to football - the city parks had finally reopened so kids activities were resuming - I went down to the house and arrived to find friends already waiting to help. The day unfolded in the same way - many different friends - from mums and dads from our school to total strangers - turning up and asking what they could do. I had made the decision to try to strip most of the apartment of sheetrock as, again, it was still soaking and getting funkier by the day. There was still some insulation that was behind some of the walls and that was holding lots of water, so we all pitched in and got it done. I had brought gloves and masks, and some people turned up with shovels and crowbars and other tools, and we basically gutted the place. We pulled out most of the kitchen and lots of wood trim which was holding water. By the end of the day the apartment was mostly down to the studs. Neighbors bought food and shared it - people went and grabbed coffee and suplies - garbage bags, etc. and everyone pulled together. It was great - I was so grateful for the immense help these people offered so willingly. A FEMA inspector came by during the day and assessed the damage.  He told me that they would help with a new boiler and hot water system - all which had been under water entirely - and a new electric panel too. He said they will work with our flood insurance company (whose adjustor was to come the following day) and they will see what they can do together - so hopefully we will get some help from both. It's still not entirely clear where we will be financially after all of this, but we can also get low interest loans from FEMA and help form the city as well, so hopefully we'll just be able to work it out as we go along.

Sunday, five days and many, many person-hours later - much of it supplied by volunteers - our apartment looked like a shell - like it was 10 years ago when we first started renovating it - and we are talking about better ways to flood proof (or at least protect) it. We have people, again, offering help with rebuilding and at least we are some way towards getting things back in order. We still need electricity and a boiler to heat the place - it's getting cold - so we still can't move back into out house. But we feel like we're on our way. It's a good feeling and one that a number of us a sharing.

 The neighborhood, however, is still reeling. Businesses are going to need lots of help and support for a long time. A group of business owners have started an organization to aid the local stores, etc, -  restoreredhook.org Some neighbors are still struggling to get it together - organizationally and emotionally. Despite daily Sanitation Department clean ups, at the end of each day the street is again piled with debris - as are many streets. People are pulling more and more ruined stuff out of their houses and stores. It's a mess. People in public housing are probably doing it the toughest, confined in small apartments without heat, electricity, water or flushing toilets - and, as I said, no elevators in high rise buildings - so it's pretty bad. The great thing is there are many organizations that are stepping in to help, and apparently on Saturday we had 700 people volunteering in Red Hook - many of them helping people in public housing - so that's reassuring. There were many on Sunday too. People just walking down the street asking of we need help, supplies, food water, etc. - it's very comforting. Our local representatives have been regular visitors, and organizations such as the Red Hook Initiative, PortSide New York and the Visitation Church are coordinating volunteers and distributing food, supplies and clothes - even generators. It's been an amazing effort.

 On Monday - today - the kids went back to school. They're definitely feeling the effects of our dislocation - getting a bit emotional and missing their home - but also keeping up brave faces and, like my wife and I, grateful for the compassion and hospitality that our friends and neighbors have offered us, especially the dear friends who have given us somewhere to stay. We spent the day getting back to some regular work while also trying to co-ordinate contractors and tradesmen who will - hopefully - start replacing boilers and electric circuits so we can get back home ... that is as soon as the power comes on.

Even though Red Hook still has no power, most of Manhattan has electricity now, and the subways are getting back on line. Things seem to be getting back to some kind of normal. But we are very aware that there are still many places that won't recover for a long time. Red Hook had flooding - terrible, destructive flooding - but in other neighborhoods and towns people's homes were washed away, or burnt down, or were reduced to a pile of rubble. People died .... so we're not feeling too bad.

I think that's the case for most of Red Hook.

At this exact time a week ago, the night of Sandy, my friend and I battled through the waning, yet still barreling winds of the hurricane, over to the streets of Red Hook, trying to get to the house to see if the horror stories that we had been hearing, via Twitter and Facebook, from our friends who had remained in Red Hook through the storm were true. As we approached Coffey Park at Columbia Street, even though the waters were subsiding, we couldn't get any further. We were blocks away, but the water was still feet high - looking down the flooded street towards the harbor all I could see was water. It was an ominous sign.

