No Khan-Do

With much of the public up in arms over the arbitrary actions of DOT Commissioner Sadik-Khan to unilaterally transform the NYC streetscape, it good to know that Mayor Tone Deaf has her back. The NY Post has the story: "He's got his commissioner's back. Mayor Bloomberg offered a spirited defense yesterday of embattled Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, two days after she withdrew a controversial proposal to plop down a pedestrian mall in the middle of 34th Street. "This woman has made some real innovations here in this city that will last and will be a very big deal," the mayor declared, speaking of the sweeping streetscape changes undertaken during his administration."

And Bloomberg sees her backing down-not as a result of the tumultuous public blowback-devolving from Sadik-Khan's sensitivity to the pulse of the people: "He argued that Sadik-Khan should be given credit for backing off the original 34th Street plan, saying that indicated she had listened to community concerns about closing the street to all traffic except buses and emergency vehicles between Fifth and Sixth avenues. "That's what she's supposed to do," said the mayor."

All of which is unsurprising given since it is the mayor who is ultimately to be held responsible for this runaway train-but Bloomberg's public defense of the transit czar contrasts sharply with some of his reported private remarks about the embattled commissioner. The NY Times reports on this in its profile of Sadik-Khan last week-and it is revealed in a reported exchange between Congressman Weiner and the mayor: “When I become mayor, you know what I’m going to spend my first year doing?” Mr. Weiner said to Mr. Bloomberg, as tablemates listened. “I’m going to have a bunch of ribbon-cuttings tearing out your [expletive] bike lanes.” Mr. Weiner, a brash Democrat from Queens, had expected a bit of banter with his longtime adversary. Instead, Mr. Bloomberg adopted an exasperated, welcome-to-my-world expression. “His answer was, ‘Tell me about it,’ ” said a person who was there, one of two who recounted the tale. The mayor, some guests said, made it clear that Ms. Sadik-Khan was off on her own.

If the exchange is true, however, it is an indication to us that the 34th Street backdown came right from the mayor himself-and the NY Post's observations about the need for continual vigilance over this rogue commissioner rings true to us: "City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan says she's backing off her radical remake of 34th Street -- but she's never played straight with New Yorkers before, so why take her at face value now?

The Post hones in on the commissioner's hubris: "Her plan to redirect traffic on 34th Street may also be in flux -- though it's hard to say, because with Sadik-Khan everything is a secret until it isn't. But there is no doubt that any significant traffic manipulation will create a permanent nightmare for nearby side streets."

The paper doesn't have much good to say about all of those, "innovations," that the mayor referred to: "Not that she hasn't committed a boatload of costly mistakes -- starting with turning over vast swaths of city streets to delivery boys on bikes and the occasional cool dude peddling along in his Day-Glo tights. The 34th Street plaza was a humongous mutation of her other tour de force -- the tourist refuge that cut the heart out of the former crossroads of the world, Times Square."

But what struck us most about the Post's commentary was its focus on the lack of oversight and accountability at the transit agency-something that we also have remarked on in the past: "And it's not remotely clear whether residents and businesses will continue to have curb access all along 34th Street -- or, if they do, what restrictions will remain. Sadik-Khan says she'll make more details public on March 14. If she follows form, much of it will be on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. And, if Mayor Bloomberg's past indulgence of his transportation commissioner maintains, that'll be the end of much of the discussion. Sure, the department promises to publish traffic and environmental studies later this year -- but the agency conducts such studies itself, and previous "reviews" generally have simply ratified its original proposals. In the rare instances when the studies produce inconvenient results, they are either paid lip service or ignored. So if any municipal agency has earned vigorous independent oversight, it's the Department of Transportation." (emphasis added)

Which is why all of this mishogos should be subject to rigorous environmental review-an official ULURP process where the city council hires its own traffic engineers to review any data that the DOT submits. That's what independent oversight looks like. What is accurate about DOT holds true for EDC as well-and for too long the city council has swallowed whole the drek provided by EDC's, and the leading developers'-favorite consultants, AKRF.

The blistering critique that Brian Ketcham did of EDC's traffic ramp application to SDOT dramatizes our point-and for too long the ULURP process has been suborned by fraudulent studies designed to bolster the inaccurately rosy picture of one development after the other. It's now time to fundamentally alter the entire SEQR process in this city.

Ketcham Calls Out AKRF and EDC

We are taking the liberty of giving everyone a preview of the statement that WPU's traffic engineer, Brian Ketcham, will be making before the EDPL hearing on Wednesday. A careful perusal of Ketcham's traffic analysis will give everyone a crystal clear idea why EDC is going forward with a rampless Phase I before obtaining regulatory approval for the Van Wyck ramps-ramps that fail to mitigate the project's massive traffic generation. Ketcham's analysis will also be the crucial evidence that WPU will use to invalidate EDC's extra-legal maneuvering.

Here's Ketcham's statement:

"Nearly four decades ago William Hoppen and I took on the West Side Highway project.  We did so alone.  And we paid for all of our work in cash and in careers.  The City, State and Federal governments spent $150 million to stop us.  They could not.   Although they did torture us afterwards.

Westway was not nearly so complicated as Willets Point.  Nor as divisive!   As with Willets Point, Westway was a multi-billion project.  A huge land development swindle that would have made the City’s favored developers billions.  Another similarity is that the Westway engineers, Parsons Brinckerhoff, were the same folks who were to form AKRF, the environmental engineering firm who botched the Willets Point environmental impact statement and have caused the multi-year delay in this project. 

