APPENDIX T – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS AND PUBLIC ...€¦ · APPENDIX T – COMMENTS...

Kosciuszko Bridge Project ii May 2008

APPENDIX T – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS

AND PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS AND COMMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Comments Received on the DEIS A.1. Clyde B. Giaquinto, P.E., Planning Engineer, US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service A.2. Manny Weiss, Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration A.3. Mary York A.4. Michael Heimbinder, Habitatmap.org A.5. Katry Harris, Historic Preservation Specialist, Office of Federal Agency Programs,

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation A.6. Harvey Botzman, Cyclotour Guide Books A.7. Clifford Fee A.8. Zora O’Neill A.9. Erika Jakubassa A.10. Msgr. Fursey O’Toole, Pastor, St. Cecilia’s Roman Catholic Church A.11. Mortimer Korchin A.12. Joseph Nelson, P.E. & L.S. A.13. Walter Iwachiw A.14. Noah S. Budnick, Transportation Alternatives A.15. Nena Choudri A.16. Sema Choudri A.17. Peter D. Colosi, Jr., Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service

A.18. Vincent Arcuri, Chairperson, Queens Community Board 5 A.19. Beth A. Cumming, Historic Preservation Specialist – Technical Unit, New York State

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation A.20. Hector Rodriguez A.21. Marlene Zaslavsky A.22. Lenox Stonehill A.23. Barry Mastellone A.24. Donald Passantino A.25. Richard Antone A.26. Moishe Strum, Office of Construction Mitigation and Coordination – Highways, New

York City Department of Transportation A.27. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District, US Coast Guard A.28. Joseph Giulietti, Superintendent, Calvary Cemetery A.29. Steven C. Podd A.30. John Filipelli, Chief Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch, US

Environmental Protection Agency A.31. Ryan Kuonen, New York City Bicycle Coalition A.32. Mary Gottlieb, Meeker Avenue/Apollo Street Association A.33. Mark J. Kulewicz, AAA New York A.34. Ronald Buchanan, Jr., Manager, Remediation Projects, Phelps Dodge Refining

Corp.

Kosciuszko Bridge Project ii May 2008

A.35. Guido Cianciotta, President and Theresa Cianciotta, Vice President, Concerned Citizens of Withers Street and Area Block Association

A.36. Miriam Wink A.37. Teresa Toro, Transportation Committee, Brooklyn Community Board 1 A.38. Vincent Abate, Chairman, Brooklyn Community Board 1 A.39. Marty Markowitz, Brooklyn Borough President A.40. Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, New York State Assembly A.41. Dan Chorost, Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. B. April 19th Public Hearing (Brooklyn) Transcript – Speakers in Order of Appearance B.1. Christine Holowacz, St. Cecilia’s Roman Catholic Church B.2. Dorothy Swick, St. Cecilia’s Roman Catholic Church B.3. Laura Hofmann, Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks & Planning B.4. Rosalie Washack B.5. George Perez C. April 26th Public Hearing (Queens) Transcript – Speakers in Order of Appearance C.1. Cathryn Keeshan, President, United Forties Civic Association C.2. Adam Gold C.3. Ed Weiss C.4. Zbigniew Midura C.5. Connie Ziccardi C.6. Richard Gualtieri C.7. Tes Choudri C.8. Nena Choudri C.9. Akhtar Choudri C.10. Anthony Nunziato, Maspeth Chamber of Commerce C.11. Sal Trovato C.12. Barbara Vetell, Greenpoint West Street Block Association C.13. Anna Casalino C.14. Vincent Vespole

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PUBLIC HEARING

Polish National Home261 Driggs AvenueBrooklyn, New York

April 19, 200711:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.

Angie DePompoCourt Reporting Service

86 Kensico StreetStaten Island, New York 10306

(718) 667-9484

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

Angie DePompo Court Reporting Service(718) 667-9484

APPEARANCES:

HONORABLE PETER LOOMIS MODERATOR

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONby ROBERT L. ADAMS, P.E. PROJECT ENGINEER, STRUCTURES

ANTHONY GREENE ACTING REAL ESTATE OFFICER

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: It is about five

minutes after eleven, so I think we will

begin.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Peter Loomis. I'm an

Administrative Law Judge with the New York

State Department of Transportation in

Albany, and I have been asked to moderate

today's Public Hearing on the Kosciuszko

Bridge Project.

I would like to begin by welcoming

you all to this Public Hearing, which is

being sponsored by the New York State

Department of Transportation, also known

as DOT, in cooperation with the Federal

Highway Administration.

Today is the first of two Hearings.

The next Hearing will be held next

Thursday in Queens.

The purpose of the Hearings is to

review the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement, generally referred to as the

Draft EIS, that has been prepared for the

Kosciuszko Bridge Project, describe the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41 Public Hearing


alternatives under consideration and their

potential impacts, and to receive your

comments on the document.

Although the official Hearing is for

the receipt of testimony, it does not

offer an opportunity for questions and

answers. You are invited and, in fact,

encouraged to ask questions of DOT

representatives and DOT's engineering and

environmental consultants in the Open

House area in the other part of the

building, at any time during the Hearing.

This morning, we will first discuss

the background of the project, and then

describe the alternatives presented in the

Draft EIS, along with a comparative

analysis of a no-build and five build

alternatives, that are under

consideration.

The presentation will also include a

review of DOT's acquisition and relocation

policies and procedures. The remainder of

the Hearing will provide an opportunity

for you to offer testimony and comment for

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51 Public Hearing


the official record.

Before we begin, there is a few

housekeeping items that I need to cover.

There is no smoking in the building,

obviously, and I would ask to also remind

you that there is no eating or drinking

allowed in this room, although you are

welcome to do so in the other area, and,

please, no use of cell phones or pagers,

and there is an emergency exit in the back

of this room.

At this time, I would like to

introduce the persons who are seated with

me. On my right is Robert Adams, who is

the Kosciuszko Bridge Project Manager for

New York State DOT, and on my left is

Anthony Greene, the Acting Real Estate

Officer for Region 11 of New York State

DOT.

This Public Hearing is being

conducted in accordance with a variety of

statutory requirements. The first being,

23 U.S. Code, Section 128, which requires

Public Hearings on major transportation

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61 Public Hearing


projects. The Hearings are also being

conducted in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Section

4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966,

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water

Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act,

as well as New York State's Environmental

Quality Review Act.

In preparation for the Hearings, a

number of specific activities were

undertaken to provide maximum opportunity

for public participation. Upon completion

of the Draft EIS in March, over two

hundred copies of the document were

distributed to City, State, Regional and

Federal agencies, elected officials,

members of the Stakeholders Advisory

Committee, business representatives and

other interested persons.

Additionally, the Draft EIS and its

nineteen appendices were also placed in

the project's eleven information

repositories, as well as on the project

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71 Public Hearing


website.

In addition, in advance of the

Hearing, an information package was

distributed to approximately 850

individuals and organizations on the

project mailing list. This package

included a letter of invitation from Norik

Tatevossian, Director of Structures from

New York State DOT, Region 11, an

executive summary of the Draft EIS, a

sample copy of the Public Hearing notice,

as well as flyers announcing the Hearings,

and all of those are available out at the

sign-in desk if you did not receive them

and would like a copy.

As required by Federal and State

Regulations, notice of the Public Hearings

today and next Thursday, as well as

availability of the Draft EIS, was

published in the New York State Department

of Environmental Conservation's

Environmental Notice Bulletin on March 21,

2007, as well as in the March 23, 2007

edition of the Federal Register.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81 Public Hearing


In addition, display advertisements

were placed in numerous local, citywide

and foreign language newspapers beginning

on March 16th, and sample copies of those

documents are also available at the sign-

in desk, and then they are posted in the

Open House area, and I will just read the

dates of publication in the newspapers,

for the record: El Periodico, March 16th

and April 16th, New York Daily News, March

20th, 22nd and April 10th, the Western

Queens Gazette, March 21 and April 11th,

the Queens Chronicle, March 22 and April

12th, America Oggi, March 20 and April 10,

Polish Daily News, March 20 and April 10,

the Greenpoint-Williamsburg Gazette, March

20 and April 10th, the Queens Ledger,

March 20 and April 12th -- March 22nd,

rather, and April 12th, Times Newsweekly,

March 22nd and April 12th, and Greenline,

the April 2007 edition, and copies of

those will be received for the record as

Exhibit 1.

I would also like to note two

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91 Public Hearing


additional means of notifying the public

of the availability of the Draft EIS and

of the scheduling of these Public

Hearings. A provision of Community

Calendar announcements to local

newspapers, public television stations and

neighborhood organizations, and with the

help of our Stakeholders Advisory

Committee, distribution of over 8,000

English, Spanish and Polish flyers

throughout the Brooklyn and Queens project

areas.

There's a few procedural issues I

would like to discuss. Following this

morning's technical presentation by Mr.

Adams and Mr. Greene, we will welcome your

statements and comments. If you have not

registered and would like to speak, you

need to fill out one of these cards at the

sign-in desk, and please do so if you have

not done so. Requests for speaking time

will be honored in the order in which the

cards are received. Persons who have not

pre-registered will be called upon to

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

101 Public Hearing


speak in the order in which the time slots

become available. And this is important;

each speaker will be allowed five minutes.

If you haven't handed in a card, again,

you'll have an opportunity to do so.

We do have a stenographer recording

the Hearing. A transcript of the

proceeding will become part of the record.

In addition, a videotape of the

presentation will be available for viewing

throughout the day, and I would ask, the

court reporter is using the sound system,

so, if you do make a comment or a public

statement about the project, please use

one of the microphones. Although the room

is small and we can all hear you, the

reporter will not be able to hear you.

Following the evaluation of public

testimony presented at the Hearing,

together with written comments and

exhibits which are submitted by the

deadline, which I will discuss, a Final

EIS will be prepared. This document will

announce the selection of the preferred

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111 Public Hearing


alternative by New York State DOT, and

approval of the selected alternative by

the Federal Highway Administration will be

announced in its issuance of a Record of

Decision.

This is an essential step in allowing

the next phase of the project to begin,

which is design. I would like to

emphasize that there has been no decision

on whether to select a build alternative

or if a build alternative is selected, on

its specific design features. In fact,

these Public Hearings are being held to

encourage you to provide input that will

help New York DOT make these decisions.

I am now happy to turn the Hearing

over to Mr. Adams, who will begin the

technical presentation.

Mr. Adams.

MR. ADAMS: Great. Thank you,

Peter. I would like to welcome everyone

to the Public Hearing for the Kosciuszko

Bridge Project.

This presentation focuses on the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

121 Public Hearing


process by which the New York State

Department of Transportation has studied

and evaluated possible improvements for

the Kosciuszko Bridge, culminating in the

completion of a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement or Draft EIS.

The Kosciuszko Bridge, which carries

the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, or BQE, is

a critical link in New York City's

transportation network, connecting

downtown Brooklyn, Lower Manhattan, and

points south of the City, via the

Verrazano Bridge, with the Long Island

Expressway, LaGuardia Airport, and points

north of the City, via the Triborough

Bridge.

While the BQE is signed as an east-

west route, the highway is one of New York

City's few north-south interstate

highways, I-278, which serves a high

volume of commuter and local traffic, as

well as a significant amount of commercial

traffic, which is prohibited from adjacent

parkways.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

131 Public Hearing


The Kosciuszko Bridge crosses Newtown

Creek, which forms the border between

Brooklyn and Queens in this area, and

consists of the 1.1-mile segment of the

BQE between Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn and

the Long Island Expressway, or LIE,

interchange in Queens, representing the

limits of the project.

There are three primary problems

associated with the bridge: traffic

safety, traffic congestion, and a

deteriorating structural condition.

Improvements are needed to address

these transportation, safety and

structural deficiencies currently

affecting the bridge.

The existing bridge does not meet

current design standards. It possesses

insufficient shoulder widths, narrow lane

widths on the main span, short

acceleration and deceleration lane lengths

at ramps, and non-standard sight distance

at the top of the main span. All of these

features, when combined with more than

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

141 Public Hearing


160,000 vehicles that travel over the

bridge ever day, result in an accident

rate as much as six times the statewide

average.

Throughout the project limits, the

shoulder widths on the Kosciuszko Bridge

and ramps are insufficient to provide a

safe area for disabled vehicles.

Accidents on the bridge, therefore, result

in disabled vehicles remaining in the

travel lanes. This impedes traffic flow

and endangers both the occupants of the

disabled vehicle and other vehicles on the

BQE.

Non-standard acceleration lane

lengths exist at the entrance ramps.

Insufficient acceleration or deceleration

lanes increase the likelihood of

accidents, as vehicles are forced to merge

into or out of traffic, traveling at a

significantly different speed. The

inadequate acceleration lanes contribute

to the high accident rates at these

locations.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

151 Public Hearing


For example, the Brooklyn-bound

entrance ramp from the LIE in Queens has

an accident rate five times the statewide

average for similar entrance ramps. The

Queens-bound entrance ramp at Vandervoort

Avenue in Brooklyn has an accident rate

thirty times the statewide average.

Limited sight distance exists at the

top of the bridge, where the highway

crosses Newtown Creek. Sight distance is

the length of the roadway ahead that is

visible to a driver. Stopping sight

distance combines this distance with the

design speed of the roadway, to determine

how far in advance a driver must see an

obstruction in the roadway in order to

stop before hitting it. Combined with

frequent obstructions caused by accidents

and inconsistent traffic flow due to

traffic congestion, this insufficient

stopping sight distance can lead to

additional accidents on the bridge.

These same design deficiencies, lack

of shoulders, narrow lane widths, non-

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

161 Public Hearing


standard acceleration lanes and limited

sight distance, also affect operational

conditions on the bridge, resulting in

severe congestion throughout much of the

day on the BQE, ramps and Meeker Avenue.

Future traffic conditions are projected to

worsen, with slower speeds and longer

delays expected.

For those of you who drive this route

frequently, these views are probably a

familiar sight as you try to make your way

over the bridge.

When the bridge was completed in

1939, it was built as a four-lane roadway,

connecting Meeker Avenue in Brooklyn, to

Laurel Hill Boulevard in Queens.

Incorporated into the BQE in the 1950s,

the bridge underwent major reconstruction

in the 1960's to add an additional lane in

each direction. Today, the bridge

consists of six lanes and carries over

160,000 vehicles per day. As a result of

this increased workload, the bridge's

structural condition is deteriorating,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

171 Public Hearing


requiring frequent maintenance and

repairs.

These photos show some of the

structural problems that the Department

has repaired, including cracked and

deteriorated concrete elements, cracked

steel members, and deteriorated roadway

surfaces.

In the last two decades, the

Department has completed three interim

rehabilitation projects to repair and fix

deteriorated elements of the bridge. In

addition, the Department has performed

numerous emergency repairs to keep the

bridge in a state of good repair.

Despite the Department's aggressive

maintenance effort, the bridge's

deterioration is expected to continue,

causing the Department to spend more money

and more resources to make repairs.

Clearly, a more permanent solution is

desired.

To satisfy Federal and State

requirements for an Environmental Review

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

181 Public Hearing


Process, a set of clearly defined steps

were created. The Federal Highway

Administration published a Notice of

Intent in the April 2002 edition of the

Federal Register, signaling the intent to

develop an Environmental Impact Statement

for the Kosciuszko Bridge Project.

Public Scoping and Alternatives Analysis

processes were completed, which involved

an extensive public outreach effort,

including regular meetings with the

project's Stakeholders Advisory Committee,

Open Houses, small group meetings with

elected officials, community groups, and

local residents, outreach to businesses,

and agency coordination through annual

meetings of the project's Inter-Agency

Advisory Committee.

Alternatives Analysis was an

important process. Its purpose was to

identify a wide range of possible

alternatives, ultimately selecting the

Short List of alternatives studied in

detail in the Draft EIS.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

191 Public Hearing


Working with our Stakeholders

Advisory Committee, a set of Goals and

Objectives were developed that any

alternative would hope to achieve. An

initial Long List of twenty-six

alternatives was developed, ranging from

Rehabilitation to New Bridge to Tunnel

alternatives.

The Long List was evaluated through a

two-step screening process, beginning with

the Level 1 Screening, which was completed

in the Spring of 2003. Fourteen of the

twenty-six alternatives were eliminated,

selecting the No-Build and eleven Build

alternatives to advance to Level 2. The

No-Build, or No Action, Alternative is

required in a Draft EIS, where it serves

as the baseline against which all other

alternatives are evaluated.

Level 2 Screening was completed in

the Spring of 2004, eliminating six of the

remaining twelve alternatives, selecting

the No-Build Alternative and five Build

alternatives for detailed study in the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

201 Public Hearing


Draft EIS.

In addition to the No-Build, the five

Build alternatives evaluated in the Draft

EIS include two Rehabilitation

alternatives, identified as RA-5 and RA-6,

and three Bridge Replacement alternatives,

identified as BR-2, BR-3 and BR-5.

In order to address the safety and

operational problems discussed earlier, a

number of improvements were considered

with each of the Build alternatives.

Since the local street network in the

vicinity of the bridge is not capable of

handling any detoured traffic from the

existing highway, which consists of six

lanes, three lanes in each direction, six

lanes of traffic must be maintained on the

highway during construction, either on

existing structure, new structure or

temporary structure, to minimize any

diversion of vehicles off the highway and

into the community.

Maintain the location of all the

present ramp connections for continuous

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

211 Public Hearing


access to and from the highway, using

temporary ramp structures where necessary.

Provide at least one auxiliary lane

in each direction. By auxiliary lane, we

simply mean the creation of a lane by

extending an entrance or exit ramp in

Brooklyn and connecting it with the

corresponding entrance or exit ramp on the

Queens side of the bridge. These

auxiliary lanes would help remove the

existing bottleneck that occurs between

the Brooklyn ramps and the LIE

interchange, by reducing merging and

weaving movements, reducing congestion and

increasing average speeds. This would

also result in fewer delays. By improving

merging and weaving, the addition of

auxiliary lanes should contribute to

reducing accidents near the ramps.

Provide a two-lane eastbound entrance

ramp at Vandervoort Avenue in Brooklyn.

This second lane is expected to improve

operational conditions by allowing a

greater volume of vehicles to efficiently

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

221 Public Hearing


enter the highway. Improvements to the

flow of traffic and a reduction in levels

of congestion, which would also contribute

to lower accident rates, would also

improve operational and safety conditions

on Meeker Avenue.

Provide a split of eastbound or

Queens-bound traffic to address the

merging and weaving problems on the

bridge.

The eastbound traffic split is best

illustrated by looking at the area in the

vicinity of the Brooklyn ramps. The

traffic split would occur prior to the

point where the entrance ramp merges with

the highway, and would involve the

physical separation of eastbound or

Queens-bound traffic, that wants to remain

on the BQE from the traffic that wants to

exit to the LIE, in a sense creating a

Collector-Distributor. The Collector-

Distributor would collect the BQE traffic

that wants to exit to the LIE and the

traffic that enters from the Vandervoort

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

231 Public Hearing


Avenue entrance ramp. This split would

eliminate the merging and weaving problems

that occur after the main span of the

bridge. The traffic entering at

Vandervoort Avenue that does not want to

go to the LIE would be able to join the

BQE using a proposed ramp from the

Collector-Distributor in Queens.

Looking at the Build alternatives in

more detail, Alternative RA-5 would

rehabilitate the existing bridge and

construct a new parallel bridge on the

eastbound or Queens-bound side. The new

parallel bridge would allow six lanes of

traffic to be maintained on the highway

during construction, as the existing

bridge is rehabilitated half at a time.

At the main span across Newtown Creek, the

new parallel bridge would be built lower

than the existing bridge to allow for

reduced roadway grades and improved sight

distance. When completed, there would be

five eastbound lanes, two lanes on the

existing bridge and three lanes on the new

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

241 Public Hearing


parallel bridge, and four westbound lanes.

Alternative RA-6 would rehabilitate

the existing bridge and construct a new

parallel bridge on the westbound or

Brooklyn-bound side. The new parallel

bridge would allow six lanes of traffic to

be maintained on the highway during

construction, as the existing bridge is

rehabilitated half at a time. At the main

span across Newtown Creek, the new

parallel bridge would be built lower than

the existing bridge to allow for reduced

roadway grades and improved sight


five westbound lanes, two lanes on the


parallel bridge, and four eastbound lanes.