There's much to contemplate this week, after such an event as Hurricane Sandy. It's impact and aftermath should inspire a torrent of questions, many which have direct relationship to the issues that I've written about on this blog - the negative effects of pollution and greenhouse gasses; the importance of thoughtful waterfront planning; the issues of environmental justice; the urgency to move our economy towards the use of green energy.

Those discussions will have to wait for another day - hopefully, very soon.

But for now, all I can think is ... what an incredible, tumultuous week it's been - for my family, for Red Hook, for our city and for our country.

Be safe, everyone.

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

.

TODAY: North American "Emission Contol Area" Begins. Cruise Ship Industry Seeks To Undermine New Clean Air Rules They Helped to Create.

Today is a good day. August 1st, 2012, marks the beginning of the North American ECA - the "Emission Control Area" - with new rules that require ships using North American waters to use cleaner fuel and thereby create less harmful pollution.

*** Please sign a petition to protect these rules - HERE  ***

Here is part of the press release from Friends of the Earth.

An Emission Control Area to reduce air pollution from ships in the waters around North America goes into effect today, two years after the International Maritime Organization approved an application from the U.S. and Canada to create this lower pollution zone. The rule’s measures will prevent tons of harmful pollutants from entering the atmosphere from ships’ smokestacks. Many of these air pollutants, like particulates and smog-forming compounds, significantly impact the health of coastal communities and can travel hundreds of miles inland as well. The EPA estimates that implementing the Emission Control Area will prevent between 12,000 and 31,000 premature deaths each year across the U.S. and save billions of dollars in health care costs by 2030.

The promise of cleaner air for tens of millions of Americans comes from the requirement for ships, over a period of time, to burn fuels with lower and lower levels of sulfur, thereby reducing harmful emissions which are known to be carcinogenic, asthma inducing and otherwise harmful to human health. As the FOE press release states, these rules and the conditions for the phase-in of lower sulfur fuels were arrived at over a period of years - 5 years of negotiations at the IMO (International Maritime Organization), in fact - and the shipping industry has been aware of the coming rules and has worked with the EPA to work out contingencies to address conditions that make it difficult for ships to meet these requirements - for example, unavailability of low sulfur fuel, lack of compatibility due to certain engines, age of ship, etc.

There has been some negative reaction to the prospect of the new ECA applying to certain regions, such as Alaska, where some have stated that fuel expenses will increase by 8% if shipping companies are forced to use the cleaner burning fuel, and those additional costs will be passed on to Alaska's consumers in their food prices, goods, etc. The EPA estimates that in 2015, when the full requirements of the ECA will come into force, the more expensive fuel will add "$18 to the cost of shipping a 20-foot container."  I'll leave you to assess whether that is too much of a burden.

However, the industry that is perhaps now doing the most to undermine these new rules, is the cruise ship industry.

Yes, that's right, the cruise ship industry - comprised of many companies that pay very little tax, like Carnival's 1.1% rate - are saying the added cost is unmanageable. They're not saying it so much out loud, but in the backrooms of Washington they're lobbying and arm twisting to try to water down these new life saving rules. Here's what the Friends of the Earth press release says:

Yet even in the face of progress, the cruise industry is working to water down the ECA, lobbying Congress and the Obama administration to put in place measures that would allow it to bypass the ECA’s protective rules. The cruise industry claims that it will have to avoid North American waters if the ECA’s standards go into effect, citing increasing costs due to the switch to less polluting fuel and replacing ship equipment to accommodate that fuel. The industry’s recent efforts include attempts to amend the ECA to exempt cruise ships from the cleaner fuel requirements in less populated areas like Alaska and Hawaii. If the industry’s efforts are successful, it will significantly increase risks for asthma and other air pollution related diseases.  

The press release continues -

 “The shipping industry, including the cruise lines, fully participated in the IMO’s five years of deliberations on the treaty amendments that included the current ECA protections and the adoption of the North American ECA itself,” observed David Marshall, Senior Counsel with the Clean Air Task Force and a participant in those negotiations. “The cruise line industry has had several years to prepare for its requirements, but instead is mounting an 11th hour effort to convince Congress and EPA to adopt proposals that would violate the international treaty that the United Stated has ratified and is bound by.”