These engineering firms along with NYCEDC will ultimately be responsible for the collapse of the Willets Point project.  In the case of Westway these environmental engineers could not make the case in support for Westway.  Their efforts cost taxpayers $150,000,000 and they did not have a clue.  It is incredible to think about that battle nearly 40 years later.   

For Willets Point, the problem is that AKRF knows precisely what they are doing and they have to lie to make their case.  They know that Willets Point is too big for the Flushing area. They know the surrounding roadway network cannot accommodate Willets Point traffic.  They know that the Van Wyck Expressway and connecting expressways cannot accommodate so much additional traffic.  They know there is no additional transit capacity to accommodate Willets Point and the other projects like Flushing Commons and that even more traffic will be forced onto the area than reported.  

They lied and they got caught.  They have lied repeatedly. Over the last 18 months we have provided NYCEDC, NYSDOT and the FHWA dozens of documents supporting these assertions, identifying the errors, omissions and outright lies that forced EDC in 2010 to withdraw its application for ramps connecting Willets Point to the Van Wyck Expressway.  

While these agencies have failed to directly acknowledge these reports they have been forced, based on these documents, to delay any action on the Willets Point project.  Within the next month I will be providing you with a new report summarizing the situation today, critiquing the latest efforts by EDC to sell their Willets Point project, and connecting the current problems that we have identified with all of the many reports that we have submitted over the past 18 months.  

The ramps will not help reduce the impact of the Willets Point project.  The surrounding roads and expressways cannot accommodate this project let alone the other 20 million square feet of new development generating more than 170,000 new car and truck trips daily.  The existing transit systems cannot accommodate 200,000 more daily trips leaving most of these travelers to use their cars and add to the areas Super-Gridlock conditions.  

The NYCEDC cannot meet any of the eight FHWA criteria for ramp approval and, as NYCEDC has said repeatedly, the Willets Point project will not work without the ramps.  The Willets Point Development Plan is fatally flawed and must be abandoned."  

Willets Point Development Defense Fund

The Queens Tribune has a story today giving the defenders of the Willets Point project the opportunity to put their feet in their mouth-reacting it seems to the "reams" of publicity that WPU has garnered: "As the redevelopment of Willets Point marches onward, opponents of the plan have often successfully kept themselves in the media spotlight, staging press conferences and reacting to the City’s every move. They have garnered a consistent trail of newspaper ink and TV time in the process."

Those poor supporters! All they have is the weight of the city and the muscle of eminent domain-but apparently not a very good narrative, so let's give these neglected folks a chance to have a voice. If the stakes weren't so high, this would all be quite funny: "But less often heard are the plan’s supporters, who include elected officials and local business leaders. Each harbors specific reasons for supporting Iron Triangle’s redevelopment, which looks to transform the 62-acre patch of industrial business and junk yards into a mix of housing, commerce and community space."

Whose up first? None other than the state senator whose son was the lead lobbyist for the project: "“I’m a yea-sayer,” said Stavisky.

“When I look at the derelict, debris-ridden site, I cringe.” The area is in dire need of an economic rejuvenation, one that takes it away from its current state, according to Stavisky. “[The redevelopment] will improve the area but also make it a destination, not an area where you speed up on the highway so you don’t have to look at it,” she added."

We wonder who's writing her material? Perhaps Jackie Mason-since the senator is unaware of how ironic and comical her comments about speeding on the highway are. If she bothered to carefully examine the environmental review-and the subsequent traffic studies for ramps on and off the Van Wyck-she would discover that if this 80,000 a day car generator is actually built, no one will be speeding anywhere, since the highway will be gridlocked!

But, of course, no one would dispute her observation about the area's blight-just as to the equity and constitutionality of the city's remedy. That doesn't disturb the other booster that the Tribune calls upon-the head of the Queens Chamber of Commerce: "The project’s opposition befuddles the Queens Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Vice President Jack Friedman, who sees nothing but benefits from the plan’s completion. “Whoever is opposed to this project, God bless them, but this area is not helping anyone,” he said. The plan’s convention center remains the lynchpin (sic) of the Chamber’s support, Friedman said, but the overall economic boon redevelopment will bring sustains the group’s position. “Right now, the current situation in Willets Point is not helping anybody,” he said."

Is he serious? The area isn't helping anyone? What about the hundreds of workers who are earning a living at the site-not to mention the property owners who are paying taxes to the city for nothing in return in the way of services? But Friedman remains befuddled by people who object to the government taking their property at eminent domain gunpoint? God bless his flippant insouciance about basic constitutional rights. We suspect that he would feel differently if his own house was in the way of the eminent domain bulldozer.

All of this dragging out of the usual suspects is no accident. EDC needs the cover for its outright lying to all manner of public officials and the judiciary-a practice that, in reading the comments in the Tribune, is a habit that the agency obviously finds hard to break.

Here's the main whopper: "Opponents grew more vocal at the beginning of the month, when the EDC began formal proceedings that would eventually lead to the acquisition of the remaining land in Phase 1 through the use of eminent domain.The agency has maintained it will keep negotiations open and says the landowners will get fair market value for their property, should it be obtained through eminent domain. “As we seek to reach agreements with the nine remaining businesses, we will also begin the legal process that gives us the option to condemn these properties if needed, so that we can continue to move forward,” Wood said."

"Keep negotiations open?" How about institute them in the first place? Let's hook Wood up to a lie detector and see how the needle jumps. We won't even go into the canard about fair market value-a concept that really only has merit when one business person makes an offer to purchase another's property. A court ruling is fair only to the gun owner-and when you're commencing eminent domain before having had a single negotiation with the vast majority of remaining property owners, the entire concept of fairness is rendered obsolete-EDC's own oxymoron.