The Bridge Replacement alternatives,

BR-2, BR-3 and BR-5, would replace the

existing bridge in its entirety by

building new parallel bridges, either on

one or on both sides of the existing

bridge. The existing bridge would

continue to carry six lanes of traffic as

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

251 Public Hearing


the new parallel bridges are constructed.

Once completed, six lanes of traffic would

be shifted onto the new parallel bridges

so the existing bridge can be removed.

Once the existing bridge is removed, the

new bridge would be completed. At the

main span across Newtown Creek, the entire

new bridge would be built at a lower

elevation to allow for lower grades and

improved sight distance. When completed,

the new bridge would carry five eastbound

lanes, two lanes on the mainline and three

lanes on the Collector-Distributor, and

four westbound lanes.

A comparison of the Build

alternatives shows that all five of the

Build alternatives would provide the two-

lane eastbound entrance ramp at

Vandervoort Avenue in Brooklyn. Four of

the five Build alternatives, RA-5, BR-2,

BR-3 and BR-5, would provide the eastbound

traffic split. Since Alternative RA-6

would construct a new parallel bridge on

the westbound side of the existing bridge,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

261 Public Hearing


it would not provide the eastbound traffic

split.

All of the Build alternatives would

provide one auxiliary lane in each

direction. However, since earlier traffic

studies completed by the Department showed

that two auxiliary lanes in the eastbound

or Queens-bound direction would provide

the best operational improvements,

Alternatives RA-5, BR-2, BR-3 and BR-5

would provide two eastbound and one

westbound auxiliary lanes. Again, since

Alternative RA-6 would construct a new

parallel bridge on the westbound side of

the existing bridge, it would provide only

one eastbound and two westbound auxiliary

lanes.

All new structures, either as the new

parallel bridge in the Rehabilitation

alternatives or the new bridges in the

Bridge Replacement alternatives, would

provide standard 12-foot lane widths,

standard 10-foot right shoulders, and

standard 4-foot left shoulders for the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

271 Public Hearing


main span and approaches. The main span

of all new structures would be built at a

lower elevation to provide reduced roadway

grades and improved sight distance.

All of these proposed improvements,

standard lane widths, standard shoulders,

auxiliary lanes in both directions, the

two-lane entrance ramp at Vandervoort

Avenue, and the eastbound traffic split,

would result in significant operational

improvements on the bridge. All five of

the Build alternatives would improve the

projected future speeds on the highway

when compared with the No-Build

Alternative, especially in the PM peak

hour when the No-Build speeds are

projected to be less than ten miles per

hour. Since RA-6 does not include the

eastbound traffic split, it would not

improve the eastbound speeds as well as

the other Build alternatives, but is still

projected to operate better than the No-

Build Alternative.

Similarly, the vehicle hours of delay

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

281 Public Hearing


experienced by drivers on the highway,

ramps and Meeker Avenue would be improved.

All five of the Build alternatives would

reduce the projected future delay when

compared with the No-Build Alternative.

The Bridge Replacement alternatives are

projected to reduce delay better than the

Rehabilitation alternatives.

A comparison of the length of

construction for the Build alternatives

shows that the Rehabilitation alternatives

would take the shortest time, estimated at

forty-five months. With the three Bridge

Replacement alternatives, BR-3 and BR-5

would take an estimated sixty months, with

BR-2 taking the longest, an estimated

seventy-two months.

The estimated construction cost of

the Build alternatives follows a similar

pattern, with the Rehabilitation

alternatives having the lowest estimated

costs, $515 million for RA-6 and $559

million for RA-5. With the three Bridge

Replacement alternatives, BR-5 has the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

291 Public Hearing


lowest estimated cost at $630 million,

followed by BR-3 at $692 million, with BR-

2 having the highest estimated cost at

$712 million.

The need to maintain the bridge in a

state of good repair was evaluated in

terms of how long before the next major

repairs would be required on the bridge

and the future maintenance costs.

Without the project, with the No-

Build Alternative, it is expected that the

next major bridge repairs would occur in

less than six years.

For the Rehabilitation alternatives,

the period of time until the next major

repairs is expected to be twenty-five

years.

Since the Bridge Replacement

alternatives would involve the design and

construction of an entirely new bridge, it

is expected that no major repairs would be

required for seventy-five years, the

design life of a new structure.

Future maintenance costs were

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

301 Public Hearing


estimated over a 50-year period. To

maintain the bridge in a state of good

repair, the No-Build Alternative would

require an estimated $300 million over

that time. The Rehabilitation

alternatives would require an estimated

$60 million. The Bridge Replacement

alternatives would require the least

future maintenance costs over that time,

at an estimated $20 million.

To assess the project's effect on the

natural and human environment, the

document evaluated the social, economic

and environmental impacts of the project

alternatives.

Social impacts include both direct

and indirect impacts on the people that

make up the community surrounding the

Kosciuszko Bridge. This includes how the

project may affect the stated goals or

plans for the community, the places people

spend time, and the community facilities

and services provided. Community

facilities include parks, community

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

311 Public Hearing


centers, schools, libraries, places of

worship, day care centers and senior

centers.

All five of the Build alternatives

would impact Sgt. William Dougherty

Playground in Brooklyn. We will discuss

park impacts and the proposed mitigation a

little bit later in the presentation.

No other community facilities or

services would be impacted by the project.

The project would have no disproportionate

impacts on low income or minority

populations.

The economic impacts of the Build

alternatives were evaluated in the Draft

EIS, and included property impacts,

relocation of local businesses and

residences, employees impacted,

construction-related employment, and

impact on property tax revenue.

In order to minimize impacts to the

community during construction, and to

provide safety and operational

improvements on the bridge, the use of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

321 Public Hearing


parallel bridges and temporary structures

adjacent to the Kosciuszko Bridge would be

required. As a result, all of the Build

alternatives would have an impact on

properties that exist adjacent to the

bridge.

These impacts would be either direct,

from the superstructure and column

supports of the permanent or temporary

structure required, and from the

realignment of local streets, or indirect,

from the loss of access to a property such

that a business would no longer be able to

operate.

Since one of the goals and objectives

of the project is to minimize impacts to

property, the Project Team investigated

means to minimize those impacts during the

development of the Build alternatives.

This would be accomplished using overhead

construction techniques. That would

involve the construction of new bridges

from above, without the need to set up

large equipment on the ground, which would

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

331 Public Hearing


likely impact additional properties.

Adjustments to the preliminary locations

of column supports for both the permanent

and temporary structures were also done to

avoid impacts to properties.

There are three types of property

impacts: fee acquisition, permanent

easement and temporary easement. If a

property is permanently needed for

construction of the project, the State

would pay a property owner to acquire

title and all rights associated with

ownership of the property. A permanent

easement involves the State acquiring

permanent right of entry onto a property,

most frequently to allow access to the

bridge for future maintenance. A

temporary easement also involves the State

acquiring right of entry or use of a

property, but on a temporary basis, such

as during construction to provide a

staging area.

The next several slides illustrate

the range of anticipated property impact

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

341 Public Hearing


required by each of the Build

alternatives. Fee acquisitions are shown

in red or pink, permanent easements in

blue, and temporary easements in green.

The footprint of the proposed permanent

structure is shown in grey.

Focusing on Brooklyn first, for

Alternative RA-5, the property impacts

would be greater on the eastbound or

Queens-bound side of the existing bridge,

extending from Vandervoort Avenue to

Newtown Creek, coinciding with the new

eastbound parallel bridge. There would

also be some property impacts on the

westbound side of the existing bridge due

to a temporary westbound exit ramp.

For alternative RA-6, the property

impacts would be greater on the westbound,

or Brooklyn-bound side of the existing

bridge, extending from Vandervoort Avenue

to Newtown Creek, coinciding with the new

westbound parallel bridge. There would


eastbound side of the existing bridge due

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

351 Public Hearing


to a temporary eastbound entrance ramp.

Since Alternatives BR-2 and BR-3

would include new parallel bridges on both

sides of the existing bridge, the property

impacts would be similar, extending from

Vandervoort Avenue to Newtown Creek on

both the eastbound and westbound sides.

Alternative BR-2 is shown first.

Here is Alternative BR-3. As noted,

these two alternatives have similar

property impacts.

Since Alternative BR-5 would include

new parallel bridges only on the

eastbound, or Queens-bound, side of the

existing bridge, property impacts would

only occur on the eastbound side,


Newtown Creek.

In Queens, the property impacts of

the Build alternatives are almost entirely

on the eastbound side of the existing

bridge, with a few exceptions. For

Alternative RA-5, the property impacts on

the eastbound side coincide with the new

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

361 Public Hearing


eastbound parallel bridge extending from

Newtown Creek to 54th Avenue.

For Alternative RA-6, the property

impacts would be greater on the westbound

side of the existing bridge, extending

from Newtown Creek to 54th Avenue,

coinciding with the new westbound parallel

bridge. There would also be some property

impacts on the eastbound side of the

existing bridge due to a temporary

eastbound exit ramp.

The property impacts for Alternatives

BR-2 and BR-3 are similar to RA-5,

impacting properties on the eastbound side

of the existing bridge, to coincide with

the new eastbound parallel bridge,

extending from Newtown Creek to 54th

Avenue. Since Alternatives BR-2 and BR-3

include new parallel bridges on both sides

of the existing bridge, some properties on

the westbound side would be impacted as

well. This is Alternative BR-2 shown

first, and here is Alternative BR-3. As

noted, these two alternatives have similar

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

371 Public Hearing


property impacts.


new parallel bridges only on the eastbound

side of the existing bridge, property

impacts would only occur on the eastbound

side, extending from Newtown Creek to 54th

Avenue.

Since the Kosciuszko Bridge passes

through a heavily industrial section of

the City, the property impacts described

will affect businesses that would have to

be relocated. A comparison of the

estimated business relocations required by

each of the Build alternatives shows that

differences are based on whether parallel

bridges are constructed on one side or on

both sides of the existing bridge, in

other words, whether businesses on one or

both sides are affected.

Alternative RA-6 would require the

least estimated business relocations with

fifteen, four in Queens and eleven in

Brooklyn, followed by Alternative BR-5

with twenty-six estimated business

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

381 Public Hearing


relocations, twelve in Queens and fourteen

in Brooklyn. Alternative RA-5 would

require twenty-eight estimated business

relocations, ten in Queens and eighteen in

Brooklyn. Since Alternatives BR-2 and BR-

3 would construct parallel bridges on both

sides of the existing bridge, they would

require the highest number of estimated

business relocations with thirty, ten in

Queens and twenty in Brooklyn.

One alternative, BR-5, would require

the relocation of residences. BR-5 would

require the relocation of three residences

in Queens.

At this point, it is my pleasure to

introduce Anthony Greene from the New York

State Department of Transportation Real

Estate Group to discuss the Department's

property acquisition procedures.

MR. GREENE: Thank you, Bob.

Good morning. Now that Bob has

discussed the need for this project and

also discussed the design alternatives and

described some of the potential real

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

391 Public Hearing


estate impacts, I would to like to discuss

the properties acquisition procedure used

by the New York State Department of

Transportation.

Our acquisition process begins with a

map prepared for each property to be

acquired. This map is based upon the

geometry of the roadway. Maps are

prepared for both private property owners

and public property owners. An appraisal

is then prepared for each property to be

acquired. Appraisals are prepared by

qualified appraisers, who may be either

departmental appraisers or consultant

appraisers. We anticipate that these

appraisals would be prepared by consultant

appraisers, who are all certified by the

State of New York.

As part of the appraisal process,

property owners or their representatives

will be contacted to secure relevant

information concerning the properties.

The owners or their representatives will

also be afforded the opportunity to

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

401 Public Hearing


accompany the appraiser when he inspects

the property.

Once our appraisal process is

completed, an amount representing our

determination of just compensation, and

once our amount representing our

determination of just compensation is

approved, an offer of fair market value

will be extended to the property owner.

An owner may accept this offer as

full settlement or take this offer as an

advance payment and reserve the right to

continue negotiations. Regardless of the

owner's choice, the offered amount remains

the same.

In cases where the Department is

acquiring only a portion of an owner's

property, this offer will include an

estimate of the value of the property to

be acquired, plus an estimate of any

damages which may accrue to the remainder

property.

Our surveys have indicated that there

are approximately fifteen to thirty

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

411 Public Hearing


properties which would have to be

relocated, depending upon the alternative

selected. Our Department will provide

direct assistance, both personal and

financial, to all those qualified people

required to move their businesses or

residences.

A Real Estate Specialist has been or

will be in contact with all affected

property owners to determine their needs

and develop a plan to assist them with

their move. The specialists and real

estate agents will make themselves

available to the affected property owners

at the property owner's convenience.

Should a resident not be satisfied

with the offer of moving expense

reimbursement, they may appeal this amount

to the Regional Real Estate Officer.

Should they still not be satisfied, by

following a step-by-step procedure, they

may elevate their appeal to the

Commissioner of DOT. Should this person

contest the Commissioner's determination,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

421 Public Hearing


they may also seek appropriate judicial

review.

In preparing our review, we have also

studied the local real estate market to

determine the availability of comparable

replacement properties.

Based on our analysis of available

properties, together with a review of

those properties that are expected to

become available, we have concluded that

there will be a sufficient number of

replacement properties to satisfy the

needs of each displaced occupant,

irrespective of the alternative design

selected.

Regardless of which design

alternative is selected, we predict that

all occupants will be successfully

relocated within nine to twelve months of

the date of the State taking title to the

property.

Property acquisitions will not

commence until the preferred alternative

has been approved by the Federal Highway

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

431 Public Hearing


Administration. Once acquisitions do

begin, we will provide day-by-day

relocation assistance in the form of

referrals of available replacement

properties and financial aid. Residential

occupants will be paid moving expenses.

In addition, they may be eligible for a

supplemental housing payment to assist

them in either purchasing or renting a

replacement unit.

For commercial occupants, these

services include reestablishment expenses

and a variety of moving expense options.

A more detailed description of these

benefits is provided in our relocation

booklet entitled, "If You Must Move, We

Can Help," which is available at the

registration desk.

In addition, you may also wish to

review our property acquisition booklet

entitled, "How Your State Acquires

Property for Public Purposes," which

contains a resume of the questions most

frequently asked by affected property

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

441 Public Hearing


owners.

Real Estate representatives will be

available throughout this Open House that

accompanies this Hearing to answer your

individual inquiries.

We have also included our mailing

address and phone numbers in the booklets.

If you have any additional questions after

this meeting, please feel free to call

upon us.

Thank you.


Anthony.

Now, the relocation of businesses

would have a direct impact on the people

employed by those businesses.

The estimated number of employees

impacted by each of the Build alternatives

follows a similar pattern based on whether

parallel bridges are constructed on one

side or on both sides of the existing

bridge.

Alternative RA-6 would have the least

employee impacts, estimated at 260,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

451 Public Hearing


followed by Alternative BR-5, with an

estimated 305 employees impacted, and RA-

5, with an estimated 330 employees

impacted.


would construct parallel bridges on both


result in the highest number of employees

impacted, estimated to be 368.

Each of the Build alternatives would

provide some short-term, positive economic

benefits in the project area, through the

increase in employment and purchases of

materials during construction. Based on

Federal Highway Administration guidance

for estimating construction-related

employment per million dollars of

construction expenses, the total number of

temporary on-site construction jobs and

temporary off-site support service jobs

created over the life of the project range

from 11,560 for RA-6 to 15,980 for BR-2.

The acquisition of private commercial

and residential properties would result in

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

461 Public Hearing


a loss of property tax revenue for New

York City. The approximate amount of tax

revenues lost annually as a result of the

Build alternatives coincides with the

property acquisitions required for each

alternative, ranging from a low of

$470,000.00 for RA-6 to a high of

$668,000.00 for BR-2. It should be noted

that these tax revenues would be a small

percentage of the $11.5 billion in

property tax revenue that New York City

received in 2005.

The document evaluated the impacts of

each of the Build alternatives on the

natural environment, including the effects

on water and ecology, drainage, air

quality, noise, contaminated materials,

cultural resources and parks.

There are no inland wetlands or

vegetated tidal wetland in the project

area. During construction, temporary

impacts to near-shore waters of Newtown

Creek would be minimized by using

construction methods and best management

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

471 Public Hearing


practices to control the release of

contaminated materials.

Some long-term benefits would be

provided. Taking advantage of the Creek

to barge in supplies and equipment, some

dredging would be required along the edge

of the Creek to construct docking

platforms, which would remove contaminated

materials from Newtown Creek. Replacing

the deteriorated bulkheads with riprap

would improve wildlife habitat along the

bank of the Creek. For the Bridge

Replacement alternatives, removal of the

existing piers would provide additional

habitat area in the Creek.

The major reconstruction of the

bridge in the 1960's disconnected the

drainage system that carried stormwater

runoff to the Creek. As a result, the

runoff currently free falls off the bridge

to the ground below, flowing overland to

the Creek. All of the Build alternatives

would address this problem, installing a

new drainage system on the approaches and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

481 Public Hearing


main span to collect stormwater runoff

from the bridge in a closed system, where

it would remove suspended solids and

pollutants before discharging back to

Newtown Creek. A portion of the Brooklyn

Connector, which is the low-level viaduct

segment with the red brick walls in

Brooklyn, and the LIE ramps area, would

connect to existing New York sewers.

The project's air quality analysis

focused on project impacts from increased

emissions of carbon monoxide and two sizes

of particulate matter, or PM, PM2.5 and

PM10. The analysis considered the

potential for impacts at both the local,

or microscale, level, including key

intersections within the traffic study

area, and an area-wide, or mesoscale,

level due to changes in traffic volumes

and travel patterns. The microscale

analysis showed that there would be no

projected impacts at the local level. The

mesoscale analysis showed that no impact

would result from the project in either

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

491 Public Hearing


2015 or 2025. In 2035, PM2.5 emissions

would increase by 2.52 to 2.75 percent

with all the Build alternatives. Although

these impacts do not affect the project's

conformity with regional requirements,

they do constitute a project impact that

cannot effectively be mitigated due to the

large area over which the impacts occur.

However, these increases in PM2.5 emissions

do not take into account any new

technological advances in emissions

control likely to be developed in the next

twenty years that may reduce overall

emissions.

In evaluating the potential for the

Build alternatives to cause noise impacts,

it was recognized that the existing

project area is generally noisy. In

Brooklyn, Meeker Avenue, rather than the

BQE, generates the majority of the noise.

In Queens, the BQE is the dominant source,

but 43rd Street, Laurel Hill Boulevard,

and the surrounding industrial uses

contribute as well.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

501 Public Hearing


In evaluating noise abatement

measures, it was determined that even very

tall noise barriers installed on the BQE

would not achieve adequate sound level

reduction to be effective, so were not

considered. Each of the Build

alternatives, except BR-5, would modestly

increase the number of impacted dwelling

units relative to the No-Build

Alternative. BR-5 would actually reduce

the number of impacted locations by

shifting the alignment of the BQE to the

south, away from the more densely

populated residential areas in Brooklyn.

Located in an area with a long

history of industrial uses, contaminated

materials are common within the project

area. Of particular concern during the

investigation was the underground oil

plume in Brooklyn associated with the

former ExxonMobil processing facility.

The table shown provides a comparison

of the Build alternatives with regards to

the potential level of disturbance the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

511 Public Hearing


construction activities may have on

contaminated soil, contaminated

groundwater, the oil plume, and

contaminated sediment in the Creek. For

example, Alternative BR-2 would have a

higher potential to impact contaminated

soil and groundwater than the other Build

alternatives. RA-6, BR-2 and BR-3 would

have a higher potential to impact the oil

plume, whereas BR-5 would have a lower

potential to impact the plume. Since the

Rehabilitation alternatives would not

remove the existing piers from the Creek,

they would have a lower potential to

impact the contaminated Creek sediment.

The Kosciuszko Bridge Project would

exercise care during construction to

control the risks that could be associated

with the mobilization of contaminants in

soil, groundwater, building materials or

equipment. Construction of any of the

Build alternatives would require removal

or containment of contaminated materials

from soil, groundwater, and sediment.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

521 Public Hearing


This work would be done in accordance with

a site-specific Health and Safety Plan,

Community Air Monitoring Plan, soil and

groundwater management plans, and

Community Protection Plan developed prior

to construction to protect workers and the

surrounding community from exposure to

hazardous materials during excavation and

construction. These documents would also

include action levels and response

mechanisms to protect residents, workers,

and the general public if action levels

are exceeded.