To combat these lobbying efforts, Friends of the Earth has started a petition to protect these landmark rules to reduce air pollution from ships. The petition is addressed to EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

You can find the petition HERE.

I urge you to sign this petition so that we can be confident that the full implementation of the new ECA is successful. If it is, it will be yet another step in the direction of cleaning our air and our lungs of the harmful emissions from ships.

We know what is required: Stopping the use of bunker fuel - the ultra dirty diesel that ships currently use that is thousands of time more dirty and harmful than the diesel that trucks use; the implementation and use of technologies such as shore power, that have the potential to eliminate emissions created by ships when they are in port, benefiting nearby vulnerable residential populations, by plugging them in to the electricity grid instead of idling; and, yes, the creation of ECAs, such as this one, that will reduce harmful emissions created by ships using our coastal waters.

Do we need any more reasons?

Here's one more, via this article -  here -  "(The EPA) estimates that by 2020, the overall cost of implementing the rules will be $3.2 billion while monetized health-related benefits in the U.S. could be as high as $110 billion."

Now that's a good deal. 

ED. NOTE (8/6/12): The introduction of the ECA is only part of the solution to the ship pollution problem. The "cleaner" fuel to which I'm referring, even when the most stringent 2015 rules come into effect, will still be nearly 70 times dirtier than the diesel that trucks can legally use. After 2015, there will still be significant emissions produced by ships at sea, and when they idle while in port. The use of these cleaner fuels should not make us feel complacent about the impacts of ship emissions, particularly when they impact dense residential populations. The most effective way to eliminate harmful emissions of ships while in port and protect vulnerable port-side communities from the impact of these emissions is the use of shore power.

Port Authority's Press Release on Brooklyn Cruise Terminal Shore Power Plan

 I thought I'd post the Port Authority's press release regarding the approval of the shore power plan for the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. It seems like the situation with the shortfall in funds  - the sticking point in making this plan a reality - was resolved by the Empire State Development Corporation, which shifted some funds from the New York ports dredging commitment to the shore power plan.

The press release also states that Governor Cuomo had a hand in making this all work, and if that means that he is aware of the importance of investment in this sort of life-saving and environmentaly friendly technology to our city, its ports and our residents, that's a very good thing.

Given the Port Authority's initial reluctance to make up the shortfall in getting the shore power plan up and running, it was pleasing to read Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye's statement saying that “The return on our investment in this project will be measured in the tons of toxins removed from the environment, cleaner air and better health for Brooklyn residents who live in the neighborhoods near the terminal.”

He goes further, stating, "The Port Authority has a long-standing and unwavering commitment to safeguarding the environment in the communities that host our facilities and across the bi-state region we serve."

Well, in reality, the Port Authority has been pretty slow in acknowledging the negative environmental and health impacts that the activities of the ports have our city's residents - especially our most vulnerable. In one of the meetings that I attended, convened by the City Council's Committee on Waterfronts, under the heading "Greening New York City's Working Waterfront", the Port Authority spokesperson, Richard Larrabee, went out of his way to understate and minimize the pollution impacts that the activities of our city's ports create. In my post covering that meeting, (here), and in testimony I made to that committee, I tried to set the record straight. Here's what I stated -

"The facts are, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (via this article from John Kaltenstein, Friends of the Earth) the yearly operations of the Ports of NY and NJ (Ed Note - i.e. the ships visiting the ports) create as much pollution as 7.8 million cars. That's 7,000+ tons of NOx (nitrogen oxides), nearly 5,000 tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide) and 600 tons of Particulate Mater (PM)."

"Ships create 91% of the SO2, 47% of the NOx, and 62% of the particulates the operations of the port produces - that's information from the Port Authority. Trucks that service the ports also contribute significant percentages of these substances, with 25% of the NOx, 12% of PM and 37% of CO2."