Than there's the fictitious Phase I: "Opponents have taken the EDC to task for past promises made by the City to keep eminent domain off the table until exit ramps off the Van Wyck Expressway were approved by the state’s Dept. of Transportation.The EDC maintains its new phased-in approach eliminates the necessity for the ramps’ approval, adding it anticipates their revised plan’s approval shortly. The first part of the redevelopment will include affordable housing, a hotel, infrastructure improvements, retail and two acres of open space." (emphasis added)

Who in Jack Friedman's name is going to approve this plan? Perhaps a committee of Seth Pinsky, the state senator and the former Queens BP would suffice? Seriously, though, any plan modification needs to have a new traffic study-and go through a new SEQR review. And shouldn't condemnation await this review process-as the city and the court has previously agreed?

The Tribune concludes with the following admission from EDC: "The EDC plans to release a Request for Proposals for Phase 1’s developer in April." The admission here is that there is no developer, hence no plan-which makes the entire condemnation process both speculative and illegal. The ramps have not been approved. The underlying soil conditions remain unexamined. The cost of remediation is unknown-and there is no clear indication that the city, or any potential developer, has the money to undertake this venture (or the will to do so).

That friends, is the essence of speculative condemnation. We have a mayor in his swan song on the municipal stage using his remaining power to condemn property for a use that may never come to fruition-and we're, like Diogenes, looking for the honest person to stand up and say it. The City of New York is heading on the same road as New London after it condemned poor Suzette Kelo's house for a phantom project that was never even commenced. Empty fields of bad dreams is in this city's future if no one puts the brakes on the hubris of this mayor.

Addendum

Crain's Insider is reporting that some folks (unwilling to go on the record) are upset by State Senator Tony Avella's critique of the Willets Point development: "State Sen. Tony Avella reiterated his opposition to the redevelopment of Willets Point in a Daily News column Wednesday that irked proponents of the plan. “He's carpetbagging,” an insider close to the project said. “Avella doesn't even represent the district.”

Is that you Evan? Well, whoever it is, misses the larger point-the Willets Point development, with its 80,000 car trips a day, will overwhelm the all of the surrounding communities. This is not some small project that Avella is sticking his nose into-violating normal political protocol.

As WPU's traffic expert Brian Ketcham has pointed out to us in his critique of the EDC consultants: "For Willets Point the problem is that AKRF knows precisely what they are doing and they have to lie to make their case.  They know that Willets Point is too big for the Flushing area.  They know the surrounding roadway network cannot accommodate Willets Point traffic.  They know that the Van Wyck Expressway and connecting expressways cannot accommodate so much additional traffic.  They know there is no additional transit capacity to accommodate Willets Point and the other projects like Flushing Commons and that even more traffic will be forced onto the area than reported.   They lied and they got caught.  They have lied repeatedly."

Given the size and scope of the Willets Point mega-project, Avella is well within his rights to open up on it-the real conundrum is, why he is such a lonely voice in the Van Wyck wilderness? The silence of the lambs on this is deafening.

Walmart and Related,Trafficing in Deceit

In this morning's NY Daily News, the paper reports on the traffic study commissioned by the Walmart FreeNYC Coalition for the impact of a Walmart supercenter on the neighborhoods surrounding Related's Gateway II mall. The study, conducted by Brian Ketcham demonstrates that the Walmonster-above and beyond all of the expanded mall's additional traffic-will itself generate more than 70,000 car trips a week to the area: "Building a Walmart in East New York will flood the area with traffic, opponents say in a new report."

This, as the report points out is, "a 32% jump in traffic," above what the mavens for Related had estimated. It also comes with huge "externality costs," impacts on the health and safety of East New York residents that the original EIS neglects to identify. These costs will run about $20 million a year and can be seen from the following chart:

ANNUAL EXTERNALITY COSTS OF ADDING A WAL-MART

TO THE PROPOSED GATEWAY ESTATES II, 2013

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Externality Costs

Added Travel Time Costs (Congestion) $4,040,960

Air Pollution (Health Costs) $2,135,280

Noise Impacts (Health Costs) $367,360

Accident Costs, Internal $3,362,002

Accident Costs, External $1,864,081

Pavement Wear & Tear $482,160

Vehicular Wear & Tear Costs $459,200

Other Externality Costs (1) $7,645,680

TOTALS $20,356,723

Brian Ketcham Engineering, PC, January 27, 2011

(1) Includes environmental degradation such as the control of water pollution,

oil spills, the lost value of highway land removed from tax rolls, and, most

apparent today, the foreign policy and military costs of ensuring an abundant

supply of imported oil. Greenhouse gas emissions and their destabilizing effect

on climate are another important environmental externality from motor vehicle

use. Traffic generated by a Wal-Mart included in the Gateway II will generate

about 10,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually."

As to be expected Related-in the form of the original honest man, Jesse James Masyr-downplayed Ketcham's findings: "He just makes hysterical claims, " Masyr said. "He is so off the mark." Of course, Masyr forgets to point out that it was Ketcham who exposed the fraudulent data that was submitted by Eng-Wang Taub on the Willets Point development-where the consultant claimed that half of all the trips generated by the development would be accommodated by mass transit.