Contaminated materials encountered

during excavation would be handled,

transported and disposed of according to

all applicable Federal, State and local

rules and regulations, and in accordance

with the Health and Safety Plan and soil

and groundwater management plans.

Two architectural resources

determined to be eligible for the National

Register of Historic Places that may be

affected by the project include Old

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

531 Public Hearing


Calvary Cemetery in Queens and the

Kosciuszko Bridge itself.

None of the Build alternatives

propose any ground-disturbing activities

in Old Calvary Cemetery. All of the Build

alternatives would have visual effects on

the cemetery, either positive or negative,

depending on a number of factors.

However, details of final design,

including the use of materials and colors

of materials selected for the existing and

new bridge during the final design phase

of the project, would help minimize visual

impacts to the cemetery's viewshed.

Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6, which

retain the existing bridge, albeit with

rehabilitations, would have no impact on

the elements of the bridge that make it

eligible for the National Register.

Alternatives BR-2, BR-3 and BR-5 would

remove the existing bridge entirely.

Now, as mentioned earlier, all five

of the Build alternatives would impact

Sgt. William Dougherty Playground, which

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

541 Public Hearing


is located on the corner of Cherry Street

and Vandervoort Avenue in Brooklyn.

Alternatives RA-5, RA-6, BR-2 and

BR-3 would require the permanent use of

approximately 10% to 20% of the

playground's area to complete construction

shown in pink.

As part of the proposed mitigation,

the remaining portion of the existing

playground would be reconstructed and new

park area would be created to include both

passive and active recreational areas,

such as basketball and handball courts, a

skate park, a water play area, new benches

and new playground equipment. Additional

park area would be created north of the

BQE to provide greater accessibility for

residents who live on that side of the

highway. This would result in a total

park area ranging from 1.86 acres for

Alternative RA-5 to 1.90 acres for

Alternative RA-6, compared to an area of

0.75 acres for the existing playground.

Since Alternative BR-5 would shift

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

551 Public Hearing


the BQE's alignment slightly to the south,

away from the residential areas in

Brooklyn, it would require the permanent

use of approximately 40% of the

playground's area to complete

construction, again shown in pink.

The proposed mitigation would also

include reconstruction of the existing

playground and creation of new park area

on both sides of the highway, with the

same passive and active areas described.

This would result in a total park area of

1.72 acres, compared to an area of 0.75

acres for the existing playground.

As part of its Environmental

Initiative, the Department is proposing a

number of other environmental enhancements

for the community. Four of the five Build

alternatives would include a new

bikeway/walkway on the bridge. All of the

Build alternatives would include new

streetscaping improvements, a new Queens

park, and boat launches at the Creek.

Streetscaping improvements, which could

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

561 Public Hearing


include decorative street lighting,

fencing and sidewalks, and new street

trees, would be implemented on all streets

requiring reconstruction, including Meeker

Avenue, Laurel Hill Boulevard, and all the

streets that pass under the bridge.

Alternative RA-5 would include the

bikeway/walkway on the new parallel bridge

located on the eastbound or Queens-bound

side of the existing bridge. All of the

Bridge Replacement alternatives would

include the bikeway/walkway on the

westbound or Brooklyn-bound side of the

new bridge.

Conceptual renderings were created to

give the viewer a sense of some of the

streetscaping improvements that could be

provided in both Brooklyn and Queens. It

first looks south along Laurel Hill

Boulevard in Queens.

This rendering shows Alternative

BR-3. Note how it would move the highway

closer to Old Calvary Cemetery, by

building over Laurel Hill Boulevard, which

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

571 Public Hearing


would remain open. Also, note the new

Queens Park that would be created to the

left, including several active park

elements, such as basketball and handball

courts, a skate park, and a water play

area.

Looking at the same view, this

rendering shows Alternatives BR-2 and BR-

5. Note that it would not move the

highway closer to Old Calvary Cemetery,

and again, note the new Queens Park to the

left.

In Brooklyn, we chose the view

looking west along Meeker Avenue between

Van Dam Street and Apollo Street, adjacent

to the residences that front Meeker

Avenue.

The first rendering shows

alternatives RA-5, RA-6, BR-2 and BR-5.

Looking at the same view, this shows

Alternative BR-5. Since this alternative

would move the alignment of the highway

slightly to the south away from the

residences along Meeker Avenue, it would

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

581 Public Hearing


enable more park area to be provided on

this side of the highway, as shown.

The Draft EIS was published on March

15th. It was distributed to Federal,

State, City and regional agencies, elected

officials, members of the project's

Stakeholders Advisory Committee, other

interested parties, and the project's

repositories. The Draft EIS and all

appendices are also available on the

project's website. Now that the Draft EIS

has been published, the next step is to

receive comments.

The Public Hearings give the public

the opportunity to provide comments on the

project through oral testimony. Each

speaker will be given five minutes to

speak. If you do have some questions,

please discuss them with a member of the

Project Team during the continuous Open

House portion of the Public Hearings in

the other room.

All comments received during the

Public Comment Period will become part of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

591 Public Hearing


the Public Record, including oral

testimony and written comments received

during the Public Hearings or written

comments received by mail, fax and e-mail.

The Public Comment Period closes on

May 25th, 2007.

A Final Environmental Impact

Statement, which will document and respond

to the comments received on the Draft EIS

during the Public Comment Period, is

expected to be completed during the Summer

of 2007.

The Final EIS shall identify the

preferred alternative.

The Record of Decision, or ROD, is

the Federal Highway Administration's

approval of the preferred alternative.

The ROD will document all mitigation

commitments proposed in the Final EIS.

Once the ROD is obtained, we would

then be able to move into the Final Design

phase of the project. It is important to

realize that any construction would not

begin sooner than 2011.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

601 Public Hearing


That concludes the presentation.

Just a reminder to submit comments, please

send to the address, fax or e-mail shown.

Peter.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Adams,

Mr. Greene.

I won't repeat what Bob said about

the written materials, but you should know

that the addresses are also on the agenda,

and you can refer to that. The comments

have to be submitted or postmarked by

Friday, May 25th. Written comments of any

length are welcome, and they receive the

same consideration and attention as any

oral comments you might make today, and,

again, length doesn't matter as far as a

written statement, but the time does

matter as far as comments that you will

make today.

Before calling on speakers, let me

just note that for the record as of

Tuesday, April 17th, written statements

had already been received from the

following individuals and organizations:

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

611 Public Hearing


The United States Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service; the Federal Aviation

Administrator, the Regional Administrator

from the Eastern Region; Mary York, a

resident of Middle Village; and Michael

Heimbinder, Director of Habitatmap.org.

When I do receive the cards, we'll

call two speakers at a time, so that the

second person can be ready to speak when

his or her turn comes, and when your name

is called, as I said earlier, the court

reporter is using the sound system, so it

is important that you use one of the

microphones. There's two over there.

Feel free to use either one. I would ask

that before you begin your oral remarks

that you indicate your name, and if you

are affiliated with an organization, that

you indicate what that affiliate

organization is.

We will just take a minute, and then

we'll have the cards and we'll start, and

I thank you for your patience.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

621 Public Hearing


What we will do, just so that you are

aware, I've got probably eight or ten

cards, and when we're finished with those,

if we don't have more at that point, we'll

take a recess and then we'll reconvene as

people indicate a desire to speak, and

we'll continue doing that through the

afternoon.

The first speaker is Philip Mariani,

followed by Miriam Wink.

Mr. Mariani, are you here? If the

person is not here when they are called,

we'll put them at the back and we'll call

them again.

Mr. Mariani. Ms. Wink.

It's the same handwriting, so they're

probably both not here. They're both from

Premier Poultry.

Juan Rodriguez, again, Premier

Poultry.

Juan Rodriguez, Jr. -- guess where

they're from.

Frank Finnochio. No?

Stephen Flynn.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

631 Public Hearing


Jose Guzman.

And we're back to Mr. Mariani.

I have no other cards, so we'll take

a recess until I have some indication of

the people indicating a desire to speak.

Thank you.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken from

12:05 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.)

JUDGE LOOMIS: All right, we'll

continue the Hearing after a recess of a

little bit, and we have a speaker, and,

ma'am, if you just give us your name and

your affiliation, if you're affiliated

with a group, and please tell us whatever

you'd like.

MS. HOLOWACZ: Right. My name is

Christine Holowacz. I'm here, together

with Dorothy Swick, and we are testifying

on behalf of Saint Cecilia's Church.

So, we both have been part of the

Advisory Committee, SAC committee, and I

have to say it's been a pleasure to work

on the Kosciuszko Bridge Project, with the

State Department and with the Manager,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

641 Public Hearing


Robert Adams, and in particular, with

Helen Neuhaus and Associates, and Helen

has been very, very good to us. She's

always there ready to answer any

questions. She made every effort to work

with the SAC and the community to realize

the community goals and objectives of this

project.

So, we have done a lot of good work,

and I won't talk about that. I'll just

talk about some things that we feel at

Saint Cecilia's that we sort of maybe

missed.

I had said from the beginning that we

really need some kind of assistance for

this community, an independent consultant

that would look at this, and particularly

during the DEIS stage, where this document

is voluminous, and for me to go and read

it all and analyze, it's just much too

hard. So, I am not certain that I have

done a good job.

The State Department of

Transportation has offered us the Highway

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

651 Public Hearing


-- Federal Highway Agency. They are great

for agency's help, but they're not great

for community help. They are not -- I

asked a question when they came, whether

they would help us to analyze. They said,

no, they will help us answer questions.

In order for me to have questions, I have

to have the topic analyzed, and I am not a

expert in things like noise, PM2.5, the

installation of the new sewer system.

The other area in which I think that

maybe we've made a little bit of a mistake

is that we haven't really chosen the

alternative because I thought that at the

end of the DEIS, we would have an

alternative, and it will then be like a

sound solution for the community, that the

community then could comment on one

particular alternative, not six of them.

And not giving us that alternative and all

the pro and cons why you've chosen it, I

think makes it very hard for us to

comment, and I think that the DEIS should

be revised and that alternative should

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

661 Public Hearing


have been selected. And Saint Cecilia's

feels that the alternative should be

chosen based on -- not only based on the

price, but on low maintenance, that

whatever best addresses the traffic,

whichever alternative would last the

longest without a repair, and has the

least amount of impact on the community.

So, that should be the choice. Those

should be the criteria by which you look

at choosing the alternative.

We are very close at Saint Cecilia's

to the BQE, and I have to say that when we

sit in our chapel and these trucks pass by

on the BQE, we really -- you can feel the

shaking. So, it has taken a toll on the

church. So, the bricks on the church are

really -- there was a problem.

So, my question is that, you know,

when we enlarge this bridge and have more

traffic, how would that protect our

church? How would it be able to protect?

I know that the impacts of the bridge

have nothing to do with the construction,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

671 Public Hearing


but the construction will impact the

church during the construction, right, so

there will be some kind of an impact on

the church during the construction.

So, I hope that the DOT could help us

somehow to mitigate these problems during

the construction, and maybe thereafter.

We also -- we also are asking for

addressing the traffic problem that exists

at this time on Meeker Avenue, prior to

beginning the construction. It is so bad

that right now in the mornings and in the

afternoons, if you are passing, whether

it's on Kingsland, Apollo, North Henry

Street, you cannot pass through Meeker.

It is just impossible.

So, you know, because of this, then

my question is, how is that going to be

mitigated before we even start the

construction, so that the construction can

really flow very easily? I mean, we have

a school there, and some of the parents,

when they bring kids to school, they can't

get out on the other side of Greenpoint

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

681 Public Hearing


because there's just no way, and I know

that's not the DEIS, but I think it's part

of what we need to really do before we

start the project.

And, there was one more thing. We

had some problems with the website,

getting -- people have problems with

getting onto the website and, you know,

getting the information. So, I was

wondering if maybe the comment period

could be extended if there is anybody who

wants to, you know, do that, that they can

go on and, you know, -- I don't know what,

maybe a month longer or something that

they could still put maybe written

comments.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Well, certainly they

can send things by mail --

MS. HOLOWACZ: Right.

JUDGE LOOMIS: -- or by fax.

MS. HOLOWACZ: Right, but it would

have to be somehow noted so the people

would be aware of the fact that, you know,

you have some extra time. We weren't able

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

691 Public Hearing


to set up the website properly, so, here

it is. If you feel like it, you can

answer.

Is there anything else that I forgot

because I wasn't really looking at my

notes?

MS. SWICK: I know I tried to get on

the website, and it kept telling me it

wasn't available. It happened about three

times.

MS. HOLOWACZ: So, those are the

questions, but I do want to commend the

Department of Transportation for doing a

great job coming in, and as I said, Helen

was wonderful with her staff, just

wonderful. And, Steve, you were always

available. I know whenever I called, you

were available. I know my concerns are

concerns that you couldn't do anything

about it, but I think that the State DOT

should look at them and they should do

something about it.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you very much.

MS. HOLOWACZ: Thank you.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

701 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: Would you just spell

your last name for us, if you would.

MS. HOLOWACZ: H-O-L-O-W-A-C-Z.

JUDGE LOOMIS: A-C-Z?

MS. HOLOWACZ: Yes.

JUDGE LOOMIS: And, ma'am, could you

spell yours?

MS. SWICK: S-W-I-C-K.

JUDGE LOOMIS: S-W-I-C-K, and your

first name?

MS. SWICK: Dorothy.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Dorothy.

Thank you both very much.

We will continue the recess until we

have another speaker.


3:50 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.)

JUDGE LOOMIS: Good evening, ladies

and gentlemen. It is 6:45, and we will

begin what is this evening's portion of

today's Public Hearing on the Kosciuszko

Bridge Project.

My name is Peter Loomis. I am an


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

711 Public Hearing




this Public Hearing.

I would like to welcome you to the

Hearing, which is being sponsored by the

New York State Department of

Transportation, in cooperation with the

Federal Highway Administration.

Today's Hearing has been the first of

two Hearings. The next one will be held a

week from today, next Thursday in Queens.

The purpose of the Hearing is to




project, describe the alternatives under

consideration and their potential impacts,

and to receive your comments on the

document.

Although this Hearing is generally

for the receipt of testimony, and doesn't

provide for a question and answer session,

as you are aware, there are

representatives of the Department, as well

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

721 Public Hearing


as its engineering and environmental

consultants in the adjacent Open House

area, and they will be available

throughout the evening until 9:00 o'clock

to answer any questions you might have,

and you are invited and encouraged to

speak with them.

This evening, we will first discuss

the background of the project, and then



analysis of the no-build and five build

alternatives, that are under

consideration.



policies and procedures, and following

that, the rest of the evening will be

devoted to receiving your comments.

I would just like to cover a few

housekeeping items. There is no smoking

anywhere in the building. If you have

cell phones or pagers, I would ask that

you either turn them off or put them on

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

731 Public Hearing


vibrate, and finally, there is an

emergency exit in the back of the room.

At this point, I would like to

introduce the two gentlemen who are

sitting with me at the table, Robert

Adams, on my right, who is the Project

Engineer for the Department of

Transportation for this particular

project, and Anthony Greene is the

Regional Real Estate Officer in Region 11,

and he'll also be speaking.

Tonight's Public Hearing is being


statutory requirements, including 23 U.S.

Code, Section 128, which requires Public

Hearings on major transportation projects,

this being one of them. Hearings are also

being conducted in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

Section 4(f) of the Department of

Transportation Act of 1966, Section 6(f)

of the Land and Water Conservation Act of

1965, Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act, and finally, New York

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

741 Public Hearing


State's own New York State Environmental

Quality Review Act.

In preparation for these Hearings, a


undertaken to provide maximum

opportunities for public participation.

Upon completion of the Draft EIS in March,

more than two hundred copies of that

document were distributed to City, State,

Regional and Federal agencies, elected

officials, members of the Stakeholders

Advisory Committee, business

representatives and other interested

parties.

In addition, the Draft EIS and its

nineteen appendices were also placed in



website.

In addition, an information package

was distributed to approximately 850


project mailing list, and this package


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

751 Public Hearing


Tatevossian, Director of Structures at the

Department's Regional Office in Hunters

Point, an executive summary of the Draft

EIS, a sample copy of the Public Hearing

notice, and a flyer announcing the

Hearings. All of those documents are

available out at the registration desk if

you would like one and haven't received

one.


Regulations, notice of this Hearing, as

well as next week's Hearing, and the

availability of a Draft EIS, was published

in the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation's Environmental

Notice Bulletin, the March 21, 2007 issue,

as well as in the March 23, 2007 edition

of the Federal Register.

In addition, advertisements were

placed in numerous local, citywide and

foreign language newspapers beginning on

March 16th. Samples of those documents

are also available at the sign-in table,

and they are also posted in the Open House

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

761 Public Hearing


area, and for the purposes of the record,

I will indicate the dates and the names of

the publications:

El Periodico, March 16th and April

16th, the New York Daily News, March 20th

and 22nd and April 10th, the Western

Queens Gazette, March 21 and April 11th,

the Queens Chronicle, March 22 and April

12th, America Oggi, March 20th and April

10th, Polish Daily News, March 20th and

April 10th, the Greenpoint-Williamsburg

Gazette, on March 20th and April 10th, the

Queens Ledger, March 22nd and April 12th,

the Times Newsweekly, also March 22nd and

April 12th, and in Greenline, in the April

2007 edition, and copies of those

publications will be made part of the

record as Exhibit 1.

I would also like to note that there

were two other additional means of

notifying the public of the availability

of the Draft EIS and of the scheduling of

the Public Hearings. A provision of

Community Calendar announcements to local

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

771 Public Hearing




help of our Stakeholders Advisory

Committee, distribution of more than 8,000



areas.

I would like to just briefly focus on

some procedural issues. After the

technical presentation, we will welcome

your statements. If you would like to

speak, you need to fill out one of the

Speaker's Registration cards which are at

the desk as you come in, and we will take

speakers in the order in which the cards

have been received. When you are called

upon to speak, you will have five minutes

to do so. If you haven't handed in a

card, and if you'd like to speak, please

take the opportunity to do so.

The Hearing is being recorded by a

stenographer, and a transcript of the

proceedings will be made part of the

record. The stenographer is also

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

781 Public Hearing


utilizing the sound system, so that if you

do speak, decide to speak, please use one

of the microphones, rather than just speak

from where you're sitting, since the

stenographer would not be able to hear

that.

Following evaluation of the public

testimony presented tonight and next week,

along with the written comments and

exhibits which are submitted by the end of

the comment period, which will be May 25,

2007, a Final EIS will be prepared. This

document will announce the preferred

alternative chosen by the New York State

Department of Transportation, and approval

of the selected alternative by the Federal

Highway Administration will be announced

by FHWA in its issuance of a Record of

Decision or a ROD.


the project to move into the next phase,

which would be design, and I would like to

emphasize that there has been no decision

on whether to select a Build alternative

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

791 Public Hearing


or if a Build alternative is indeed

selected, on its specific design features,

and these Public Hearings and the comments

and written statements that are received

all will provide input that will help DOT

make this decision.

I am now pleased to introduce Robert

Adams, who is the Project Engineer, who

will begin the technical presentation.

MR. ADAMS: Great. Thank you, Judge

Loomis. I would like to welcome everyone

to the Public Hearing for the Kosciuszko

Bridge Project.







Statement, or Draft EIS.





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

801 Public Hearing







Bridge. While the BQE is signed as an

east-west route, the highway is one of New

York City's few north-south interstate





parkways.











safety, traffic congestion, and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

811 Public Hearing


deteriorating structural conditions.














bridge ever day, result in an accident


average.








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

821 Public Hearing




BQE.










locations.












2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

831 Public Hearing






















delays expected.



familiar sight as you try to make your way

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

841 Public Hearing


over the bridge.





Incorporated into the BQE in the 1950's,









repairs.


structural problems that the Department

has repaired, including cracked and



surfaces.




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

851 Public Hearing












desired.






Intent in the April, 2002 edition of the








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

861 Public Hearing








Advisory Committee.





Short List, studied in detail, in the

Draft EIS.








alternatives.



Level 1 Screening, which was completed in

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

871 Public Hearing


the Spring of 2003. Fourteen of the




No-Build or No Action Alternative is







the No-Build and five Build alternatives

for detailed study in the Draft EIS.












2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

881 Public Hearing







highway during construction, either on the




into the community.