It was clear, at that time, that the Port Authority was hardly coming clean on this stuff. My point was that until the Port Authority acknowledged the contribution that the activities of their ports had in creating this dangerous pollution, how could they ever meaningfully address it?

And they have been slow to do anything in the way of shore power - Brooklyn will be the first - and even in getting a comprehensive "clean truck" program up and running, we're dawdling. The truth is that this city and its agencies are way behind their West Coast counterparts on "green port" matters.

Even regarding this shore power plan for the cruise ships visiting the Brooklyn Terminal, when the Port Authority came to our community in 2009 and told us that they were going to get this plan up and running - after years of community activism calling for this life saving technology to be used at the new "state of the art" terminal in Red Hook - the PA spokesperson, when asked, said that he'd only know about shore power for "a couple of years". Now, this is a technology that has been used by the US Navy for over 50 years, has been increasingly implemented on the West Coast after its first use more than a decade ago, and has been available in many other countries around the world. For someone representing an entity called the Port Authority to make this statement was astounding to me.

Anyway - all of that history aside - these statements from Mr. Foye are pleasing and seem to show increased acknowledgement of the impacts of port pollution on our residents and of the Port Authority's responsibility to address and reduce those negative health impacts. As I've said many times, this Brooklyn plan should be the first step in implementing this type of life saving technology throughout our ports. We have the 3rd largest port complex in the country, outside of Long Beach and Los Angeles. In those West Coast ports, much has been done with these technologies, with all types of ships - cruise, container, etc. They've seen the value in it. The Mayor of Long Beach, Bob Foster, stated that plugging a large container ship in to shore-power "takes enough pollution out of the air to equal 33,000 cars”. That's a huge reduction in carcinogenic and asthma inducing emissions, not to mention green house gases.

So, there's still lots to be done here, in New York.

Perhaps the recent statements from the Port Authority acknowledge that.

If so, hopefully the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal will be the first of many, similar shore power berths around our city.

One thing's for sure - this is a good start.

Here is the Port Authority press release -

 June 28, 2012

PORT AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH INSTALLATION OF SHORE POWER TECHNOLOGY AT BROOKLYN CRUISE TERMINAL

Board authorizes funds to pay unique first-of-its-kind environmental project

Construction of the East Coast’s first shore power port facility will move forward toward a 2014 completion following today’s action by the Port Authority’s Board of Commissioners. The project will create 30 jobs and result in $22 million in economic activity.

At its monthly meeting, the Board authorized additional funds provided by the Empire State Development Corporation needed to complete the $19.3 million shore power port facility. The project will allow cruise ships serving the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal to plug in to a more environmentally friendly electrical landside power source rather than operating on their diesel generated power while at the dock.

“The cruise industry is a vital contributor to the region’s economy, and today’s action will ensure it continues to drive job growth and economic activity,” said Port Authority Vice Chairman Scott Rechler. “Today’s action makes good economic sense, is good for the environment and will help make the port more competitive.”

“The Port Authority has a long-standing and unwavering commitment to safeguarding the environment in the communities that host our facilities and across the bi-state region we serve,” said Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye. “I want to thank Governor Cuomo for his leadership on this issue, which will create jobs and sustain the long term viability of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The return on our investment in this project will be measured in the tons of toxins removed from the environment, cleaner air and better health for Brooklyn residents who live in the neighborhoods near the terminal.”

“Shore Power will help Brooklyn breath a little easier while maintaining the competitiveness of one of its greatest assets, the working waterfront,” said Kenneth Adams, President & CEO, Empire State Development. “Under Governor Cuomo’s leadership, we look forward to continuing to work with our partners at the Port Authority to strengthen the economy of the harbor while ensuring a cleaner environment.”

“Shore powers means Brooklyn will be able to breathe a little easier. The implementation of our agreement gets us closer to ending the dirty and dangerous fumes spewed by idling cruise ships at the Red Hook port - and that’s good news for Brooklynites and for our environment,” said Senator Daniel Squadron. “Thank you to the Port Authority, Empire State Development and all of our colleagues and partners who made today’s great news possible.”