In addition EWT was the traffic consultant on the Kingsbridge Armory, where Ketcham's critique of the consultant's work was accepted by the city council in its rejection of the plan-and by extension EWT analysis. All of which points to a serious flaw in all of this environmental consulting-a condition in NYC that has devolved into a virtual monopoly for AKRF and its go to traffic affiliates-EWT and URS. What we have here is a closed loop where favored consultants tailor their analysis to suit either EDC or a private developer.

And Masyr forgets that this kind of collusion doesn't always end well for the community-as is the case for the Rego Center Mall: "As the Daily News reports, that mall has ground traffic to a halt: "The road to building a retail mecca in Queens is paved with backed-up one-way streets. Rego Center opened its doors a few weeks ago, hoping to lure shoppers with Kohl's, T.J. Maxx and Century 21 department stores. And bargain hunters are coming. But traffic in the already congested area, which includes the Long Island Expressway, Queens Blvd. and Junction Blvd., is also starting to jam up."

And a local civic group is screaming: "There is a bottleneck at all hours," said Robert Holden, of the Juniper Park Civic Association, who lives in nearby Middle Village. "They are going to have to double-deck the Long Island Expressway or the exit." Local officials have been working with the city Transportation Department and developer Vornado Realty Trust to hash out traffic congestion issues."

But Rego Center is small stuff when compared to what awaits East New York should the Walmonster come to the Gateway expansion. There is a huge potential environmental hit that the community will take-a further example of the high cost of low prices. This is something that the entire environmental justice community should be all over-particularly since the city's own health department air quality survey indicates that it is precisely communities like East New York that experience the worst air pollution because of a proximity to highways. And there is no doubt that the Belt Parkway will be gridlocked if Walmart is the mall's new anchor tenant.

All of which underscores why alternatives to the Walmonster need to be entertained-and they do exist. Walmart brings so many negatives into a community-at least we can prevent them from further despoiling the East New York air!

Liu Cuts Through the Cant

The WSJ reports on Comptroller John Liu's caustic criticism of Mayor Bloomberg's handling of the CityTime scandal-and he isn't buying the mayor culpas: "Comptroller John Liu stepped up his criticism of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's financial stewardship in light of the burgeoning scandal surrounding New York City's long-delayed computerized payroll system, reproaching the mayor for suggesting there's little that can be done to prevent high-tech projects from ballooning over budget. In a letter to the mayor and in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the comptroller outlined how he believes the Bloomberg administration has failed to do enough to safeguard the city's finances against wasteful spending and potential fraud. Information-technology projects, in particular, lack sufficient oversight, he said."

The comptroller's critique comes on top of more discoveries about the wayward life of Mark Mazer, CityTime's consultant extraordinaire: "The accused mastermind of an $80 million taxpayer ripoff was twice probed for fraud and sued for sexual harassment when he worked for the city, a Daily News investigation found. Despite his checkered history, Mark Mazer was hired as a highly paid consultant on the sprawling CityTime project - a job prosecutors said allowed him to orchestrate the massive scam."

All of which has the mayor backpedaling but, as the Journal story highlights, Liu is on the attack: "The comptroller, a potential candidate for mayor in 2013, is the highest-ranking city official to take the mayor to task, offering another view of the mayor's carefully choreographed image as a top-flight fiscal expert. "I must respectfully disagree with your comments from Friday suggesting that big software projects can be expected to go over budget," Mr. Liu wrote. "With all our budget challenges we cannot afford to equivocate on the need for strong management and budgetary compliance." In an interview, Mr. Liu questioned Mr. Bloomberg's commitment to a "zero-tolerance" policy on abuse, charging the mayor "backtracked" on that pledge during his weekly radio show last week. "His words on Friday almost conveyed a sense of inevitability of cost overruns on these types of projects," he said. "That doesn't sound like zero-tolerance to me."

Liu also dramatizes the fact that CityTime is just one-although an egregious example-of the way in which the Bloombergistas have relied on outside consultants: "The CityTime scandal makes it abundantly clear that the city must have a system in place that properly tracks and assesses sub-contracts as well as prime-contracts, including invoices, timesheets and explanations of work performed, in order to seriously reign-in the potential for waste, fraud, abuse and certainly embezzlement," the comptroller wrote in his letter to Mr. Bloomberg. He said billions of dollars have been spent on outside consultants over the years, and that a "significant portion" of that money has been wasted." (emphasis added)

And we know of a perfect illustration of the comptroller's point-the defrauders hired by EDC to weigh the environmental and traffic impacts of Willets Point/Van Wyck ramps. AKRF and its subcontractors-Eng Won Taub and URS-was hired without any competitive bidding and when they submitted a deficient ramp (AMR) report, Willets Point United and its own consultant Brian Ketcham blew it out of the water. Because of this, EDC and crew have been busy redoing the AMR to the tune of, as yet undocumented, tens of millions of dollars.

In our view, once the original report was sh*t canned, EDC should have put the revised AMR work out to bid-why reward the consultants for their shoddy work? But, because there are no controls or system of checks and balances any where in this administration-but especially at EDC-the agency has carte blanche to spend money with little actual accountability.

Clearly, the reputation of Mike Bloomberg as a shrewd fiscal manager is in tatters: "Last year, Mr. Bloomberg told voters he deserved a third four-year term because the city needed his financial acumen to help shepherd New Yorkers through the global economic crisis. Some of the mayor's critics have pointed to last week's federal charges as evidence that the mayor isn't living up to what he promised."

With the controversy swirling, Howard Wolfson was sent out to play defense: "Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson said Mr. Bloomberg "takes accountability for anything" that happens in his administration. "I would put this mayor's record of fiscal responsibility over the last nine years with any chief executive in the country," he said. "The reason why we are not here in New York City in the same budget mess that they are in Albany is because this mayor has consistently safeguarded the city's finances."