Maintain the location of all present

ramp connections for continuous access to

and from the highway, using temporary ramp

structures where necessary.


in each direction, and by auxiliary lane,

we simply mean the creation of a lane by








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

891 Public Hearing



















on Meeker Avenue.

Finally, provide a split of eastbound

or Queens-bound traffic to address the


bridge.

Now, this eastbound traffic split is

best illustrated by looking at the area in

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

901 Public Hearing


the vicinity of the Brooklyn ramps. The








Collector-Distributor. The Collector-

Distributor would collect the BQE traffic

that wants to exit to the LIE and the

traffic that enters from the Vandervoort

Avenue entrance ramp. This split would

eliminate the merging and weaving problems

that occur after the main span of the

bridge. The traffic entering at

Vandervoort Avenue that does not want to

go to the LIE would be able to join the







2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

911 Public Hearing


























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

921 Public Hearing











one side or on both sides of the existing















2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

931 Public Hearing


lanes on that Collector-Distributor, and













split.











2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

941 Public Hearing






lanes.


parallel bridges in the Rehabilitation











the standard lane widths, standard

shoulders, auxiliary lanes in both

directions, the two-lane entrance ramp at

Vandervoort Avenue, and the eastbound

traffic split, would result in significant

operational improvements on the bridge.


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

951 Public Hearing


improve the projected future speeds on the

highway when compared with the No-Build









Build Alternative.









Rehabilitation alternatives.





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

961 Public Hearing






seventy-two months.









followed by BR-3 at $692 million, with BR-

2 having the highest estimated cost at

$712 million.









2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

971 Public Hearing






years.




















2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

981 Public Hearing




alternatives.












centers. All five of the Build

alternatives would impact Sgt. William

Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn. We will

discuss park impacts and the proposed

mitigation later in the presentation.





populations.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

991 Public Hearing


















bridge.




structures required, and from the




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1001 Public Hearing


operate.







construction techniques, that would

involve the construction of new bridges

from above, without the need to set up

large equipment on the ground, which would








easement, and temporary easement. If a






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1011 Public Hearing










staging area.


the range of anticipated property impacts









would be greater on the eastbound side of

the existing bridge, extending from

Vandervoort Avenue to Newtown Creek,

coinciding with the new eastbound parallel


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1021 Public Hearing


impacts on the westbound side of the


westbound exit ramp.




from Vandervoort Avenue to Newtown Creek,





eastbound entrance ramp.







Alternative BR-2 is shown first.

Here is Alternative BR-3. As noted,


property impacts.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1031 Public Hearing




side, extending from Vandervoort Avenue to

Newtown Creek.

Now, in Queens, the property impacts

of the Build alternatives are almost

entirely on the eastbound side of the

existing bridge, with a few exceptions.

For Alternative RA-5, the property impacts

on the eastbound side coincide with the

new eastbound parallel bridge extending

from Newtown Creek to 54th Avenue.









eastbound exit ramp to the LIE.




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1041 Public Hearing









well. Now, this is Alternative BR-2, and

here is Alternative BR-3. As noted, these

two alternatives have similar property

impacts.





side, again, extending from Newtown Creek

to 54th Avenue.



the City, the property impacts just

described will affect businesses that

would have to be relocated. A comparison

of the estimated business relocations

required by each of the Build alternatives

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1051 Public Hearing


shows that differences are based on

whether parallel bridges are constructed

on one side or on both sides of the

existing bridge, in other words, whether

businesses on one or both sides are

affected.










Brooklyn. Since Alternatives BR-2 and

BR-3 would construct parallel bridges on

both sides of the existing bridge, they

would require the highest number of

estimated business relocations with

thirty, ten in Queens and twenty in

Brooklyn.

Only one alternative, BR-5, would

require the relocation of residences. BR-

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1061 Public Hearing


5 would require the relocation of three

residences in Queens.


introduce Anthony Greene from the New York

State Department of Transportation Real

Estate Group to discuss the Department's

property acquisition and relocation

procedures.

MR. GREENE: Thank you.

Good evening. Now that Bob has

discussed the critical need for this

project and has also discussed the design

alternatives under consideration, as well

as described some of the potential real

estate impacts on the property owners in

the area, I would to like to briefly

discuss the property acquisition procedure

that is used by the New York State

Department of Transportation.

The acquisition process begins with

the preparation of a map for the property

to be acquired. This map is based upon

the geometry of the roadway design, as

well as our needs to construct and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1071 Public Hearing


maintain our facilities. Maps are

prepared for both private property owners

and public property owners. An appraisal

of the property is then prepared by a

qualified real estate appraiser.

Appraisals may be prepared by departmental

staff or consultant appraisers. It is

anticipated that consultant appraisers

will complete the appraisals for this

project.

As part of the appraisal process, the

property owners or their representatives

will be contacted to provide us with

relevant information concerning the

property. The property owner or their

representative will also be extended the

opportunity to accompany the appraiser

when the property is inspected.

Once our appraisal process is

completed, an amount representing our

determination of just compensation is

approved, an offer of fair market value

will be extended to the property owner.

The owner may accept this offer as

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1081 Public Hearing


full settlement or take the offer as an

advance payment and reserve the right to

continue negotiations. Regardless of the

owner's choice, the offered amount remains

the same.

In cases where the Department is

acquiring only a portion of a property

owner's property, the offer will include

an estimate of the value of the property

to be acquired, plus an estimate of any

damages which may accrue to the remainder

property.

Currently, we estimate that there are

approximately fifteen to thirty properties

which would have to be relocated,

depending upon the alternative selected.

Our Department will provide direct

assistance, both personal and financial,

to all those qualified people required to

move their businesses or residences.

A Real Estate Specialist has been or

will be in contact with all of the

affected property owners to determine

their needs and develop a plan to assist

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1091 Public Hearing


them with their move. The real estate

specialists will make themselves available

to people affected, at the property

owner's convenience.

Should a resident not be satisfied

with the offer of moving expense

reimbursement, they may also appeal this

offer to the Regional Real Estate Officer,

and by following a step-by-step procedure,

elevate their appeal to the Commissioner

of DOT. Should the person contest the

Commissioner's determination, they may

also seek relief under appropriate

judicial review.

Our office has also studied the local

real estate market to determine the

availability of comparable replacement

properties.

Based on our analysis of available

properties, together with a review of

those expected to become available, we

have concluded that there will be a

sufficient number of replacement

properties to satisfy the needs of each

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1101 Public Hearing


displaced occupant, irrespective of the

alternative design that is selected.

Regardless of which alternative is

selected, we predict that all occupants

will be successfully relocated within nine

to twelve months of the date the State

takes title to their property.

Property acquisition would not


has been approved by the Federal Highway


begin, we will provide day-by-day

relocation assistance in the form of

referrals of available property,

replacement properties, and financial aid.

Residential occupants will be paid moving

expenses. In addition, they may be

eligible for a supplemental housing

payment to assist them in either

purchasing or renting a replacement unit.

For commercial occupants, these

services include reestablishment expenses

and a variety of moving expense options.

A more detailed description of these

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1111 Public Hearing




Can Help," which is available at the

registration desk.

In addition, you may also wish to

review our property acquisition booklet


Property for Public Purposes," which

contains a resume of the questions most

frequently asked by affected property

owners.

Real Estate representatives will be

available throughout the Open House that

accompanies this Hearing to answer your

individual inquiries.

In addition, we have included our

mailing address and phone numbers in the

booklets. If you have any additional

questions after this meeting, please feel

free to call upon us.

Thank you.


Anthony.

Now, the relocation of businesses

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1121 Public Hearing


that we have just discussed would have a

direct impact on the people employed by

those businesses.

We estimate a number of employees

impacted by each of the Build

alternatives, and they follow a similar

pattern based on whether parallel bridges

are constructed on one side or on both

sides of the existing bridge.


employees impacted, estimated at 260,


estimated 305 employees impacted, and

RA-5, with an estimated 330 employees

impacted.








benefits in the project area, due to the


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1131 Public Hearing







temporary, on-site construction jobs and

temporary, off-site support service jobs
















received in 2005.


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1141 Public Hearing








vegetated tidal wetlands in the project


















2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1151 Public Hearing


















Connector, and that is the low-level

viaduct segment with the red brick walls

in Brooklyn, and the LIE ramps area, would

connect to existing New York sewers.




of particulate matter, or dust, PM, PM2.5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1161 Public Hearing


and PM10. The analysis considered the


or microscale, level including key







mesoscale or area-wide level analysis

showed that no impact would result from

the project in either 2015 or 2025.

However, in 2035, PM2.5 emissions would

increase by 2.52 to 2.75 percent with all

the Build alternatives. Although these

impacts do not affect the project's

conformity with regional requirements,

they do constitute a project impact that

cannot effectively be mitigated due to the

large area over which the impacts occur.

However, these increases in PM2.5 emissions

do not take into account any new

technological advances in emissions

control devices likely to develop in the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1171 Public Hearing


next twenty years that may reduce overall

emissions.






BQE, generates the majority of noise. In

Queens, the BQE is the dominant source,



contribute as well.




would not achieve adequate sound level

reduction to be effective, so were not

considered. Each of the Build







2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1181 Public Hearing


























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1191 Public Hearing


















Community Protection Plan, developed prior


surrounding community from exposure to






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1201 Public Hearing


are exceeded.












Calvary Cemetery in Queens and the bridge

itself.






depending on a number of factors.





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1211 Public Hearing


of the project would minimize visual




rehabilitations, would have no impact on





As mentioned earlier, all five of the

Build alternatives would impact Sgt.

William Dougherty Playground, which is

located on the corner of Cherry Street and

Vandervoort Avenue in Brooklyn.





construction, shown in pink.






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1221 Public Hearing
















Brooklyn that front Meeker Avenue, it

would require the permanent use of

approximately 40% of the playground's area

to complete construction, again shown in

pink.

The proposed mitigation would also

include reconstruction of the existing

playground, the creation of new park area

on both sides of the highway, with the

same passive and active areas described.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1231 Public Hearing


This would result in a total park area of

1.72 acres, compared to an area of 0.75

acres for the existing playground.



















located on the eastbound side of the

existing bridge, shown in orange. All of

the Bridge Replacement alternatives would

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1241 Public Hearing



westbound side of the new bridge, shown in

dark blue.




provided in both Brooklyn and Queens. The


Boulevard in Queens, shown here.










area.

Looking at the same view, this is

Alternatives BR-2 and BR-5. Note that it

would not move the highway closer to Old

Calvary Cemetery. Again, note the new

Queens Park to the left.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1251 Public Hearing


Now, over in Brooklyn, we chose the

view looking west along Meeker Avenue

between Van Dam Street and Apollo Street,

adjacent to the residences that front

Meeker Avenue.

The first rendering looks at all of

the alternatives except BR-5.

Looking at the same view, this is

Alternative BR-5. Again, BR-5 would move

the alignment of the highway slightly to

the south away from the residences that

front along Meeker Avenue, which enables

more park area to be provided on this side

of the highway, as shown.






interested parties, and the project





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1261 Public Hearing


receive comments.

These Public Hearings give the public







House portion of the Public Hearings, in

the other room.


Comment Period will become part of the

Public Record, including oral testimony

and written comments received today or

written comments received by mail, fax and

e-mail.


May 25th, 2007.


Statement, or Final EIS, which will

document and respond to the comments

received on the Draft EIS during the

Public Comment Period, is expected to be

completed during the Summer of 2007.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1271 Public Hearing














That concludes the presentation. To

submit comments, please send to the

address, fax or e-mail address shown.

Thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Adams,

and thank you, Mr. Greene, and we are

almost ready to receive your comments.

Just a couple of comments before that.

For those particularly who came in

after we started, if there is anyone who

would like to make a statement who was not

signed up to do so, these cards are

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1281 Public Hearing


available at the registration desk, and I

would ask that anyone who wants to speak,

go out and fill one out, and we will take

people in the order in which the cards are

received.

As Mr. Adams indicated, in addition

to any oral comments that you might want

to make this evening, written comments are

welcome and encouraged, and they can be of

any length, and they will receive the same

consideration and attention as oral

comments that might be made tonight, and

the address is on the screen, and I would

also note that the agenda, which is out at

the registration desk, includes not only

the Department's address in Hunters Point

Plaza in Queens, but also the FHWA address

in Albany, as well as the fax numbers and

the e-mail address to which comments can

be made.

I would note for the record that as

of Tuesday, April 17th, written statements

for the record had already been received

from the following individuals and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1291 Public Hearing


organizations, and I will just note them

for the record: The Natural Resources

Conservation Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture; the Regional

Administrator for the Eastern Region of

the Federal Aviation Administration; Mary

York, a resident of Middle Village; and

Michael Heimbinder, Director of

Habitatmap.org.

We will begin, and what I will do, if

we have more than two cards, is I will

announce -- and we at least have two, -- I

will announce two names at a time, so that

the second person can prepare once the

first has finished his or her remarks, and

I have two cards at the moment.

The first is Laura Hofmann, followed

by Rosalie Washack.

Ms. Hofmann. I just remind you, if

you just give us your name and your

affiliation, as well, if you are speaking

on behalf of an organization, before you

begin.

MS. HOFMANN: Okay, how is that?

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1301 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: That's fine.

You can take it off and sit down if

you prefer.

MS. HOFMANN: No, this is okay. I'm

better off standing.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Whatever makes you

feel comfortable.

MS. HOFMANN: Hi, my name is Laura

Hofmann. Christine Holowacz, my husband,

Mike Hofmann, and I have been representing

the Greenpoint Waterfront Association for

Parks and Planning as SAC members, for

approximately four years.

GWAPP is a coalition of over forty

community organizations dedicated to

education and outreach on issues affecting

the environment, waterfront and

neighborhoods of North Brooklyn.

It has been a pleasure to work with

the New York State Department of

Transportation Project Manager, Robert

Adams, and consultant, Helen Neuhaus, as

well as with the rest of the Project Team.

The Project Team has clearly made

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1311 Public Hearing


every effort to work with the SAC and the

community to realize the SAC and community

goals and objectives of this project.

The Project Team promised there would

be no surprises in this DEIS, and they

were true to their word. In reading

through the DEIS, I found that much of the

material has already been presented to the

SAC and commented on. For me, it was a

fairly easy task to breeze through the

enormous amount of material and comment

since I'm already familiar with much of

the material, and I see that much of the

SAC comments have already been

incorporated into the DEIS.

It was a pleasure to find segments of

the Greenpoint 197-a plan in this

document, and see that this project is

actually doing something to incorporate

the actual community vision into the

project.

I have been involved in many

processes and comment periods such as

this, and today will be a banner day, in

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1321 Public Hearing


that I have nothing negative to say about

this process and the performance of the

people we are working with.

Naturally, there are outstanding

problems and issues that need to be

discussed, and errors in the DEIS to be

corrected, and I'm sure that the Project

Team, along with the SAC, will work

through them.

As the Project Team is aware, there

was a technical error in the URL for the

online version of the DEIS, and GWAPP

Board Members were, therefore, unable to

read the document and direct questions to

their SAC representatives in a timely

manner. The GWAPP Board requests that the

URL correction be sent out to all the

parties that have received the DEIS. We

also request that the written comment

period be extended to accommodate the

parties that need to access the online

materials. GWAPP will then be able to

submit additional written comments.

While we appreciate the offer of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1331 Public Hearing


assistance by the Federal Highway

Administration Resource Center to answer

questions, we feel that additional

technical assistance from an independent

consultant is necessary to sort through

the source of technical information.

The Project Team has clearly

demonstrated the need for the project.

All of the alternatives have negative and

positive impacts on the community,

including impacts to businesses and homes.

GWAPP representatives involved in

this process see that it is preferable and

beneficial to the community to build a new

bridge as opposed to a rehabilitation. No

Build and Rehabilitation alternatives

demonstrate a need for major upgrade after

only twenty-five years, and should quickly

be eliminated from the process. Despite

the impacts, Build alternatives offer a

great deal of benefit to the community,

including the correction of traffic

problems, additional parks and open space,

cycling and pedestrian connections,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1341 Public Hearing


wetland restoration, correction of impacts

to the Creek, waterfront access, a

stormwater handling system, minimal

environmental impact, and so on.

The DEIS clearly lays out commitments

to expand and add additional parks, create

boat launches, restore wetlands, improve

streetscapes, but naturally, GWAPP looks

forward to further discussion with the

Project Team about the possibility of

additional community amenities to

compensate for such an enormous project.

Again, GWAPP will submit additional

comments as soon as the URL problems are

corrected.

Thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Ms.

Hofmann.

Before I call upon Ms. Washack, I

would just like to remind everyone,

particularly those who may choose to

leave, that there will be a second Public

Hearing, and that will be next Thursday,

April 26th, in Queens, at the DeVry

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1351 Public Hearing


Institute of Technology, which is located

at 30-20 Thomson Avenue in Long Island

City.

What we will do is, we will hear from

Ms. Washack, and since I have no other

cards at the moment, we will take a

recess, and if I receive any cards of

individuals wanting to speak between that

time and 9:00 o'clock, we will accommodate

anybody who wishes to speak up until 9:00

o'clock, and then we will conclude the

Hearing at that time, and reconvene in

Queens next Thursday at 11:00.

Ms. Washack.

MS. WASHACK: My name is Rosalie

Washack, and I'm just speaking as a

resident.

I presently am employed as a school-

crossing guard under the BQE viaduct, and

more than addressing the construction of a

new bridge or the repair, my concern is

for now, the impact that the problems with

the Kosciuszko Bridge are causing in the

neighborhood, at the moment.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1361 Public Hearing


Meeker Avenue is constantly inundated

with traffic that I don't know where it

comes from, I don't know how it gets

there, I don't know how it disappears all

of a sudden, but there's always traffic on

it.

I suggested to Bob that perhaps the

State DOT could confer with New York City

DOT to possibly look at the painting of

the, what they call, the box, Do Not Block

the Box, and posting signs that if you

block an intersection, you are liable to

get points on your license and a huge

fine.

Some of the streets have been turned

in the area from one way going -- first of

all, one street in particular, Herbert

Street, from Kingsland Avenue to North

Henry Street, is going westbound, and

Herbert Street coming from Graham Avenue

to North Henry Street, is going eastbound.

It is a short street. I don't understand

why they did that. It makes no sense. It

causes -- when there is a traffic jam on

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1371 Public Hearing


Meeker Avenue, you have cars riding the

sidewalk on a church block, which is

connected to a Catholic School, and

children are walking there, and we have

cars -- as a school-crossing guard, you

don't know what to do. You have cars on

sidewalks. They have no way of getting

out of their own way.

I also suggested to Bob that possibly

they could put that back to one way going

to Kingsland Avenue, and taking Richardson

Street and making it one way going from

Kingsland to Graham Avenue, which would

bring the traffic flow onto Graham Avenue,

which then gives them access to McGuinness

Boulevard, which would bring them to the

Pulaski Bridge, the Greenpoint Avenue

Bridge, also would give them access to the

BQE going westbound, so they can find

alternate routes to get away from the

Kosciuszko Bridge, which is the problem

now.

Something has to be done with the

traffic now. We can't wait till they

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1381 Public Hearing


start construction. We have to kind of do

something right now, which I think that if

we alleviate traffic problems in the area

now, it would make it easier for you

people to continue with the reconstruction

project however it's done. But, you know,

when you see the traffic impact now on the

neighborhood, then you say, now they're

going to come in and put a new bridge in

here or reconstruct the old bridge, how

are they going to do that? If we have

problems now, they're only going to get

worse.

So, if they could take an overall

view of the neighborhood right now and

alleviate some of the problems and have a

better flow of traffic, I think DOT would

have a better chance of going through with

this project and having the neighborhood

people back them.

Thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you very much

for your comments.

We will not take a recess at the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1391 Public Hearing


moment. We have one additional speaker.

George Perez.

MR. PEREZ: Hi, good evening.

Judge, thank you.

Mr. Adams, thank you for your

response on my e-mail.

Sir, -- I didn't get your name.

MR. GREENE: Greene.

MR. PEREZ: Reid?

MR. GREENE: Greene.

MR. PEREZ: Greene. I was looking

at the diagrams that you had shown coming

off westbound. A nice little park there

and nice trees, and I saw some houses

there. According to the diagrams you had

before, that area, that district right

there on Apollo and Meeker, there was

going to be one of those offers where Mr.