Ships serving the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal are typically in port for up to 11 hours loading and unloading passengers and supplies. While docked, the ship’s power is supplied by auxiliary engines on board the vessel, which are typically powered by high sulfur diesel fuel. The use of shore power will allow two ships calling on the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - Queen Mary 2, and Caribbean Princess - to connect to an electrical grid on the dock and turn off their engines. The environmental benefits include an annual reduction of 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 95 tons of nitrous oxide, and 6.5 tons of particulate matter.

Funding for the project includes $12.1 million from the Port Authority, a $2.9 million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On Tuesday, the Empire State Development Corporation voted to allocate $4.3 million from the Port Authority’s Bistate Dredging commitment to New York State to the shore power project. In addition, Princess and Cunard will spend up to $4 million to retrofit its ships. The New York Power Authority will supply electricity to the cruise lines at a fixed and discounted rate for a period of five years, which is valued at roughly $2 million per year.

The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is owned by the Port Authority and managed by the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

CONTACT: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Steve Coleman, 212 435-7777

FINALLY ... Port Authority OKs Shore Power at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

Photo: Joshua Kristal, South Brooklyn Post

Brooklyn residents will be happy to hear that, yesterday, the Port Authority - finally! - gave the go-ahead for the use of shore power for cruise ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. The news came via a press release from State Senator Daniel Squadron who has been a strong and outspoken supporter of this plan, often citing the health benefits that the plugging-in of these idling, dirty-diesel burning, sea-going behemoths would bring to his port-side constituents and communities beyond. The Port Authority, though technically committing to the shore power plan 18 months ago, had been balking at some additional expenditures that would be required to get the infrastructure built to make shore power a reality at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The total additional expenditure required was said to be only half of the estimated *yearly* health benefits that the change to pollution mitigating shore power would bring to Brooklyn residents, according to the Port Authority's own statements - those savings being $9 Million per year. However, somehow the Port Authority was still struggling with the worthiness of the extra investment.

It seems like the pressure applied by our representatives - State Senator Daniel Squadron, City Councilmember Brad Lander, CM Sarah Gonzalez, Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez - as well as advocacy from Community Board 6 and our own community members and organizations, made the Port Authority see the light. So, yesterday, the plan's full funding was approved.

Here is part of the text from Senator Squadron's press release (full text here):

The agreement, which was reached over a year ago at the urging of Senator Squadron and other community leaders but was not approved until today, will allow cruise ships to plug into the electrical grid rather than burning diesel fuels while idling at the port. The Port Authority expects implementation to be completed by 2014.

Senator Squadron released the following statement:

"Brooklyn just breathed a sigh of relief -- because shore power means we'll be able to breathe a little easier. The implementation of our agreement gets us closer to ending the dirty and dangerous fumes spewed by cruise ships idling in the Red Hook port, which is good news for Brooklynites and good news for our environment.

"For two years, I worked with the community and my colleagues in government, including Congresswoman Velazquez and Councilman Lander, to push for the agreement that's made shore power possible.  By implementing the agreement, the Port Authority will make New York a leader as the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal becomes the first on the East Coast to adopt this cleaner, healthier technology.

As the statement notes, this will be the first terminal in New York and on the entire East Coast to use shore power - despite this life-saving and environmentally friendly technology being used extensively on the West Coast; first being used over 10 years ago in Juneau, Alaska; used by the US Navy for over 50 years; and implemented in many other parts of the world.

Hopefully, the Brooklyn plan will set a precedent for the wider use of shore power by all types of ocean-going ships in our city's ports - the 3rd largest in the country - and elsewhere on the East Coast. Then these carcinogenic and asthma inducing emissions created by the idling ships can be eliminated and the resultant health and environmental benefits shared by even more of our city and country's residents, especially our most vulnerable - the elderly, kids with asthma, low-income communities, etc.

But, for now, we can be happy that in 2014 - as well as looking forward to the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also approved yesterday - the big cruise ships visiting Brooklyn will be turning off their engines, plugging-in to our electrical grid, and our port-side communities can look forward to breathing a little easier.

.