Not really Howard. The reason the city is in better shape is because of the mayor's tax and regulate policies that-along with the trusty Wall Street economic engine-have created a better budget environment than Albany. And, as an aside, saying that one is doing better than Albany is not a robust defense Howard-and it elides the core issues of the scandal itself.

Absent all of the money lost and stolen, how would the current retrenchment of city services actually look today? Would we need to be cutting fire service? The final accounting is yet to be done, but were pleased that we finally have, in the person of the comptroller, a true fiscal watchdog in place to do this needed oversight work

EDC's Rampant Incompetence

Ever since Willets Point United's Brian Ketcham publicly embarrassed EDC and its coterie of colluding consultants over deficient-and arguably fraudulent-Van Wyck ramp reports, the agency has been playing hide the ball with all of its efforts to revise the ramps so that they meet the standards of NYS DOT and the Federal Highway Administration. Understandably so, since the last person EDC wants to review the work of its crack consulting squad is the estimable Ketcham-someone who can't be suborned by visions of contract sugar plums dancing in his head.

To what lengths will EDC go to withhold public information? Right now the agency is illegally non responsive to all of the Freedom of Information requests that WPU has filed-the latest deadline was last Monday with no acknowledgement from all of the shuckers and duckers at EDC. Remember that any person who, with intent to prevent public inspection of a record pursuant to FOIL, willfully conceals or destroys any such record shall be guilty of a violation of §240.65 of the New York State Penal Law, and may serve up to fifteen days in jail and/or be fined up to $250.00 per such violation.

But, hey, when the mayor operates in secrecy why should his underlings believe that they should be held to a higher standard? Right now, WPU is considering filing a complaint with the Public Integrity Unit of the Manhattan DAs Office. The Public Integrity Unit, which is a part of the District Attorney's Rackets Bureau, was formed in 2010 by D.A. Vance to coordinate and oversee the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed by public employees, elected officials, appointed officials, candidates for public office, and others who hold the public trust. The Public Integrity Unit, which investigates and prosecutes all types of public corruption in New York County other than corruption involving police officers, is supervised and staffed by a team of experienced prosecutors.

The Public Integrity Unit works with a variety of New York State, New York City, and federal law enforcement agencies, in addition to investigators from the D.A.’s Office. Although the Unit receives many of its referrals from investigative agencies, such as the New York City Department of Investigation, it also relies on the public and on those within government to help combat corruption by providing information about potential abuses committed by public employees.

No one, let alone employees of a quasi-public city agency, should be above the law; and when the agency in question has already engaged in questionable funding of a putatively illegal lobbying operation conducted by the Serial Non-Filer Claire Shulman, all of its actions should be carefully scrutinized. This isn't a minor matter by any means, and when the information requests from WPU pertain to the traffic reports that have already been judged to be deficient, the matter becomes even more serious.

In the view of WPU and consultant Ketcham, the traffic analyses done for EDC under the supervision of AKRF are conscious efforts to deceive the regulatory authorities about the potential impacts that the Van Wyck ramps will have on the highway itself, as well as the surrounding local street grid. The current stonewalling of the WPU's FOIL requests need to be seen in the context of the agency's overall shameful behavior in this matter.

We know for certain that NYS DOT has the revised ramp report in its possession, so EDC's refusal to hand it over-after WPU was given the original report to review-can only mean one thing: EDC has little confidence that its revised report can pass independent muster. EDC wants to try to expedite a review process that affords little time for opponents to analyze the veracity of its new submission to the state-and is looking to use its political muscle in an effort to obscure the failings of its consultants.

To be fair, we don't believe that any consultants can-using the immense amount of traffic generated by the Willets Point development-make the Van Wyck ramps work; and therefore comply with the federal guidelines that govern these kinds of access modification projects. Having been caught by the scrupulous oversight done by Brian Ketcham, EDC finds itself in a cul du sac of its own making.

As a result, its time for the state and federal regulators to relieve the agency of any role in the evaluation of the traffic issues pursuant to the ramps-and to heed the call of NRDC and the Sierra Club to turn this entire evaluative process over to an independent consultant who will be beyond EDC's subornation. We call on all of the local elected officials-who should be concerned, not only with transparency, but also with the calamitous traffic impacts from the proposed development as well, to insist that this EDC charade cease and desist. It has gone on for far too long.

Wal-Mart's Economic Costs Need to be Independently Examined

In an earlier post, we examined the Bloomberg sustainability sham, and linked that analysis to the threatened Walmartization of NYC. Now, however, we need to move beyond the environmental issues that are inextricable from the biggest big box of all, and tackle head on the false sense that the entry of Big Wally is an economic benefit to New York. Put simply, NYC loses more than it gains if Wal-Mart comes to town.

We have begun to make this argument already-and have piggybacked on the work of the University of Illinois-Chicago researchers who examined the impact of the second city's first Walmonster. As we pointed out previously: "The results of the Chicago Wal-Mart study provides us with a cautionary tale. For all those who promote the Walmonster in the name of economic development, these results indicate that the retail giant-unlike almost any other retailer-generates the kind of collateral damages that yield a net loss for the host community. And this analysis doesn't take into consideration what Stacy Mitchell calls, "the big box swindle;" the fact that these box stores like Wal-Mart generate much fewer local dollars than do the local competitors that they so often replace."