Reid -- Greene mentioned that the State

would offer some money for these houses.

You know, make an offer, and if you don't

like it, too bad, period, we're going to

take it.

Is that the bottom line?

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1401 Public Hearing


Right. That's not what they said. I

got friends there on that block, and I am

going to talk to them and tell them to

come see you guys.

My concern, one of my other concerns

is the employees over the long term.

You're going to have thousands of people

working, and we're going to have extra

cars on our blocks.

I'm a resident of Morgan Avenue, 586A

Morgan, and right now, we can't find

parking. I have to go to Apollo and

bother these guys, two blocks away, to

find parking. Sometimes we have to go to

the highway on Kingsland near McDonald's

to find a spot, and I live on the block.

Is the City or is the State going to

like do something for the residents there?

We can't fight the project. It's going to

go down whether we like it or not. You

guys will take what you want.

What are you going to give the

residents, as far as like maybe suspending

alternate side for the duration of this

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1411 Public Hearing


project, so we can -- you know what I

mean. Because right now, traveling

eastbound on Meeker Avenue, when I want to

go home from work, if I go up Meeker

Avenue on the street, under the

Expressway, and I try to make that left

northbound to Morgan, it takes me twenty-

five minutes. I have to cut around

Kingsland, sometimes go up Norman, come

down Apollo and then make that quick, you

know, two blocks, and I'm home in less

than five minutes. That's one of the

other things that I had to mention.

JUDGE LOOMIS: I might suggest, if

you haven't had the opportunity, that you

follow-up on your concerns with the staff

in the other room.

MR. PEREZ: I was talking to a few

of the guys outside, and I understand that

SAC committee you guys got, anyone can

join that?

MR. ADAMS: Yes.

MR. PEREZ: Yes. You will be seeing

me. Thank you.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1421 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Perez.

That was the last card I had at the

moment. So, we will take a recess and see

if we have any additional speakers.

Thank you.


7:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.)

JUDGE LOOMIS: The time is

approximately 9:00 p.m., and we have had

no additional speakers who have indicated

a desire to speak.

We will conclude this evening's

Hearing, and we will reconvene next

Thursday in Queens.

Thank you all for attending.

(Time noted: 9:00 p.m.)

* * * * *

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PUBLIC HEARING

DeVry Institute of Technology30-20 Thomson Avenue, Room 301Long Island City, New York

April 26, 200711:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.

Angie DePompoCourt Reporting Service

86 Kensico StreetStaten Island, New York 10306

(718) 667-9484

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21


APPEARANCES:

HONORABLE PETER LOOMIS MODERATOR

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONby ROBERT L. ADAMS, P.E. PROJECT ENGINEER, STRUCTURES

ANGELA MIRAGLIA DIRECTOR OF ACQUISITIONS

LONG ISLAND CITY REGIONAL OFFICE

ANTHONY GREENE ACTING REAL ESTATE OFFICER

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: Good morning, ladies

and gentlemen. We will begin the hearing.


Administrative Law Judge, with the New

York State Department of Transportation in

Albany. I have been asked to moderate

today's Hearing on the Kosciuszko Bridge

Project.

I would like to begin by welcoming

you to this Hearing, which is being

sponsored by the New York State Department

of Transportation, also referred to as

DOT, in cooperation with the Federal

Highway Administration.

Today is the second of two Hearings.

Last Thursday we were in Brooklyn, and

today we will conclude the series of two

hearings being held on this project.

The purpose of the Hearing is to



Draft EIS that has been prepared for the

Kosciuszko Bridge Project, to describe

further the alternatives under

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41 Public Hearing


consideration and their potential impacts,

and, importantly, to receive your comments

on the document.

Although this Hearing is for the

receipt of testimony only and does not

include a question and answer session, you

are invited and, in fact, encouraged to go

next door and speak with DOT

representatives and our engineering and

environmental consultants, and they will

be there throughout the day until 9:00

o'clock tonight.

This morning, we are first going to

discuss the background of the project and

then describe the alternatives presented

in the Draft EIS, along with a comparative

analysis of the No-Build and five Build

Alternatives that are under consideration.



policies and procedures, and the remainder

of the Hearing will afford any of you who

wish to comment, an opportunity to comment

for the official record.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51 Public Hearing


A few housekeeping items before we

begin. There is no smoking in the

building, and if you have cell phones or

pagers, I would ask that you either turn

them off or put them on vibrate. There

are emergency exits, which are marked.

At this time, I would like to

introduce two people who are with me at

the table, Robert Adams, on my right, who

is the Project Manager for the Kosciuszko

Bridge Project, and Angela Miraglia, who

is Director of Acquisitions in the

regional office in Long Island City.

Today's Public Hearing is being


statutory requirements, including Section

128 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, which

requires Public Hearings on major

transportation projects, the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Section

4(f) of the Department of Transportation

Act of 1966, Section 6(f) of the Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,

Section 106 of the National Historic

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61 Public Hearing


Preservation Act, as well as New York

State Environmental Quality Review Act.

In preparation for these Hearings, a


undertaken to provide maximum

opportunities for public participation.

Upon completion of the Draft EIS in March,

over two hundred copies of the document

were distributed to City, State, Regional

and Federal agencies, elected officials,

members of the Stakeholders Advisory

Committee, business representatives and

other interested persons.

Additionally, copies of the Draft EIS

and its nineteen appendices were placed in



website.


was distributed to approximately 850


project mailing list. This package


Tatevossian, Director of Structures at the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71 Public Hearing


Regional Office in Long Island City, an

executive summary of the Draft EIS, a

sample copy of the Public Hearing notice,

as well as flyers announcing the Hearings.

All of these materials are available if

you would like to look at them out at the

sign-in table.


Regulations, notice of the Public Hearings

and availability of the Draft EIS was



Environmental Notice Bulletin on March 21,

2007, and in the March 23, 2007 edition of

the Federal Register.

In addition, display advertisements

were placed in numerous local, citywide

and foreign language newspapers beginning

on March 16th, and sample copies of those

documents are also available if you would

like to look at those, and for purposes of

the record, we will note the publications

and the dates of the notices that were

published in those periodicals: El

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81 Public Hearing


Periodico, March 16th and April 16th, the

New York Daily News, March 20th, 22nd and

again on April 10th, the Western Queens

Gazette, March 21 and April 11, the Queens

Chronicle, on March 22nd and April 12th,

America Oggi, March 20 and April 10, the

Polish Daily News, March 20 and April 10,

the Greenpoint-Williamsburg Gazette, on

March 20 and April 10th, the Queens

Ledger, on March 22nd and April 12th,

Times Newsweekly, March 22 and April 12,

and Greenline, the April 2007 edition, and

copies of the advertisements that appeared

in those periodicals were made part of the

record last week at the Hearing in

Brooklyn, as Exhibit 1.




the scheduling of these Public Hearings.

The provision of Community Calendar

announcements to local newspapers, public

television stations and neighborhood

organizations, and also with the help of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91 Public Hearing


our Stakeholders Advisory Committee,

distribution of over 8,000 English,

Spanish and Polish flyers throughout the

Brooklyn and Queens project areas.

I would like to just discuss some

procedural issues that we need to keep in

mind. Following this morning's technical

presentation, we welcome your statements.

If you have not pre-registered, please do

so at the sign-in desk in the hallway.

You need to fill out a speaker's card, and

each speaker will be allowed five minutes.

There are two microphones available,

and I would ask that you use those.

Although the room is small and you could

theoretically stand where you are and make

your statement, the court reporter is

using the sound system, and has headphones

on, so you need to use the microphones.

As I indicated, the Hearing is being

recorded by a stenographer, and a

transcript of the proceedings will become

part of the record.

In addition, a videotape is being

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

101 Public Hearing


made of this morning's session, and that

will be available for viewing next door

throughout the rest of the day, once we're

finished this morning.

Following evaluation of the public

testimony presented at the Hearings, along

with written comments and exhibits which

are submitted by May 25th, a Final EIS

will be prepared. This document will

announce the preferred alternative chosen


Transportation, and approval of the

selected alternative by the Federal

Highway Administration will be announced

in its issuance of a Record of Decision,

otherwise known as a ROD.


the next phase to occur, which is design,

and I would like to emphasize that there

has been no decision on whether to select

a build alternative or if a build

alternative is selected, on its specific

design features. These Public Hearings

are, in fact, being held to encourage you

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111 Public Hearing


to provide input that will help DOT make

those decisions.

I would like now to introduce Mr.

Adams, who will begin the technical

presentation.


Loomis.

I would like to welcome everyone to

the Public Hearing for the Kosciuszko

Bridge Project.







Statement.








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

121 Public Hearing




Bridge.








parkways.











safety, traffic congestion, and

deteriorating structural conditions.


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

131 Public Hearing














bridge every day, result in an accident


average.










2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

141 Public Hearing


BQE.










locations.














2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

151 Public Hearing




















delays expected.

Some examples of what most of you who

drive this route frequently probably view

as you make your way over the bridge.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

161 Public Hearing













repairs.

These are some photos showing some of

the structural problems that the

Department has repaired, including cracked

and deteriorated concrete elements,

cracked steel members, and deteriorated

roadway surfaces.







2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

171 Public Hearing









desired.

















2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

181 Public Hearing





Advisory Committee.














alternatives.







2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

191 Public Hearing



No-Build or No-Action Alternative is


as a baseline against which all other





the No-Build Alternative and five Build

alternatives for detailed study in the

Draft EIS.














2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

201 Public Hearing





highway during construction, either on the




into the community.

















2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

211 Public Hearing

















on Meeker Avenue.




bridge.





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

221 Public Hearing








Collector-Distributor roadway. The

Collector-Distributor would collect the

BQE traffic that wants to exit to the LIE

and the traffic that enters from the

Vandervoort Avenue entrance ramp. This

split would eliminate the merging and

weaving problems that occur after the main

span of the bridge. The traffic entering

at Vandervoort Avenue that does not want

to go to the LIE would be able to join the









2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

231 Public Hearing










five eastbound, two lanes on the existing

bridge and three lanes on the new parallel

bridge, and four westbound lanes.














2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

241 Public Hearing
























lanes on the Collector-Distributor, and


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

251 Public Hearing













split.













2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

261 Public Hearing




lanes.






















2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

271 Public Hearing










Build Alternative.









Rehabilitation alternatives, as shown.







2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

281 Public Hearing




seventy-two months.









followed by BR-3 at $692 million, with

BR-2 having the highest estimated cost at

$712 million.











2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

291 Public Hearing




years.






















2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

301 Public Hearing


alternatives.












centers.




these park impacts and the proposed






populations.


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

311 Public Hearing










provide some of the safety and operational





alternatives would have an impact on the


bridge.








operate.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

321 Public Hearing








construction techniques that would involve

construction of new bridges from above,

without the need to set up large equipment

on the ground, which would likely impact

additional properties. Adjustments to the

preliminary locations of column supports

for both the permanent and temporary

structures were also done to avoid impacts

to properties.







title and all rights of ownership to the

property. A permanent easement involves

the State acquiring permanent right of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

331 Public Hearing


entry onto a property, most frequently to

allow access to the bridge for future

maintenance. A temporary easement also

involves the State acquiring right of

entry or use of a property, but on a

temporary basis, such as during

construction to provide a staging area.











would be greater on the eastbound or

Queens-bound side of the existing bridge,


Newtown Creek, coinciding with the new

eastbound parallel bridge. There would



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

341 Public Hearing





or Brooklyn-bound side of the existing

bridge, extending from Vandervoort Avenue

to Newtown Creek, coinciding with the new

westbound parallel bridge. There would









both the eastbound and westbound sides of

the existing bridge. Alternative BR-2 is

shown first here, and this is Alternative

BR-3. As noted, these two alternatives do

have similar impacts.



or Queens-bound side of the existing

bridge, property impacts would only occur

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

351 Public Hearing


on the eastbound side, extending from

Vandervoort Avenue to Newtown Creek.

In Queens, the property impacts of

the Build alternatives are almost entirely

on the eastbound side of the existing

bridge, with a few exceptions. For

Alternative RA-5, the property impacts on

the eastbound side coincide with the new











eastbound exit ramp.






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

361 Public Hearing







well, as shown. This is Alternative BR-2,

and this is Alternative BR-3. As noted,

these alternatives have similar impacts.





side, extending from the Creek to 54th

Avenue.







each of the Build alternatives shows that




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

371 Public Hearing













Brooklyn. Again, since Alternatives BR-2

and BR-3 would construct parallel bridges

on both sides of the existing bridge, they




Brooklyn.


require the relocation of residences.

BR-5 would require the relocation of three



introduce Angela Miraglia, from the New

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

381 Public Hearing


York State Department of Transportation

Real Estate Group, who will discuss the

Department's property acquisition

procedures.

MS. MIRAGLIA: Thank you, Bob.

Good morning, everyone. I am Angela

Miraglia, and I am the head of the

Acquisition Unit of the Real Estate Group.

Our main purpose is to act as liaison

between the State and the property owners

and the occupants, and to assure that they

receive all the benefits that are due

them.

The acquisition process begins with

maps being prepared. The maps show, in

detail, the actual acquisition.

An introduction package is sent to

each property owner, with a copy of the

acquisition map and information about the

project and how it will affect their

individual parcel. This package will

contain the name and telephone number of a

real estate agent who is assigned this

particular site.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

391 Public Hearing


An appraisal will be prepared. The

appraisal will be prepared by a qualified

appraiser. The owner will be given the


during the appraisal inspection. In most

cases, two appraisals will be required and

the highest approved value will be offered

to the owner.

The owner may accept the offer and

sign a full settlement or take the offer

as an advance payment and reserve the

right to continue negotiations.

Regardless of the choice, the offer amount

remains the same.

Our surveys indicate that there are

approximately fifteen to thirty properties

which may require relocations. The number

of displacees depends on the alternatives

chosen. All affected occupants will be

interviewed to determine their individual

needs, and to develop a plan to assist

them with their move.

Should a displacee be dissatisfied

with the offer of the moving expense

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

401 Public Hearing


benefit offered to them, they have the

right to appeal. There is an appeal

procedure that begins with a letter to the

Regional Real Estate Officer.

We have available at the Real Estate

table, two booklets that we hope will be

helpful to anyone who wishes more

information at this time. The books are


Property for Public Purposes" and "If You

Must Move, We Can Help."

We have placed the mailing address

and the phone number of the Regional Real

Estate Office in both booklets for your

convenience.

A Department Real Estate

representative will be available

throughout the day and evening to answer

any of your questions.

Thank you.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you, Angela.

The relocation of businesses

described would have a direct impact on

the people employed by those businesses.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

411 Public Hearing


The estimated number of employees

impacted by each of the Build alternatives

follows a similar pattern based on whether

parallel bridges are constructed on one or

both sides of the existing bridge.


employee impacts, estimated at 260,




impacted.














2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

421 Public Hearing



temporary on-site construction jobs and

temporary off-site support service jobs










Build alternative, ranging from a low of






received in 2005.






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

431 Public Hearing






impacts to near-shore waters of the Creek

would be minimized by using construction

methods and best management practices to

control the release of contaminated

materials.







materials from Newtown Creek.

Replacing the deteriorated bulkheads

with riprap would improve wildlife habitat

along the bank of the Creek. For the

Bridge Replacement alternatives, removal

of the existing piers would provide

additional habitat area in the Creek.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

441 Public Hearing














Connector, the low-level viaduct segment

with the red brick walls in Brooklyn, and

the LIE ramps, would connect to existing

New York City sewers.




of particulate matter, or dust, PM2.5 and





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

451 Public Hearing







area-wide, or mesoscale, analysis showed

that no impact would result from the

project in either 2015 or 2025. In 2035,

PM2.5 emissions would increase by 2.52 to

2.75 percent with all the Build

alternatives. Although these impacts do

not affect the project's conformity with

regional requirements, they do constitute

a project impact that cannot effectively

be mitigated due to the large area over

which the impacts occur. However, these

increases in PM2.5 emissions do not take

into account any new technological

advances in emissions control likely to be

developed in the next twenty years, that

may reduce overall emissions.




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

461 Public Hearing




BQE, generates the majority of noise. In

Queens, the BQE is the dominant source,



contribute as well.




would really not achieve adequate sound

level reduction to be effective, so were

not considered. Each of the Build












2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

471 Public Hearing


























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

481 Public Hearing













Community Protection Plan developed prior


surrounding community from exposure to any






are exceeded.





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

491 Public Hearing









Calvary Cemetery in Queens and the

Kosciuszko Bridge itself.






depending upon a number of factors.




new bridges during the final design phase

of the project, would help minimize these

visual impacts to the cemetery's viewshed.



rehabilitation, would have no impact on

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

501 Public Hearing






As mentioned earlier, all five of the

Build alternatives would impact Sgt.








construction, shown in pink.








and new playground equipment.

Additional park area would be created

north of the BQE to provide greater

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

511 Public Hearing


accessibility for residents who live on

that side of the highway. This would

result in a total park area ranging from

1.86 acres for Alternative RA-5 to 1.90

acres for Alternative RA-6, compared to an

area of 0.75 acres for the existing

playground.







construction, again shown in pink.

The proposed mitigation for BR-5

would also include reconstruction of the

existing playground and creation of new

park area on both sides of the highway,

with the same passive and active areas

described. This would result in a total

park area of 1.72 acres, compared to an

area of 0.75 acres for the existing

playground.

As part of the Department's

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

521 Public Hearing


Environmental Initiative, the Department

is proposing a number of other

environmental enhancements for the

communities. Four of the five Build















located on the eastbound side of the

existing bridge, shown in orange. All of

the Bridge Replacement alternatives would


westbound side of the new bridge, shown in

blue.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

531 Public Hearing





provided in both Brooklyn and Queens. It











courts, a skate park, and water play area.


rendering shows Alternatives BR-2 and

BR-5. Note that it would not move the

highway closer to Old Calvary Cemetery.

Again, note the new Queens Park to the

left.




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

541 Public Hearing



Avenue.

The first rendering shows all the

Build alternatives, except BR-5.

Again, looking at the same view, this

rendering shows Alternative BR-5. Since

this alternative would move or shift the

alignment of the highway slightly to the

south, away from the residences along

Meeker Avenue, it would enable more park

area to be provided on this side of the

highway, as shown.






interested parties, and the project's





receive comments.

The Public Hearings today give the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

551 Public Hearing


public the opportunity to provide comments

on the project through oral testimony.

Each speaker will be given five minutes to


please discuss them with members of the


House portion of the Public Hearings next

door.




and written comments received today or any

written comments received by mail, fax or

e-mail.


May 25th, 2007.

A Final EIS, which will document and

respond to the comments received on the

Draft EIS during the Public Comment

Period, is expected to be completed during

the Summer of 2006.

This Final EIS shall identify the



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

561 Public Hearing











That concludes today's presentation.

Again, to submit any comments, please send

to the address, fax or e-mail shown.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Bob.

In just a few minutes, we will be

ready to receive your comments, and

particularly for the benefit of those who

have arrived since we started, I would

like to remind you that the speaker sign-

in card is available at the front desk,

and if you would like to speak, please be

sure to fill out one of those.

As Bob mentioned, each person will be

allocated five minutes. However, written

statements that are received by May 25,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

571 Public Hearing


2007, are welcome, can be of any length,

and will receive the same consideration as

any oral statements that might be made

today.

In addition to the addresses that

were on the Powerpoint presentation, the

e-mail and the mailing addresses for both

DOT and the Federal Highway

Administration, the project website's

address, and the fax numbers are also on

the agenda, which is available at the

sign-in desk as well.

Before we call on our first speakers,

let me note for the record that as of

Tuesday, April 24th, written statements

had already been received from the

following individuals and organizations:

The Natural Resources Conservation Service

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the

Regional Administrator for the Eastern

Region of the Federal Aviation

Administration; Mary York, a resident of

Middle Village; Michael Heimbinder,

Director of Habitatmap.org.; St. Cecilia's

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

581 Public Hearing


Roman Catholic Church in Greenpoint;

Harvey Botzman, Cyclotour Guide Books;

Clifford Fee, a resident of Brooklyn; Zora

O'Neill, a resident of Astoria; Erika

Jakubassa, a resident of Greenpoint; the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

Historic Preservation Specialist; and the

Korchin Family Trust, Mortimer Korchin.

When we announce the speakers, we

will announce two at a time, so that the

second person can get ready to speak when

his or her turn comes, and we will now

just take a brief recess to assemble the

cards that we have and call our first

speakers.