City Limits underscores this in an article on chain stores in its latest isssue: "National studies show that for every $100 spent in locally owned business, $85 is reinvested in the community-whether in paychecks for the employees or goods and servicies ourchased from othe local businesses-compared with $15 that stays local when the $100 is spent at the national chain."

Many communities around the country have begun to recognize this-and, as a result, have looked to raise the review criteria as well as the barriers to entry for these retail giants. Mitchell outlines this in her New Rules Project review: "States and municipalities have long evaluated the impact that large retail development projects may have on such things as traffic and the environment. Some are now adopting policies that require that the economic and fiscal impact of these developments be considered as well. (Economic impacts include the effect on local businesses, jobs, and wages. Fiscal impact refers to the impact on tax revenue and government costs.)"

These reviews consist of the following criteria: "These policies usually have two key components:

•They require that an independent study of the economic and fiscal impact of the retail development be conducted by a qualified analyst selected by the municipality (or other reviewing authority) and paid by a fee assessed to the developer.

•They establish a standard (or multiple standards) that the project must meet in order to be approved. The policy may say, for example, that the planning board (or city council or regional planning commission) may approve the development only if it concludes, based on the data provided by the study and other evidence submitted, that the project will not have an undue adverse impact or that the benefits of the development will outweigh the costs."

Now, as most of us well know, the NYC ULURP process has some of these elements-with the caveat, of course, that the concept of independent review is foreign to the local lexicon. That being said, it is also clear to any student of ULURP that the economic impact analysis is a step child of the review and is often neglected completely-this is a big mistake at a time when the mayor, EDC, and the assorted usual suspects in the media, are touting the economic boon that box stores-and especially Wal-Mart-allegedly provide.

Put very simply, the city council needs to elevate the centrality of economic impact analysis for mega real estate developments-particularly those that include the Walmonster. But, in addition, as Mitchell suggests, it needs to set some stringent standards for a box store like Wal-Mart-standards that clearly examine the collateral damages: "Most of these laws spell out the types of impacts that the study must analyze and that officials must consider in determining whether to grant approval. The list may include such things as the impact that the development will have on existing businesses, the vitality of the downtown, employment (jobs gained versus jobs lost), wages, tax revenue, and municipal costs. Some laws also include community impacts, such historic and scenic resources, and environmental impacts."

As an integral part of this review, the council should also insist that the consultants examine the strength of Mitchell's assertion that local businesses have a greater economic impact-because of the greater circulation of local dollars-than out of town box stores and chains. Mitchell has persuasively argued:

"Research shows local businesses deliver significantly greater economic returns for a community than national chains. A study conducted in Chicago by the firm Civic Economics found that every $100 spent at a national chain generated an average of $43 in additional economic activity in the local area. That same $100 spent at a locally owned store or restaurant created an average of $68 worth of new local economic activity.

Why do local businesses deliver so much more economic bang for our buck?
Part of the answer is that they spend a larger portion of their revenue on local payroll. Because they do not rely on a staff at a distant corporate headquarters, they employ more people locally to manage and operate the business.
The other factor is that local retailers tend to buy more goods and services from other local businesses. They bank at local banks. They get their printing done locally. They hire local accountants and other professionals. They source more of their inventory from local and regional suppliers."

Mitchell provides a guide to how these retail studies should be conducted-and our only caveat here is that AKRF not be allowed within 100 miles of any review that purports to be independent, For a full list of the skeptical literature on box store impacts consult the New Rules Project review of the scholarship. She also points out that the State of Maine is leading the way on this issue: "A growing number of states are considering and enacting statewide policies that make economic and fiscal impact studies mandatory for large-scale development proposed anywhere in the state. Maine's Informed Growth Act, for example, stipulates that large retail projects must undergo an economic impact analysis and grants cities the authority to reject those developments that they determine will have an adverse impact."

So the prospect of  a 180,000 square foot Wal-Mart coming to East New York should be viewed as an opportunity for the city council to sharpen its charter-given oversight role of mayoral power. It needs to craft economic impact legislation on a fast track-and figure a way to insure that it stands (legally) separate and apart from the suborned ULURP process. We are sure that Wal-Mart coming into New York is good for Wal-Mart-but for this city, there should be grave uncertainty.

We need to hold the mayor to a higher standard, not only on the environment that he claims to champion, but also on the issue of economic development, and what we envision makes the most sense for NYC's sustainable future. We believe strongly that the nurturing of local business-and the immigrants that increasingly enliven it-is where the city's best future lies-and a mayor who champions immigration should be able to comprehend this. (see especially the latest issue of City Limits for a fuller discussion of the importance of small business in NYC)

And on that note, we'll give Stacy Mitchell the last word: "What drives people's choices about where to buy a house, where to put down roots and where to start a business are what makes a place special. These might be cultural and natural amenities, but just as often, they are the kinds of small businesses that make daily living more enjoyable. They're the neighborhood bakeries, the lively independent bookstores, the local hardware stores that excel in personal service."

The Great Wal-Mart of Bloomberg

Crain's Insider, apparently looking to emulate the Onion for great satire, has an item on Bloomberg, Wal-Mart and promises unkept-the post's title is, The Bloomberg Wall: "Before last fall's election, the union representing supermarket workers endorsed Mayor Mike Bloomberg based on word from the mayor's campaign that Bloomberg would not spend political capital to bring Walmart to the city, according to the union. At the same time, Bob Lieber, then deputy mayor for economic development, was pledging to do his part to help Walmart, according to a source who heard it firsthand. The most benign conclusion that can be drawn from the discrepancy is that a thick wall separated campaign and administration operations."

Benign conclusions aside, this is all purely a case of bait and switch-and there is no wall of separation between the campaign and the mayor. Putting it charitably, how could there be for someone who believes in the principle of, l'etat, c'est moi. But relying on mayoral assurances is not a sound organizational decision-nor is similar ingenuousness when it comes to the promises of Related-just ask CM Barron.

All of which brings to mind the situation regarding the Columbia University expansion-and the allegation that its consultant AKRF was conflicted since it also represented ESDC. In its defense, AKRF claimed that there was a, "wall of separation," between the two sides of the firm that were working for the two separate clients. Judge Catterson of the Appellate Court saw right through this, pointing out that the fix was in: "But the court, and in our view got it right, saw it otherwise-and paid particular attention to the collusion between the university, its consultants and the state. As the Observer had pointed out about the court's ruling "It also was highly critical of the process of determining blight, a major component of the use of eminent domain. The state had hired the consulting firm AKRF to do both the environmental review for the project and the determination of blight. Ultimately, the ESDC brought in a second contractor to replicate the original blight study, but, as the court pointed out, this was well after the decision had been made to use eminent domain."

So much for these virtual walls. In dealing with Ross and Bloomberg (Bialystock and Bloom?), it is absolutely essential to get everything in writing-notarized, if possible. Which brings to mind Justice Hugo Black's observation about loyalty oaths, "Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest..."

Bike Dictats

There were dueling protests in Brooklyn today over a newly installed bike path, "experiment." The NY Times reports: "Along Prospect Park West on Thursday morning ,there was much ado about a green stripe of paint. Before most residents had to be at work, dueling protests between supporters and opponents of the boulevard’s new separated bike lane massed in rival camps, hoisting signs and chanting slogans. If it wasn’t quite a merry war — each group was far too polite, and there were far too many cameras blazing — the close proximity of the two parties provided ample theater."

Much of the protest in favor of the new bike access related to a general animus to auto traffic in the city-read the reader comments on this; while the protesters had other concerns: "The rally attracted mostly those who lived in the immediate vicinity of the Prospect Park West bike lane, which has been a source of neighborhood controversy since it was installed over the summer. The protest dwarfed a similar one last week in Manhattan over new lanes along First and Second Avenues. “Thing have come to a critical pass,” said Lois Carswell, one of the organizers. City officials, she said, “have already declared it a success” before any review could be done. She said she hoped her protest would help encourage an “impartial” evaluation of the lane, which is still in a trial phase."

While we sympathize with Ms. Carswell, her comments are appropriate for good street theater-and not because her idea for an impartial review is funny. What is laughable, is her call for something that's unheard of in this administration-an independent and unbiased review of anything. And if any study is done, DOYT will simply bring its liars for hire over at AKRF to ratify the master's plan.

Let's be clear, the Prospect Park bike lane issue is not simply a parochial one-but it speaks to the complete lack of any oversight or public planning with the installation of these bike lanes all over the city. A cafe owner in Park Slope must hire a traffic expert and a lawyer and go through a lengthy review process if she wants to add a table outside her restaurant-but NYC's Sadik can, willy-nilly, simply install these traffic obstructions wherever; and do so without a single public hearing.

We have no opinion about the PP bike lane-that's a matter for the locals. But shouldn't a hearing be held before installation? Hey, at least go through the motions of public review. But we do know a bit about the lanes that Sadik conned us with on Columbus Avenue in Manhattan-where truck deliveries now crowd out all but two lanes on the formerly four lane thoroughfare. And finding a cyclist on Columbus Ave is a little like the old Where's Waldo game.

Another key point-one that the NY Daily News emphasizes-is that there may be some serious safety issues with the PP lanes: "Basically, we think that it's rather unnecessary to have the bike lane on Prospect Park West; there is one in the park and it could be reconfigured," said Louise Hainline, president of Neighbors for a Better Bike Lane. Critics need to keep the bike lane issue alive to highlight safety problems, said Hainline. This week, Brooklyn News reported that many senior citizens who live near Prospect Park West found the new design dangerous, complaining about accidents and near misses with bikers while crossing into the park. "We see this as something that has negatively impacted our neighborhood and the people who live in this neighborhood," said Hainline, who has lived on Prospect Park West at President St. for 13 years."

These are the kinds of things that emerge in a public review process-and the absence of this kind of review reflects on just how autocratic and out of touch the Bloombergistas really are. As for Sadik-Khan, she should be biked all the way  to Copenhagen where she belongs.

High Sierra

The Sierra Club has joined with the Natural Resources Defense Council in calling for an independent study of the Willets Point ramps. When we last left off, the revised ramp report and environmental assessment from EDC-via NYSDOT-was supposed to be oven ready shortly after Labor Day. With nothing yet forthcoming, it appears that the state agency is till having some nettlesome issues with the ramp application-a perfect time to agree with the two environmental groups that an independent second opinion is badly needed.

In its letter to DOT, the Sierra Club made this salient point: "While we take no position on the development itself, we are concerned about insuring that the review of the ramps-particularly because of the massive number of projected vehicle trips that the project will generate-is done in the most transparent and unbiased a manner as possible."

And the group went on to point out that the use of AKRF to evaluate the ramps raises real concerns about impartiality, "Our concerns are magnified by the fact that the consultant hired by EDC, AKRF, is also the contractor that New York State DOT uses to conduct third party reviews. However, because AKRF is the consultant on the ramp project, DOT decided not to utilize any outside vendor to review the traffic impacts of the proposed ramps. So for the Sierra Club, whose only concern is for the most accurate oversight possible, the relationship between AKRF and the state agency is a real cause for alarm."