We have one speaker, apparently, at

the moment, who is pre-registered, and so

I will only be calling one name, and that

is Cathryn Keeshan, and when you speak,

please, if you are speaking on behalf of

any affiliate organization, please

indicate that as well.

Ms. Keeshan, is that you? Okay,

thank you. You need to use one of the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

591 Public Hearing


microphones, if you would like to speak.

Behind you.

MS. KEESHAN: Good morning,

everybody, or perhaps, good afternoon. My

name is Cathryn Keeshan. I am president

of the United Forties Civic Association,

located in lower Woodside, Queens.

My reason for coming here this

morning and this afternoon, is to try to

have a clear picture to present to the

members of my association, who have been

very active through this process.

We are primarily concerned at this

juncture in the traffic, which will be

coming through our area during the

reconstruction period. No matter which

one of these plans is put into place, we

will be impacted by traffic.

We are pleased that no buildings in

our immediate area will be taken, and let

me define my immediate area. It goes from

49th Street, along the avenue of Laurel

Hill Boulevard, to 36th Street and Queens

Boulevard. We cover this area. We've

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

601 Public Hearing


been in business for twenty-nine years.

We all are frightened, once again,

because many of us lived through the

building of the LIE and the reconstruction

of the BQE, some forty years ago. So, my

main concern is not statistics, not

percentages, but traffic. How will this

reconstruction impact on traffic through

our quiet residential streets while this

process is going on?

How about our taxes, will they be

raised for this project? How about our

street repairs, which will be probably

somewhat hurt by additional truck traffic

and vehicular traffic coming through the

area.

Frankly, we understand what has been

shown to us on the screen this morning,

but being selfish like everybody else, we

want to know what this will do to that

immediate area, which I have tried to

describe to you, in a very short time.

Thank you, and I shall listen to the

rebuttal.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

611 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Ms.

Keeshan.

That was the only -- we have

additional registered speakers, but they

haven't indicated a desire to speak until

1:00 o'clock, and I don't believe they've

arrived yet, and we have no one who has

signed in, who would like to speak at this

point. So, what we will do is, we will

take a recess, and if there are additional

speakers prior to 1:00 o'clock, and prior

to the arrival of those who have pre-

registered, we will begin once again, and

if you would still like to speak, feel

free to go out and sign up, and we will

start right up again.

Just so you are aware of the process

we will follow, as I indicated, Department

staff and consultants will be next door

until 9:00 o'clock, and we will take

statements throughout the afternoon from

anybody who would like to make a

statement, and then we will repeat this

technical presentation again at 6:30,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

621 Public Hearing


followed by again an opportunity for

anyone who would like to speak to do so,

and as I indicated this morning's

presentation has been taped, and that will

be available for viewing throughout the

afternoon.

So, we will take a recess until we

have a speaker. Thank you very much.


12:05 p.m. to 1:05 p.m.)

JUDGE LOOMIS: It is approximately

1:05 p.m., and we will continue the

hearing. We had four speakers who had

pre-registered, and indicated a desire to

speak between 1:00 and l:30, and I believe

that they are all here.

I would just remind everyone that

oral statements are limited to five

minutes, but you are welcome to submit

written statements of any length. As long

as they are received by May 25th, they

will receive the same attention.

My guess is, you are the four

speakers.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

631 Public Hearing


Adam Gold?

MR. GOLD: Yes.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Please use one of the

microphones, because the stenographer is

using the sound system.

MR. GOLD: Can you identify

yourself?

JUDGE LOOMIS: Sure. My name is

Peter Loomis. I am an Administrative Law

Judge for the New York State Department of

Transportation in Albany. I'm moderating

the Hearing.

Robert Adams is the Project Manager

for the Kosciuszko Bridge Project, and

Angela Miraglia is the Director of

Acquisitions at the Regional Office in

Hunters Point.

If you would also just indicate your

affiliation, as well, please.

MR. GOLD: Sure.

Good afternoon. My name is Adam

Gold. I am the owner of Karp Associates.

We are the largest affected business by

the project. I am grateful to have the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

641 Public Hearing


opportunity to address you about the

impact that the bridge project will have

on my manufacturing business.

First of all, background. My

grandfather, Louis Karp, began Karp

Associates back in 1956, at its present

location in Maspeth, Queens. Our company

actually has roots back to 1925, when Karp

Metal Products was founded in a small

garage in Brooklyn.

During the late 50's and early 60's,

the manufacture and sale of access doors,

that is the product that we make, was a

regional, manually made job shop type

work.

In the late 60's, my father, then

Karp's president, recognized the need to

automate and expand the production of

access doors, and almost thirty-five years

after he made that decision, Karp is the

leading manufacturer of access doors in

the world.

Many of you may not even know what an

access door is. I see you shaking your

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

651 Public Hearing


head. Access doors are used primarily in

commercial buildings. Often you see them

in airports. They're in ceilings and in

walls, and what they do is, they give

access to plumbing shutoff valves or

electrical -- HVAC or electrical

circuitry. It's specified by architects.

We sell more than a quarter million a

year.

The original Karp plant was in

Maspeth. It was only 5,000 square feet.

Subsequent expansions in 1958, 1963 and

1989 grew our plant to the current size,

which is 32,000 square feet.

In the late 1990's, we had an

additional 15,000 square feet across the

street from our main facility, which

expanded us to 47,000 square feet.

In the early 2000's, we bought an

adjacent lot to our property, an

additional 12,000 square feet. At that

time, we found out about the bridge

project, and that put any expansion on

hold.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

661 Public Hearing


At Karp, we have always been proud

that we have been in one location and a

big part of the community. We have been

environmentally sensitive. We were one of

the first manufacturing facilities to

install an electrostatic powder paint

system. It is EPA-certified. It doesn't

emit any VOC, volatile organic compounds,

nor hazardous air pollutants. It is

completely safe, zero impact to the

environment. Any excess powder paint, we

recycle.

We also participate -- we own a

generator, and we participate in New York

State's Energy Demand Response Program.

Basically, what that is, is during high-

peak times in the summer, we run our

generator -- we pull our demand offline,

and allow everyone who doesn't have a

generator to receive the electricity that

they need.

We fabricate all our products with

recyclable materials. Our boxes are made

of recycled paper. Our access doors,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

671 Public Hearing


which are made of steel, are made of

recycled materials.

We employ a hundred union employees,

union and non-union employees, and our

employee base is from all five boroughs,

although our primary concentration is in

Maspeth, and Queens -- and the rest of the

Queens.

We are proud to have a very low

turnover rate. In fact, we have dozens of

employees who have been with us for

greater than ten and twenty years, five

even in excess of thirty-five years.

That is the history in a nutshell.

Now, I'm going to talk about the effect,

again, which it will make on our company.

I'm proud to be the third generation

to lead Karp as a successful family

business in New York State. I'm well

aware that the effects of eminent domain

situations often affect small businesses.

Most business owners have to make a

risk/reward evaluation, and for a lot of

them, it becomes an exit strategy. It is

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

681 Public Hearing


not an exit strategy for me or for my

family. I plan on passing the business on

to my children, and hope to be in Maspeth

for the next fifty years.

I love what I do. I love my

business, and I welcome all the challenges

that face me as a manufacturer in New York

and in the United States.

What I'm here to do is really to

implore the State, the DOT and the City to

help facilitate a quick binding commitment

to take our property. We're basically at

a stalemate. We can't look at property to

buy because property changes hands very

quickly. We can't buy. We can't expand.

We can't do anything. All we can do is

wait.

Our situation is a little unique. We

are a manufacturer. We are not a

warehouse. We've got equipment that is --

we have an integrated production line of

equipment that can't be moved. Fifty

percent of what we do is custom. So, in

order to move to a new facility, we need

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

691 Public Hearing


to purchase, install and customize new

equipment and fully test it before we go.

Basically, we have to turn out our lights

on a Friday, and start producing on a

Monday. Because we have fifty percent

production, if we don't have that kind of

response, we're going to be out of

business. It's going to be fatal for our

company.

My understanding is that the DOT has

indicated that New York's eminent domain

procedure prevents the State from

acquiring property more than eighteen

months prior to the intended start date of

the project. For us, eighteen months just

isn't enough. It eliminates any

possibility of a build-to-suit type

situation, where we find a piece of land

and build a factory to suit our needs. We

are limited by limited properties, because

properties are very competitive and in

scarce supply in New York State and New

York City. We are also limited by the

fact that we've got key employees that we

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

701 Public Hearing


have to be there for, and so, there are

only certain areas that we can look in.

Basically, what we need is, we need a

settlement that is timely and fair, that

keeps us out of Court, and prevents us

from losing any production time. That is

critical.

In truth, as a result of the eminent

domain process, we have been pursued by

other jurisdictions, that is, New York,

New Jersey, other states where

manufacturing is, quite frankly, much

cheaper.

Under normal circumstances, I

wouldn't consider -- we've been at the

same location for fifty years. It's been

a wonderful location for us to manufacture

out of, but the uncertainties of the

project have forced us to consider

alternatives.

My true hope is that the City and the

State will offer the right incentives and

a carefully planned acquisition of the

property, that will make it worthwhile for

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

711 Public Hearing


us to stay.

The community has expressed interest

in us staying in the area, and I speak

with sincerity on behalf of Karp, myself,

our hundred employees, the 147 children

that will potentially be affected by this

taking, that we would like to remain in

Queens, preferably Maspeth, if possible.

Thank you for the opportunity. I

would be pleased to answer any questions

or have anybody visit our facility to see

what our issues are.

Thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Gold.

There are three others from Karp

Associates. You are welcome to speak in

any order. Just please identify yourself

for the reporter, if you would.

MR. WEISS: My name is Ed Weiss, and

I'm the Director of Customer Service for

the shelving division of Karp Associates.

Just to give a little something about

myself. I was born and raised in

Glendale. I'm married and have two

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

721 Public Hearing


children and own a home.

When I had the opportunity to

purchase a home, I thought about moving

out of the area, but when I listed the

pluses of Queens against any other area,

Queens always seem to come out on top. It

is centrally located between Manhattan,

with its theaters, museums and

restaurants, and Long Island, which is

known for its beaches, resorts and

recreational area.

Up until about five years ago, I

worked in New York City and commuted by

mass transit, but then, unfortunately,

like a lot of other companies, the City

became too expensive, and we relocated to

Greenpoint.

I was relieved and excited. I was

relieved that the owner chose to remain in

New York, and excited that now I had an

under fifteen minute commute by car to

work.

About a year later, the company was

struggling, and I decided it was time to

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

731 Public Hearing


make a move. I had heard about Karp

Associates, and that they were expanding

their business by adding a new product

line called adjustable shelving. I had

known about Karp for a couple of years,

and heard good things about the owners and

the company. So, I pursued them, and

consider myself lucky that I work there.

Plus, I have the added advantage of biking

to work in nice weather.

Karp is a mini-United Nations. It

has a mixed ethnic grouping, with all

cultures working side by side to get the

job done. It is not uncommon to hear

someone from Puerto Rico explaining a

problem to someone from Guyana, who, in

turn, explains what needs to be done to

someone from Poland.

As far as the owner, who you just

met, Adam, he is concerned with the

business. He works long and hard trying

to make the company grow and be more

prosperous, so that all employees benefit.

It is not uncommon to see him driving a

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

741 Public Hearing


forklift or running a press brake, if

required.

Karp has recently developed another

new product line called high density

shelving that will substantially expand

our operation. In a time when companies

are scaling back, Karp is boldly going

forward.

Now to the matter at hand. It was

upsetting to all of Karp's one hundred

employees when we heard that all five

plans of the bridge reconstruction

incorporated the loss of our plant.

Ninety percent of us are from Brooklyn or

Queens. We all know that if the situation

is not handled correctly, Karp would be

forced out of the area or, worse yet,

close its doors.

We understand that this project will

proceed, and it is in the best interest of

New York. However, we implore the State

and specifically the Department of

Transportation to do the right thing and

work with us. We need them to move

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

751 Public Hearing


quickly, act decisively, and provide us

with timely, accurate information as we

move forward. We need them to also

understand that most of our business is

custom manufacturing, and that we cannot

shut down production while we move our

machinery to a new location.

I truly believe that all of us at

Karp want to continue living and working

in the area.

Thank you very much.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Weiss.

MR. MIDURA: Good afternoon, ladies

and gentlemen. My name is Zbigniew

Midura. I'm the Production Manager at

Karp Associates. I came to this country

eighteen years ago, and couldn't say a

single word in English, but I came to this

country to find opportunity and grow and

settle down, and I did. My first job and

only job what I have is job at Karp

Associates.

When I was going to this meeting, and

I said to myself, I came from Poland, and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

761 Public Hearing


Thaddeus Kosciuszko came from Poland, and

I'm facing the problem, after so many

years, with the bridge.

Okay, I would like to say that I have

thirty years experience in manufacturing

business, and it is very interesting that

our factory consists of so many nations.

We speak over twelve languages in our

place, and we have people from over twelve

countries, but we are one family. We can

talk, we can work, and we can enjoy after

work.

Most of our employees are living in

Maspeth, Ridgewood and Glendale, and we

have been looking every single day at that

congestion and traffic on the Kosciuszko

Bridge, and we know that the job has to be

redone, the more that the bridge has to be

redone, and we know that's a good thing,

it's going to happen to many people, but

also, we have concerns that we would love

to stay in Maspeth, in Queens. We have

houses, we have families, we have kids

going to school, and all these employees

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

771 Public Hearing


are coming and asking these questions.

Obvious, they -- like I said, they agree

that the job has to be redone, but it has

to be done the proper way, and putting all

my experience to run this kind of factory,

I can say that we are very combined,

complex manufacturer. We cannot make our

doors going to this piece, that piece and

that piece. We have to have all these

pieces going time line, piece by piece

equipment, work station by work station.

What I want to say is that, it is

impossible to stop four machines or four

work centers, move, stop the productions,

come back, move another four, and do the

production. It is impossible. It goes in

time, station by station, and it has to go

to the end.

We are producing over a thousand

doors a day, and we have standard product

and special product. We have over thirty

different types of standard product, and

we have hundreds and hundreds of different

specials, and that's what is putting us to

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

781 Public Hearing


the situation that we cannot stop the

production. We cannot put the product on

the shelves because we don't know what

kind of specials -- we don't know what

kind of demand is going to come to

different doors. Then, we supply our

dealers, obvious, and all those doors are

going to -- they got themselves to

different buildings.

Then, we -- I, personally, as

representative of all these immigrants who

came to this country, who work for Karp

and other businesses in this area, we are

hoping that the project is going to be

done, and it is going to be done the

proper way to satisfy the City, to satisfy

people living and working in this area,

and our dream is to stay in Maspeth or in

Queens.

Thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr.

Midura.

Ms. Ziccardi.

MS. ZICCARDI: Hi. My name is

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

791 Public Hearing


Connie Ziccardi, and I live and work in

Maspeth. I worked for Karp for twenty-two

years, so, Karp is like my family. It is

my family. It's what I get up to do every

day. I started there part-time as a file

clerk. Now, I'm into Customer Service

Manager. I enjoy what I do, and I hope to

do it for as long as I can do it, if, you

know, they allow us to remain in Maspeth,

so we could all still be a very close

family. Like my co-worker said, you know,

it's our life, and it's been our life for

a long time.

So, I cannot add anything else to

what they already said, and we hope

everybody does the right thing for us.

Thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you very much.

We have no registered speakers at the

moment. So, we will take a recess until

we have a registered speaker, and then we

will continue.

Thank you all very much.


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

801 Public Hearing


1:20 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.)

JUDGE LOOMIS: We will continue with

the Hearing. We have an additional

registered speaker, Richard Gualtieri, and

the rules are five minutes oral and any

length written, and May 25th is the cutoff

date.

So, please use one of the microphones

because the stenographer is using the

sound system.

MR. GUALTIERI: Hello. I work in

Long Island City, and my principal concern

about the present project is that my

understanding is that New York State

Department of Transportation is currently

under contract with a consultant to study

managed use lanes, and my concern is that

we should not preclude the need for these

managed use lanes potentially on the

Kosciuszko, but we should coordinate the

structural rehab with the people who are

undertaking the managed use lane study, so

that the work will not preclude the

managed use lanes or require major

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

811 Public Hearing


reconstruction, in order to put managed

use lanes into effect, if indeed they are

called for.

I understand that managed use lanes

are not part of the present Kosciuszko

Bridge task, or project, I should say, but

we should allow for future construction of

managed use lanes as is deemed appropriate

or to the extent that they become found to

be desirable.

Now, these lanes might be for high

occupancy or toll lanes, hot lanes, they

are called, and they might be for

truckways or there are any number of --

HOV lanes are another example of managed

use lanes. They potentially even could

serve more than one of these functions at

different hours of the day, depending on

how they -- how it is appropriate -- found

to be appropriate to configure them, but

we want to make sure -- well, my concern

is to make sure that we do not preclude

the construction of such lanes in the

future.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

821 Public Hearing



Gualtieri.

We will continue our recess until we

have additional speakers.

Thank you.


1:55 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.)


6:05, and we are going to continue with

the Public Comment portion of the Hearing.

At 6:30, we will have a repeat of the

technical presentation by Mr. Adams.





this Hearing.

With me is Bob Adams, who is the

Project Manager, and Anthony Greene, who

is the Regional Real Estate Officer.

Just a couple of comments. Oral

statements are limited this evening to

five minutes, and please use one of the

two microphones since the court reporter

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

831 Public Hearing


is using the sound system and has

headphones on. Written statements of any

length are welcome and encouraged, and can

be sent by regular mail, by fax or

e-mailed, and the addresses are on the

agenda, which is a single page document

that is available out in the sign-in area.

I have cards of four or five

individuals who preferred to speak at 6:00

o'clock. The first is Tes Choudri.

Mr. Choudri.

MR. TES CHOUDRI: Good evening. My

name is Tes Choudri. My family and I are

the residents in Queens that would be

affected by this project.

It is clear that all the Build

alternatives will effect on the quality of

life, and for this reason, I would like to

state for the record my support for the

Build alternative BR-5. The other four

Build alternatives will potentially create

unhealthy and unsafe conditions, as the

expressway would be literally next to our

door.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

841 Public Hearing


This is definitely a unique situation

because my family is the only family that

would be affected by this. Initially, we

did oppose the project, as we felt that we

were going to be buried with all the

construction literally on top of our head,

and the idea of relocating was truly

disturbing. But during the study, we were

able to meet with several members of the

project team, primarily Bob Adams. At

those meetings, we were assured that we

would be relocated to an area of our

choice, and, more importantly, we would be

placed together.

We are extremely concerned about the

distribution of monies that will be

allotted for the purchase of our new

homes. Can we be assured that we will get

adequate compensation to obtain new

properties or will we have to go back and

forth to the City and State for approvals?

Is there an easier way to work together to

have the process move more quickly?

With that being said, I would like to

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

851 Public Hearing


request a commitment in writing from the

City or State. This, in turn, will help

ease our anxieties.

It is also important for me to

emphasize an early notification of the

selected alternative. It will provide us

with the time we need to make the

transaction -- transition, I'm sorry, as

smooth as possible.

I have a small child, and I need to

know what to expect. My son is going to

attend preschool this coming September,

and we just don't know where to enroll

him. At this moment, this is an extreme

problem for us.

I would like to thank Bob Adams and

Helen Neuhaus for all their help and

support. Thank you, guys, appreciate it.


Choudri.

Nena Choudri, or you can speak in any

order. I know there are several members

of the family. Would you just give us

your name, please.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

861 Public Hearing


MS. NENA CHOUDRI: Hi. My name is

Nena Choudri. I didn't prepare anything

because I originally wasn't going to

speak. I don't like public speaking.

I just want to say that we've lived

in that area for thirty years. Although

there aren't very many houses there, we've

lived there very comfortably and enjoyed

living there.

My parents are elderly. We're all a

close-knit family. We're all staying

together in three houses, and we would

like to remain close to each other because

we want to all stay close to my parents.

We are also afraid of how we are

going to be reimbursed for the houses and

the properties that we own since inflation

and everything else that is going on, we

want to make sure that we're adequately

reimbursed for our properties.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, ma'am.

Akhtar Choudri.

MR. AKHTAR CHOUDRI: Hello, ladies

and gentlemen. I have some accents. I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

871 Public Hearing


hope you forgive those.

I don't have to say much because my

son and my daughter, they said everything

what we wanted, but I really appreciate

Project Manager, Bob Adams, his colleagues

and experience. They treated us like we

are their guests. Whenever they have the

meeting, I attended so many meetings, and

we are like their bosses, and it was

really appreciated very much.

And second thing, all I want to know, why

they took so long to build that bridge

because we are the only people who live

around there, underneath the bridge, and I

know every other month or every two weeks,

they are working on the bridge, especially

they work in the nights, a lot of lights,

we couldn't sleep. And the main thing is

this that I'm not City, but it costs them

a lot of money. I think they took long

time to do that, build the bridge. I hope

if they have done it before that they

would have saved a lot of City's money, a

lot of City's overtime. People working

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

881 Public Hearing


nights, they get their overtime or double

time, I guess -- I think. They are now

every other month or every other week,

they are worried, they are thinking, what

else do we have to fix it, what else do we

have to fix it because that bridge is in

bad shape. They're always working. We've

been there twenty-eight years. I know in

twenty-eight years how many times -- how

many days, Bob or some of the other

colleagues -- they are there. They go

over there and check the bridge, then find

how much it would cost. We have saved the

money, City money. They have not their

money. They don't spend money from their

pocket, and they think we have to save the

money because we have to save our jobs.

If you spend too much money and they say,

okay, Bob, goodbye, he is doing hard, is

working hard, he's doing a lot of things

but beyond his power, I think, and I think

it's good, build a bridge, they be without

worry maybe thirty, forty years. They

don't ever think anything about that

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

891 Public Hearing


bridge.

Now, you know, they don't have the

money. Why do we have to do that? Why do

we have to do that? We take every month

meeting, every other month meeting, call

us, give the newspaper and all over. I

think, they are doing only this bridge

thing in their offices, nothing else but

the bridge, what we have to do, what we

have to do, but I think it's a really good

thing.

And second thing about our houses, we

own three houses. My daughter is right

here and my son is here, half of the

family is here. We couldn't bring all the

family, but anyway, whatever we could

bring it, we brought it, and as my son and

my daughter told you, that they are going

to arrange the houses for us, and we've

been there a long time.

I used to work for UPS, United Parcel

Service. I had executive job. So, I

moved over here about twenty-eight, thirty

years, just for that because UPS over

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

901 Public Hearing


here. UPS, we build UPS Building in 1965.

So, after that -- before I go to work in

Manhattan. Then, before the houses --

before the houses, we have some property.

We had one warehouse we rented, my son

rented that warehouse, and that's it.

I don't think whatever -- I was not

prepared. When my son told me, Daddy, you

have to talk, I said, why do I have to

talk. He said, if I tell you two things,

and he would write it down for me. I

said, I'm not going to read it. You tell

me what you have to talk. I said, I can't

talk, I have accent. Who cares? I don't

have accent in my brain. I have accent

when I talk. So, anyway I'm here.

Whatever I think I told you.

Thank you very much.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you very much,

sir.

Mr. Nunziato is here.

Did you want to speak now or after

the technical presentation?

MR. NUNZIATO: I would like to speak

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

911 Public Hearing


now.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Okay.

MR. NUNZIATO: My name is Tony

Nunziato. I'm with the Maspeth Chamber

and also a Queens advocate.

I commend the Choudri family for

coming out. They did a good job in the

presentation, and my grandfather, when he

came over, had an accent too. So, you

should be proud of it. We're all part of

here. We're all Americans. We're all

looking out to make sure everyone is

treated the right way. I commend you and

your family coming out. We're going to

make sure, on the Queens side, that

everything is being taken care of, no one

is going to be thrown to the side, and

that's where we want to make sure -- I

want to personally commend Robert Adams

and his team for doing a fantastic job

because I saw a lot of projects and

they're altruistic, they're truthful, that

everything they do is always aboveboard,

and you see that, you spoke on it, and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

921 Public Hearing


they're going to make sure that you have

everything. It's hard to see you being,

right now, dangled with days and years and

what time to move, and I wouldn't want to

have that with me or anybody in this room

to know what your future is, whether

short, how long, do I pack, do I don't

pack, but I could assure, by knowing

Robert Adams and Helen Neuhaus &

Associates and all her associates are

going to work together to make sure that

they are going to make sure everything is

fair for you, and I'll work with you on it

as a Queens person and as somebody from

the Maspeth/Woodside area, to make sure we

accomplish those goals because we're all

here to have our freedom, we're all here

for our home. Anyone's home should be

cherished and no one should be dealt that

way, and I'm sure they're working with you

very well, and you said that already.

I just want to make sure, as far as,

to go on with this project, I want to make

sure the City agencies step up to the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

931 Public Hearing


plate. This project has been going on,

and the City agencies, under Robert Adams,

they had the agencies, inter-city agencies

meet. They want to be active. We want to

make sure everyone is on the same time

schedule with this project.

I want to make sure that the City DOT

is on a time schedule with us, making sure

that the Grand Street Bridge is finished

before the Kosciuszko Bridge Project is

started, so we don't have any jam up in

the traffic, so everything is flowed.

I want to make sure the City DOT has

the Maspeth Bypass Plan altogether, so

this way traffic could flow so we don't

congestion coming into our neighborhoods,

and endangering our lives with the

pollution and all the traffic.

So, it's very important that all the

City agencies, and I'm sure I am missing

some others with the Fire Department, with

the Police, everything has to be -- they

have to step up to the plate.

The outreach on this project -- I've

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

941 Public Hearing


never seen such outreach on a project like

this, and the City agencies, they come to

the meetings. We have to make sure that

they do what they promise to do, so we

could all have our quality of life, and

that's what it's all about. It's our tax

dollars. No matter where your house is

and where the business is, we're all part

of New York, and we all pay our taxes, and

we all have the right to have a good

quality of life, and we have to make sure

that the City agencies are as effective as

the people who are taking care of this

project right now, are as effective. This

way, everything stays in the right

procedure.

I just wanted to thank you. I think

everything else is going fine, and I'm

going to also give a written testimony, as

far as which project and all, and thank

you again for keeping everything always

out there, outreach, and keeping everybody

abreast of what's going on.

Thank you.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

951 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, sir.

The time is approximately 6:20. We

are going to recess until 6:30, when we

will begin the technical presentation

again.

Thank you.


6:20 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.)


6:30, so we will begin this last portion

of the Hearing this evening. I welcome

you. My name is Peter Loomis. I am an

Administrative Law Judge for the New York

State Department of Transportation, and I

have been asked to moderate today's

hearing.

With me is Robert Adams, who is the

Project Engineer for the Kosciuszko Bridge

Project.

I would like to welcome you to this

Public Hearing, which is being sponsored


Transportation, in cooperation with the

Federal Highway Administration.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

961 Public Hearing


Today's is the second of two

Hearings. The first was held last

Thursday in Brooklyn.

The purpose of the Hearings is to




Kosciuszko Bridge Project, to describe the

alternatives under consideration and their

potential impacts, and, importantly, to

receive your comments on the document.

Although the Hearing is for the receipt of

testimony, and does not include a question

and answer session, you are invited and,

in fact, encouraged to go next door and

ask questions of DOT representatives and

their engineering and environmental

consultants. They'll be there until 9:00

o'clock this evening.

Tonight, we will first discuss the

background of the project, and then



analysis of the No-Build and five Build

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

971 Public Hearing


alternatives that are under consideration.


review of the Department's acquisition and

relocation policies and procedures, and

the remainder of the Hearing will provide

an opportunity for you to offer testimony

for the record.

A couple of housekeeping items.

There is no smoking in the building, and

if you have cell phones or pagers, please

turn them off or have them in the vibrate

mode. In addition, the exits are marked

in the event of an emergency.

I would like to introduce the two

people who are seated with me. On my

right is Bob Adams, who is, as I

indicated, the Project Manager, and on my

left is Anthony Greene, the acting Real

Estate Officer for the Department's

regional office in New York City.

Tonight's Public Hearing is being


statutory requirements, including Section

128 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, which

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

981 Public Hearing


requires Public Hearings on major

transportation projects; the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Section

4(f) of the Department of Transportation

Act of 1966; section 6(f) of the Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965;

Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act; as well as New York

State's own Environmental Quality Review

Act.

In preparation for the hearings, a


undertaken, to provide opportunities --

maximum opportunities for public

participation.

Upon completion of the Draft EIS in

March, over two hundred copies of the

document were distributed to City, State,

Regional and Federal agencies, elected

officials, members of the Stakeholders

Advisory Committee, business

representatives and other interested

persons.

Additionally, the Draft EIS and its

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

991 Public Hearing


nineteen appendices were placed in the

projects's eleven information


website.


was distributed to approximately eight

hundred and fifty individuals and

organizations on the project mailing list,

and this package included a letter of

invitation from Norik Tatevossian,

Director of Structures for the

Department's Regional Office in New York

City, an executive summary of the Draft

EIS, a sample copy of the Public Hearing

notice, as well as flyers announcing these

Hearings, and all of those documents are

available for review at the sign-in table.


Regulations, notice of the Hearings and

availability of the Draft EIS was



Environmental Notice Bulletin, in the

March 21, 2007 issue, as well as in the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1001 Public Hearing


March 23, 2007 issue of the Federal

Register.

In addition, advertisements were

placed in numerous local, citywide and

foreign language newspapers beginning on

March 16th, and sample copies of those are

also available for review in the Open

House area, and at the sign-in table. For

the record, I would note that display

advertisements were placed in: El

Periodico, on March 16 and April 16, the

New York Daily News, on March 20 and 22nd

and on April 10, the Western Queens

Gazette, on March 21 and April 11th, the

Queens Chronicle, on March 22 and April

12, America Oggi, on March 20 and April

10, the Polish Daily News, March 20 and

April 10, the Greenpoint-Williamsburg

Gazette, on March 20 and April 10, the

Queens Ledger, on March 22nd and April

12th, Times Newsweekly, on March 22 and

April 12th, and finally, in Greenline, the

April 2007 edition, and copies of these

advertisements were made part of the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1011 Public Hearing


record last Thursday, as Exhibit 1.




the scheduling of these Hearings, and

those included the provision of Community

Calendar announcements to local



help of the Stakeholders Advisory

Committee, distribution of more than 8,000



areas.

In terms of the procedure we will

follow this evening, following the

technical presentation, we will welcome

your statements and comments. If you

would like to speak and have not pre-

registered, you should go out to the sign-

in table and complete one of the speaker's

cards, and as I indicated, I believe, at

the outset, speakers will be allowed five

minutes.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1021 Public Hearing


The Hearing is being recorded by a

stenographer, and although the room is

small, and we could presumably hear your

statements from where you are sitting, he

is using the sound system and has

headphones on, so please use one of the

two microphones that are available if you

wish to speak.

In addition, there was a video tape

made of this morning's presentation, and

that is available for viewing in the next

room.

Following the evaluation of the

public testimony presented at the Hearing

today and last Thursday, along with

written comments and exhibits which are

submitted by May 25, 2007, a Final EIS

will be prepared. This document will

announce the selection of the preferred

alternative by the New York State

Department of Transportation, and approval

of the selected alternative by FHWA will

be announced in its issuance of a Record

of Decision or known as a ROD.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1031 Public Hearing



the project to move forward into its next

phase, which is design. It should be

emphasized that there has been no decision

on whether to select a Build alternative

or if a Build alternative is selected, on

its specific design features. These

Public Hearings, in fact, are being held

to encourage you to provide input that

will help DOT make those decisions.

At this point, Mr. Adams, the Project

Manager, will begin the technical

presentation.


Loomis.

I would like to welcome you to the

Public Hearing for the Kosciuszko Bridge

Project.




and evaluated possible improvements to the

Kosciuszko Bridge, culminating in the


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1041 Public Hearing


Statement, or Draft EIS.










Bridge.








parkways.






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1051 Public Hearing







safety, traffic congestion, and a

deteriorating structural condition.














bridge every day, result in an accident


average.


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1061 Public Hearing










BQE.






into or out of traffic traveling at a




locations.




average for a similar entrance ramp. The


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1071 Public Hearing


























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1081 Public Hearing




delays expected.



familiar sight as you try to fight your

way across the bridge.














repairs.


structural problems the Department has

repaired, including cracked and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1091 Public Hearing




surfaces.














desired.








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1101 Public Hearing














Advisory Committee.












2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1111 Public Hearing




alternatives.








No-Build or No-Action Alternative is







the No-Build and five Build alternatives

for detailed study in the Draft EIS.






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1121 Public Hearing













highway during construction, either on




into the community.









2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1131 Public Hearing














reduce accidents near the ramps.











on Meeker Avenue.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1141 Public Hearing





bridge.











Collector-Distributor roadway. The

Collector-Distributor would collect the

BQE traffic that wants to exit to the LIE

and the traffic that enters from the

Vandervoort Avenue entrance ramp. This

split would eliminate the merging and

weaving problems that occur after the main

span of the bridge. The traffic entering

at Vandervoort Avenue that does not want

to go to the LIE would be able to join the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1151 Public Hearing


























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1161 Public Hearing


























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1171 Public Hearing








lanes on the Collector-Distributor

roadway, and four westbound lanes.












split.





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1181 Public Hearing












lanes.














2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1191 Public Hearing


















Build Alternative.








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1201 Public Hearing



Rehabilitation alternatives, as shown in

the graph.









seventy-two months.









followed by BR-3 at $692 million, with

BR-2 having the highest estimated cost at

$712 million.


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1211 Public Hearing













years.













2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1221 Public Hearing











alternatives.












centers.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1231 Public Hearing



these park impacts and the proposed






populations.

















2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1241 Public Hearing


bridge.








operate.







construction techniques that would involve

the construction of new bridges from

above, without the need to set up large

equipment on the ground, which would






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1251 Public Hearing


















staging area.








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1261 Public Hearing





would be greater on the eastbound side of

the existing bridge, extending from

Vandervoort Avenue to Newtown Creek,

coinciding with the new eastbound or

Queens-bound parallel bridge. There would







from Vandervoort Avenue to Newtown Creek,

coinciding with the new westbound or

Brooklyn-bound parallel bridge. There

would also be some property impacts on the







2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1271 Public Hearing




Now, Alternative BR-2 is shown here, and

this is Alternative BR-3, and as noted,


impacts.





side, extending from Vandervoort Avenue to

Newtown Creek.

Moving over to Queens, the property

impacts of the Build alternatives are

almost entirely on the eastbound side of

the existing bridge, with a few

exceptions. For Alternative RA-5, the

property impacts on the eastbound or

Queens-bound side coincide with the new






2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1281 Public Hearing


from the Creek to 54th Avenue, coinciding

with the new westbound parallel bridge.

There would be some property impacts on

the eastbound side of the existing bridge

due to a temporary eastbound exit ramp to

the LIE.






extending from the Creek to 54th Avenue.

Since Alternatives BR-2 and BR-3 include

new parallel bridges on both sides of the

existing bridge, some properties on the

westbound side would be impacted as well.

This is showing Alternative BR-2 first,

and here is Alternative BR-3. As noted,


property impacts.





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1291 Public Hearing


side, extending from Newtown Creek to 54th

Avenue.







each of the Build alternatives shows the















Brooklyn. Since Alternatives BR-2 and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1301 Public Hearing


BR-3 would construct parallel bridges on

both sides of the existing bridge, they




Brooklyn.


require the relocation of residences.

BR-5 would require the relocation of three



introduce Anthony Greene, from the New

York State Department of Transportation

Real Estate Group, to discuss the

Department's property acquisition

procedures.

MR. GREENE: Thank you, Bob.

Good evening. My name is Anthony

Greene. I am the Acting Real Estate

Officer for the Region 11 Real Estate

Group.

The Real Estate Group's primary

function is to act as a liaison between

the State and the affected property owners

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1311 Public Hearing


and occupants. Our office will make every

effort to make sure that the affected

property owners and occupants' needs are

met by assuring that they receive any and

all benefits they are entitled to.

Our acquisition process begins with

the preparation of maps. These maps

provide the details of the parcels of land

or property being acquired, and they are

based upon the geometry of the roadway,

and our needs to construct and maintain

our facilities. Each property owner will

be sent an introductory package, which

includes the acquisition map, information

about our project and how it affects the

individual parcel. Enclosed in the

package will also be the real estate agent

assigned to their individual property. An

appraisal will then be prepared for the

map by either departmental or consultant

appraisers. Consultant appraisers are all

certified by the State of New York.

The owner, or his chosen

representative, will be given an

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1321 Public Hearing



during the appraisal and inspection

process. In most instances, two

appraisals will be required, and the

highest approved value will then be

offered to the property owner.

The State uses what is known as the

one offer system. Once the offer has been

made to the owner, he may decide to accept

the offer and sign a full settlement or

take the offer as an advance payment and

reserve the right to continue negotiations

in the Court of Claims. Regardless of the

owner's decision, the offered amount will

remain the same.

Our surveys have indicated that there

are approximately fifteen to thirty

properties that will require relocation.

The number of properties that will have to

be displaced depends upon the alternative

that is chosen. The occupants that will

be affected will be interviewed to

determine their individual needs, and to

develop a plan to assist them with their

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1331 Public Hearing


move.

A displacee that is not satisfied

with the offer of moving expense benefit

that is offered to them has a right to

appeal. The appeal procedure begins with

a letter to the Regional Real Estate

Officer, and can be elevated to the

Commissioner of Department of

Transportation.

The Department has also studied the

local real estate market to determine the

availability of comparable replacement

properties.

We have concluded that there will be

a sufficient number of replacement

properties to satisfy the needs of all

displacees.

We project that all occupants should

be successfully relocated within one year

of the State taking title to their

property.

Property acquisition would not


is approved by the Federal Highway

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1341 Public Hearing



begin, our office will provide relocation

assistance to all affected parties. A

more detailed description of these



Can Help," which is at the Real Estate

table in the Open House.

You may also want to review our

property acquisition booklet entitled,

"How Your State Acquires Property for

Public Purposes."

Representatives from the Real Estate

office will be here throughout the Open

House to answer your individual questions.

We have also included our address and

phone numbers in the booklet, and

encourage you to feel free to call upon

us. Our office is committed to making

this very difficult process as painless as

possible.

Thank you.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you, Tony.

The relocation of businesses that we

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1351 Public Hearing


just described would have a direct impact

on the people employed by those

businesses. The estimated number of

employees impacted by each of the Build

alternatives follows a similar pattern

based on whether parallel bridges are

constructed on one side or on both sides

of the existing bridge.


employee impact, estimated at 260,




impacted.









increase in employment and purchase of


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1361 Public Hearing






temporary, on-site construction jobs and

temporary, off-site support service jobs
















received in 2005.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1371 Public Hearing


























2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1381 Public Hearing

















Connector, the low-level viaduct segment

with the red brick walls in Brooklyn, and

the LIE ramps area, would connect to

existing New York City sewers.




of particulate matter, or dust, PM2.5 and


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1391 Public Hearing








analysis, or the local analysis, showed

that there would be no projected impacts

at the local level. The mesoscale, or

area-wide, analysis showed that no impact

would result from the project in either

2015 or 2025. However, in 2035, PM2.5

emissions would increase by 2.52 to 2.75

percent with all the Build alternatives.

Although these impacts do not affect the

project's conformity with regional

requirements, they do constitute a project

impact that cannot effectively be

mitigated due to the large area over which

the impacts occur. However, these

increases in PM2.5 emissions do not take

into account any new technological

advances in emissions control likely to be

developed in the next twenty years that

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1401 Public Hearing


may reduce overall emissions.






BQE, generates the majority of the noise.

In Queens, the BQE is the dominant source,



contribute as well.




would not really achieve adequate sound

level reduction to be effective, so were

not considered. Each of the Build








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1411 Public Hearing


populated residential areas in Brooklyn

along Meeker Avenue.




















plume in Brooklyn, whereas BR-5 would have

a lower potential to impact the plume.

Since the Rehabilitation alternatives

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1421 Public Hearing


would not remove the existing piers from

the Creek, they would have a lower

potential to impact the contaminated Creek

sediment.














Community Protection Plan, developed prior


surrounding community from exposure to any





2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1431 Public Hearing



are exceeded.






with the Health and Safety Plan and the

soil and groundwater management plans.





Calvary Cemetery in Queens and the bridge

itself.






depending upon a number of factors.




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1441 Public Hearing



of the project would minimize visual




rehabilitation, would have no impact on

the elements of the Kosciuszko Bridge that

make it eligible for the National

Register. Alternatives BR-2, BR-3 and

BR-5 would remove the existing bridge

entirely.

As we mentioned earlier, all five of

the Build alternatives would impact Sgt.








construction, which is shown in pink.




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1451 Public Hearing





















construction.

Again, the proposed mitigation would

also include reconstruction of the

existing playground, and creation of new

park area on both sides of the existing

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1461 Public Hearing


highway, with the same passive and active

areas described. This would result in a

total park area of 1.72 acres, compared to

an area of 0.75 acres for the existing

playground.


















new bikeway/walkway on the new eastbound

parallel bridge located on the eastbound

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1471 Public Hearing


side of the existing bridge, shown in

orange. All of the Bridge Replacement

alternatives would include the new

bikeway/walkway on the westbound side of

the new bridge, shown in blue.




provided in both Brooklyn and Queens. The








Queens Park that could be created to the




area.


rendering shows Alternatives BR-2 and

BR-5. Note that it would not move the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1481 Public Hearing


highway closer to Old Calvary Cemetery.

Again, note the new Queens Park that could

be constructed to the left.





Avenue.

The first rendering shows all

alternatives, except BR-5.


rendering shows Alternative BR-5. Since

this alternative would move the alignment

of the highway slightly to the south, away

from the residences along Meeker Avenue,

it would enable more park area to be

provided on this side of the highway, as

shown.






interested parties, and the project

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1491 Public Hearing



appendices are available on the project's

website. Now that the Draft EIS has been

published, the next step is to receive

comments.

These Public Hearings give the public




speak. If you do have any questions,



House portion of the Public Hearings, in

the room next door.




and written comments received during the

Public Hearings or written comments

received by mail, fax and e-mail.


May 25th, 2007.


Statement, which will document and respond

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1501 Public Hearing


to the comments received on the Draft EIS

during the Public Comment Period, is

expected to be completed during the Summer

of 2006.













That concludes the presentation.

Just as a reminder, to submit any comments

in writing, please send to the address,

fax or e-mail address shown.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Adams.

In a few minutes, we will begin the

Public Comment portion of the Hearing, and

for the benefit of those who came in after

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1511 Public Hearing


we began, please complete a sign-in

speaker's card at the table, if you would

like to speak and if you haven't done

that.

As Mr. Adams indicated, the speakers

will be asked to limit their oral comments

to five minutes. However, written

comments of any length are welcome, and as

Mr. Adams indicated, can be sent to either

the DOT in Hunters Point Plaza or to FHWA,

and the addresses are also on the agenda,

which is available at the sign-in desk, as

well as the fax number and the project

website's address for purposes of e-

mailing comments.

At this point, before we begin, let

me note for the record that as of Tuesday,

April 24th, written statements had already

been received from the following

individuals and organizations: The

Natural Resources Conservation Service of

the United States Department of

Agriculture; the Regional Administrator

for the Eastern Region of the Federal

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1521 Public Hearing


Aviation Administration; Mary York, a

resident of Middle Village; Michael

Heimbinder, Director of Habitatmap.org.;

St. Cecilia's Roman Catholic Church in

Greenpoint; Harvey Botzman, Cyclotours

Guide Books; Clifford Fee, a resident of

Brooklyn; Zora O'Neill, a resident of

Astoria; Erika Jakubassa, a resident of

Greenpoint; the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation; and the Korchin

Family Trust, Mortimer Korchin.

We will announce two speakers at a

time, so that the second person can be

ready to speak when his or her turn comes,

and as I indicated earlier, as well, and

for the benefit of those who may not have

been here, please use the microphones,

either the one on my right or on my left,

since the stenographer is using the sound

system and headphones, and won't otherwise

be able to hear you.

We had one speaker who had pre-

registered to speak at 7:30, so, we will

take her first, and that is Anna Casalino.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1531 Public Hearing


Is she present? It's not quite 7:30,

I guess. We will call on her later on.

Michael Heimbinder. I had mentioned

that you had submitted a written

statement. Did you want to speak as well?

And I apologize, I am not good at reading

the names. It is the representative of

Trocom (phonetic) Construction, Sal, and

your last name, sir?

MR. TROVATO: Trovato.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Would you like to

speak?

MR. TROVATO: I had a number of

questions.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Well, you may not

have been here. I had indicated earlier

that this really isn't a question and

answer format, but there is, next door in

the Open House area, a staff for the

Department, as well as our consultants,

who are available to answer questions.

If you have a statement you would

like to make, you are welcome to do so.

Please use one of the microphones.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1541 Public Hearing


MR. TROVATO: Hello. Okay. The

first thing I would like to say is the

papers and that big fat book you presented

showed nothing. You show a right of way,

but we don't know if the bridge is

cantilevered over or built end to end. Is

there a cantilevered section?

JUDGE LOOMIS: Again, I would ask

you to talk with the people in the next

room, and I think there's drawings and

renderings in there, and they will be able

to answer your questions.

We really can't do a question and

answer format. That's not fair to other

people who are waiting to speak.

Express your concerns, and then,

hopefully, there will be people in the

other room who can answer your questions.

MR. TROVATO: My concern is you are

taking a lot of property from businesses,

including mine, where you are cutting it

in half -- I don't know how much you're

taking. If you build the project -- I'm a

civil engineer, myself. Why don't you

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1551 Public Hearing


just make a small column with cantilevered

sections, as opposed to taking all the

property, and why can't you cantilever

over the cemetery and leave the other

properties alone? Those are my concerns.

Was that ever addressed?

Also, I am a property owner. I've

been there for five years or so. I never,

never got a note, a postcard, any

notification whatsoever, unless I

researched it myself, like I did, and

found out about this meeting. Don't you

think you should notify the people who own

the property, and get them the sketch of

what you're thinking about taking and

doing?

JUDGE LOOMIS: I had mentioned

earlier, and you may not have been here,

that there were some 850 names of

individuals and businesses on the mailing

list. So, certainly there was a wide

distribution.

MR. TROVATO: Listen, if you're big

enough to take my property, you should be

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1561 Public Hearing


big enough to send me a note, and say, I'm

thinking about stealing your property, --

JUDGE LOOMIS: Again, I would ask --

MR. TROVATO: -- and taking all your

employees, and throwing them out of their

jobs. I think it would have been nice if

you had done that at least, instead of

bulldozing your way through with a design

that no one had any input, okay, and as an

engineer, I want to know why you have that

big curve in the new project, whereas had

you gone straight, it would have taken

less property and eliminated the curve,

which is the most dangerous part of the

highway? Can anybody answer that

question?

JUDGE LOOMIS: Again, there are

several people in the next room who I am

sure can respond to your questions.

MR. TROVATO: In the next room.

Okay, thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, sir, and

is it T-R-O-V-A-T-O; is that correct, sir?

MR. TROVATO: That is correct.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1571 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: Barbara Vetell.

MS. VETELL: I am Barbara Vetell.

I'm from Greenpoint, the Greenpoint West

Street Block Association, and I am also a

parishioner and committee member at St.

Cecilia's Parish. So, let me address a

couple of things.

First of all, I know there was a lot

of committee work that was done on this,

and I think they probably did a very good

job. There is one area that we know that

the State Department of Transportation

failed the community by not providing an

independent consultant to help analyze the

environmental issues. Particularly during

the construction, we feel that such issues

as noise, even though it mentions it on

there, PM2.5, and the installation of a new

sewer system, even though it's in these,

impacts have not been fully explored.

We also understand that on the URL

for the -- online, that was out of

commission for a long time. So, I really

think that what should happen here is that

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1581 Public Hearing


this should be extended, the Comment

Period should be extended, and possibly

another Public Hearing.

When I was looking at this, you were

giving things -- I mean, it's very --

looking at this, but what I want to do is

be able to compare things because it looks

to me like that -- let me see -- that

you're leaning toward the BR -- I think

it's BR-5, is that the one, because that

looks to me, if I was looking at this, I

would say, oh, that looks good, it's this

and that and whatever. It's going to be a

nice park. The community amenities for

Greenpoint, you know, one little bitty

park that's already there that's on an

approach to a highway? Come on, you know.

St. Cecilia's Church is already

impacted by this. The traffic, I'm not

seeing anything -- I mean, in this

whatever you do, there's got to be traffic

agents all the time. The traffic there

now is horrendous. They go up the

streets. They go up one-ways. They go

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1591 Public Hearing


around, trying to get around these things.

Now, I know what you said, you're

going to fix the streets, you're going to

make sure that doesn't happen. Believe

me, it's going to happen.

The impact of the trucks and things

that go by there, it's not Meeker Avenue

that's makes it, it's the highway.

At St. Cecilia's, you sit in our

chapel and everything shakes big time.

The other thing is that, I think I

mentioned this earlier on, that as people

come onto the BQE, they're going to get

off at Flushing Avenue. They know that

all that construction is going on. Now,

maybe you can keep it moving, I don't

know, but it doesn't seem to me like it

could even be kept moving now. I mean, we

have big holes in our -- in the highway,

bolts are falling out on top of our kids

crossing Meeker Avenue from the highway.

It's really, really bad, okay. You really

need to have a consultant for the

community that analyzes all these

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1601 Public Hearing


problems.

When we enlarge the bridge and have

more traffic, how will you protect the

effect on the church? How will you

protect the effect on the people down

where I live, which is on Greenpoint

Avenue and West Street? Those cars and

trucks are going to come around and try to

get around all that traffic up Greenpoint

Avenue. They're doing it already, big

time, big time, coming off the highway,

where it starts to get blocked up.

You're talking about how many years,

seven years, six, seven years to do this

project, starting in 2008. I don't think

that you're really looking at the

community. So, I don't know what can be

done here. I think the community needs

many more amenities.

I know that there were people from

the community on the committee, okay, but

I think this has to be looked at. I think

that you guys really, really have to think

about us. I know you've done traffic

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1611 Public Hearing


studies, but we had to bring you around to

do the traffic studies, and I haven't seen

anybody there -- I don't know that anybody

went knocking on doors of people to ask

them. You might have sent out committee

things. Now, this is in Greenpoint. This

is the Greenpoint area.

On the Queens side, you know, I'm

really not that familiar with it. I know

that the cemetery is there, and trying to

get off the highway and onto the -- but

what is it that you want us to comment on?

Do you want us to comment on which

alternative we should have? You have

about ten people there that commented.

So, your outreach hasn't worked. It's

very, very concerning to me that there are

only, I don't know, ten people here.

Everybody should be involved in this, and

somehow, for whatever reason, it seems to

me that this should go out again and there

should be another Public Hearing.

It's very, very scary. It really is,

and, you know, till the 25th of May, and

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1621 Public Hearing


then what happens? You know, what

happens? And you guys will be going on to

your next project, okay. We'll be without

a consultant. We'll be without noise

abatement because if you build one of

those things on highway, it doesn't

matter. That's what you said, wasn't it?

No matter how high you build it, there

will still be noise. But how come on the

Long Island Expressway, they build those

things, those high things? How come in

Queens, they built those walls? Because

Brooklyn, the problem is that Greenpoint

has been dumped on for a million years.

No matter what it is. We had the oil

spill, and your stuff, when you're digging

up, you're going to dredge the Canal. So,

you're going to dredge it for what

section? You're going to dredge it for

the section that's under the Kosciuszko

Bridge? So, what happens to the other

section? So, that's all contaminated.

So, you're going to uncontaminate that.

What about the rest of it? Under that

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1631 Public Hearing


bridge right now, there are these

sanitation facilities that throw dust, I

mean, forget about it. Are they going to

still be there, under that bridge? You

know, that's my question. Are they still

going to be there?

So, I think that you guys really have

to -- I'm not saying, go back to the

drawing board, I don't know that that's it

because at this point, I'm not an

engineer, I couldn't look at this, but I

really want a copy of that tonight, so I

could go over it a little more before the

25th. So, that I would like, but I think

that these Public Hearings, you have to

have more Public Hearings. And I don't

know if there's anything else.

Now, once you add lanes to this --

somebody else had a concern too -- once

you add lanes to this bridge, what is

going to happen to the rest of the

expressway? You're taking four or six

lanes putting it into eight -- you know,

you're going into eight lanes. Are you

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1641 Public Hearing


going to want to extend it to the houses

on Meeker Avenue? Is that what's going to

happen?

You see, this is very concerning to

our community. Our community in

Greenpoint was split once, split twice.

McGuiness Boulevard split it. The whole

expressway and Meeker Avenue split our

community in half. Our churches, forget

about it, it really did havoc. So, now,

are you going to do that again? Are you

going to extend the highway? Is that in

the plan like ten years from now, where

people have to worry about their houses?

So, I don't know what else I can say

because I -- something about the

easements, the permanent easements and the

temporary easements that I didn't

understand.

See, when you have it like this, it's

very difficult to go back and think and

look and see, let me compare that to this.

It's really almost impossible to do that,

but I know that the temporary and the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1651 Public Hearing


permanent easements, I really didn't

understand what that meant.

Our little crummy park that you're

going to fix, forget it. We need

something else that's a lot bigger, in

order for you to do this. You have to

understand that the people of Greenpoint

deserve it and really want it.

JUDGE LOOMIS: There are real estate

representatives who can explain to you the

difference between temporary and permanent

easements.

MS. VETELL: Oh, okay, but I want

somebody to explain why we're not getting

more amenities.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Well, again, and I

didn't time you, but I think it's more

than five minutes.

MS. VETELL: Okay, thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: So, to be fair to

everybody else, we should move on.

Thank you, ma'am.

Jack Wallace. Is there a Jack

Wallace here?

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1661 Public Hearing


We'll go back to the individual who

pre-registered, who is Anna Casalino. I

called your name once before, but you

hadn't arrived yet. So, I apologize.

MS. CASALINO: Good evening,

everyone. My name is Anna Casalino, and I

am with the firm Casalino Carting, and we

had been in the Greenpoint area for

approximately thirty years or more.

I've been very concerned about the

Kosciuszko Bridge because it is a familiar

area to us, and basically home to us, my

whole family.

For several years, I've been

following the progress of the New York

State Department of Sanitation's plans to

reconstruct or replace the Kosciuszko

Bridge. Through reading written

materials, attending meetings and seeing

press coverage of the Department's plans,

I am aware of the need of the new bridge.

The modern bridge, with improved safety

and engineering elements, I know is very

necessary. Nevertheless, my longstanding

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1671 Public Hearing


business and my family's businesses and

those of others located adjacent to the

bridge will be destroyed by virtually

every alternative under the study in the

DESI.

We are the owner of Block 2814, Lot

6, the property known as 520 Stewart and

116 Cherry Street in Brooklyn. According

to the DEIS, only Rehabilitation with

Auxiliary Lanes, RA-6, will not take any

property away from us to reconstruct the

bridge. Even under RA-6, my property

stands to be significantly impacted during

construction, and will be less accessible

after construction.

Casalino has been a presence in the

North Brooklyn neighborhood since 1975.

When my father purchased the property in

1982, it became permanent residence, and

prior to that, we had other areas that we

owned in Greenpoint or the surrounding

area near the Kosciuszko Bridge.

Since that time, we have invested in

improvements and repairs, and have, even

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1681 Public Hearing


now, we are engaging professionals to keep

the property functioning properly for our

business and the use of our tenants.

Of course, as the DEIS points out,

ours is not the only business affected by

the various plans for the new bridge.

Some of the larger affected properties may

be able to affront relocation. Ours is a

small business that can ill afford to be

displaced. We will be severely impacted

if we must move into distant parts of the

City or go to Connecticut or New Jersey,

and the help being offered by the New York

State Department of Transportation's Real

Estate staff seems insufficient to fulfill

our needs and the needs of other

potentially displaced small businesses in

Brooklyn and Queens.

My business plan calls for use of the

Stewart Avenue property on a continuing

basis because of its accessibility to all

highways. Even if I were offered

comparable space by the New York State

Department of Transportation as a

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1691 Public Hearing


replacement to my property, it would not

be really comparable space. Our current

location on Stewart Avenue is convenient

to major highways in Brooklyn and Queens

and close to Manhattan. Helping identify

a site in Hunts Point or Jamaica or

Central Brooklyn would put us at a travel-

time disadvantage. It would also make

difficult the commute of our employees,

who largely rely on public transportation

to go to work.

In part, the message that I want to

deliver to the New York State Department

of Transportation is to sharpen its

pencils and seek additional alternatives,

so that fewer existing businesses and

nearby residents will be either completely

or partially impacted by the project.

The rest of my message is that, if

New York State Department of

Transportation is unable to identify

additional, more creative alternatives for

a new bridge, it must identify appropriate

space in North Brooklyn or Maspeth that

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1701 Public Hearing


will allow existing businesses to relocate

nearby. I expect that you will say, as

your presentation today has said, that you

have already reviewed and looked at every

possible alternative, and these are the

only ones feasible.

In addition, I would like to add that

you probably say that at the appropriate

time you will consider how to address my

relocation request, but that now it is

premature. I can assure you, that being

faced with the loss of my property, even

for a project that will begin in 2011, is

very troubling to myself and my family. I

do, however, appreciate New York State

Department of Transportation's continuing

efforts to keep Casalino Carting and other

affected properties informed about plans

for a new Kosciuszko Bridge.

I want to thank you for the

opportunity to present my statement, and,

hopefully, you could find an alternative

that will salvage as many buildings as

possible.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1711 Public Hearing


JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, ma'am.

Is Mr. Wallace in the room, Jack

Wallace?

That was the last card I had. So,

what we'll do is we'll recess -- I didn't

have your card, sir. I mentioned several

times about the cards.

Is it Mr. Vespole? You are welcome

to speak if you like.

MR. VESPOLE: I am Vincent Vespole,

resident on Van Dam Street, and also a

daily commuter on the bridge twice a day.

Of course, I am concerned about my

residence, and how this will affect it,

especially realignment of streets. I

don't really know what that means. I hope

it doesn't make things worse on our block.

Usually, I'm against taking jobs, but

in this case, there's some businesses a

block from me that are horrendous,

including the dump transfer station with a

bulldozer going twenty-four hours a day,

which if that goes, I'm in favor of just

about any alternative that will get rid of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1721 Public Hearing


that, except BR-5, I'm not sure if it gets

rid of it, but I think it does too, but I

think it will also take three residences

in Queens, which isn't good, especially --

I look as I go by, and I think they are

huge apartment buildings. It's not three

little homes as far as I could tell. It

may be, I don't know, thirty apartments

each or something, and that's bad.

The reasoning for the construction is

safety. There are a lot of accidents. I

see them from my window all the time

because you have merging, and one thing

now, there's no signs for the merging. I

don't know why Transportation can't at

least put a merging sign. That would

probably help reduce accidents.

And the other reasoning for all of

this is traffic, and you're going to have

traffic anyway, as you get to the BQE in

Brooklyn and on the LIE. So, no matter

how wide you make the bridge, it's really

not going to help traffic. It may help me

commute over it, which, you know,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1731 Public Hearing


hopefully, that will be one positive thing

out of all of this, and the other positive

thing is, I'm impressed with at least the

nice pictures of the parks on the north

side of the BQE in Brooklyn. That

certainly would be a lot nicer than the

dumps and the -- I hate to talk against

the carting and all, but the garbage

trucks and dumps, it's Greenpoint. As a

resident a block away, we've really had

enough.

So, that's about it. That's about

all my concerns. Thank you.

JUDGE LOOMIS: Thank you, sir.

Did Mr. Wallace happen to come in?

If not, what we will do is recess,

and if we have additional speakers, we

will continue the hearing, and as I

indicated two or three times, there are

Department staff and representatives of

the engineering and environmental

consulting firms who are available to

answer questions, and the Real Estate

group is also next door. If you have any

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1741 Public Hearing


questions, we encourage you to go in

there. They will be there till 9:00

o'clock.

Thank you, and we will recess until

we have additional speakers.


7:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.)

JUDGE LOOMIS: The time is

approximately 9:00 p.m., and there has

been no additional individuals indicating

a desire to speak, and, therefore, we will

close the Hearing. Thank you all for

attending.

(Time noted: 9:00 p.m.)

* * * * *

APPENDIX T – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS AND PUBLIC ...€¦ · APPENDIX T – COMMENTS...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX T – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS AND PUBLIC ...€¦ · APPENDIX T – COMMENTS...