But, as we have pointed out on innumerable occasions, it isn't only Willets Point that is a cause for alarm-a clear evaluation of the cumulative impact of scores of Queens projects needs to be done if the Bloombergistas are serious about air quality and sustainability: "
The Sierra Club is further concerned by the fact that the Willets Point ramps are designed to facilitate a 10 million square foot development that is just one of an additional 60 or 70 additional projects; projects that will amount to a total of 30 million new square feet of car dependent development in and around this area of Queens. Put simply, there is proposed-or already approved-a huge increase in vehicular traffic for which the current roads and highways are ill equipped to accommodate."

Which brings us to the charade of the mayor's PLaNYC 2030. You can't be promoting all of this auto and truck dependent development while, at the same time, claiming the mantle of Kermit the Mayor. But while the NRDC and the Sierra Club are alive to the mayor's rampant hypocrisy, the NY League of Conservation Voters-along with the Environmental Defense Fund-suffers from a Benjamin-induced lockjaw when it comes to taking any stand that exposes the mayor's double talk.

As far as the NYLCV is concerned it is, as the Marxists say, no accident. In May of this year the mayor was the League's keynote speaker-a reward for the group's supine response to the assault of the Bloomberg economic development team on the city's air quality-and we could find no public comment from League director Marcia Bystryn about the alarming DOH air quality study this past summer.

But the League has been played by Bloomberg for awhile, and it would be interesting for the press to track the money trail from the mayor's sources. This is still a, "not for nothing," city-and there are enough things that the Bloombergistas have done for an independent environmental group to criticize. And, of course the League's and EDF's complicity in the Willets Point development is a blatant signal that their speech isn't as free as it should be.

But silent complicity isn't Bystryn's style-and she told the Observer, after endorsing the mayor's third term last year, "that Bloomberg has "the most comprehensive sustainable agenda in the country." She praised his use of "strategies and metrics." Not sure what that babble means, but when it comes to Bloomnberg's metrics, we're sure that Bystryn really sizes up.

What this means for Queens County is that the environmental chorus has been muted in the face of a massive traffic influx courtesy of EDC and its Big Real Estate sycophancy. When the borough's elected officials-with a few notable exceptions-also remain quiescent it doesn't bode well for the environmental health of Queens residents.

We'll give the Sierra Club the last word on the impacts of the unsustainable Bloomberg development blueprint: "In the past NYSDOT has been blindsided by economic developments in NYC for which the agency was unprepared to deal with-developments that exacerbated the city’s air quality and gridlocked its roads and expressways. Now that it is aware of the potential impacts of the Willets Point project, and numerous additional projects, it is incumbent on DOT, as well as the federal overseers, to insure that the potential impacts of all this auto dependent development is accurately analyzed."

Cover Up at NYSDOT?

It has been seven months since Willets Point United, and its traffic consultant Brian Ketcham, demonstrated the blatant deficiency of a Van Wyck ramp report submitted by NYC EDC to the NYSDOT. The state agency is responsible for initially approving these ramps-or not-with the Federal Highway Administration having the last word on their feasibility. So the question that we ask, is there a cover up at NYSDOT?

In this interim seven month period, EDC and its consultants, in apparent secrecy and collusion with the oversight agency, have been working feverishly-to address the gross defects of their original submission (a revised ramp report was first slated to be ready in March). But, the WPU and Ketcham, after having been the key actors in insuring that the original report was sent back for revision, (in spite of promises from NYSDOT that they would be included in the revision process) have been left out; leaving EDC's original axe to grind consultant as the sole interlocutor with the state on the ramps feasibility.

As a result of the agency's reneging on an open, professional review process, WPU has been forced to file numerous Freedom of Information requests just to obtain information that, if transparency was valued, would be shared collegially in the interest of insuring that the impact of the ramps on the entire Queens highway grid system would be honestly evaluated. Instead the EDC consultant, AKRF, whose work was not only deficient but, arguably deceptive, has been allowed to act as the sole provider of technical knowledge to the agency.

The compelling question is, why has NYSDOT circled the wagons and resisted the free and open exchange of information? This is the question that WPU's Ketcham has asked DOT Commissioner Stanley Gee in a letter to the agency head. In particular, Ketcham raises the issue of NYSDOT's accountability to the public: "Given your distinguished career at the Federal Highway Administration and more recently at New York State Department of Transportation, I am bringing to your attention current Departmental practices that undermine your objective of improving its performance, accountability and communication within and outside the agency."

Ketcham goes on to highlight the agency's curious stonewalling:

"Over the past year, I have been reviewing these projects and nearly 90 other new projects near the Willets Point site. I have generated numerous letters to your agency regarding these projects along with submitting a number of technical reports for your agency’s review... In addition, on February 19, 2010, I also presented much of these materials to representatives of Region 11 along with representatives of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). At that meeting we were promised a technical dialogue with NYSDOT along with an open process for the review of this project. However, no open process has occurred and all my submissions have been ignored. What is going on with NYSDOT? Recent FOILed documents suggest your agency appears to be inappropriately colluding with NYCEDC and the FHWA to approve a project which they know to be seriously flawed. I trust this is not the case."

And then Ketcham gets to the information that WPU has received-information that raises serious questions about NYSDOT's impartiality: "Over the last year, I have identified numerous problems with this project that have been publicly ignored by NYSDOT and by NYCEDC. Recently released internal memos obtained using the Freedom of Information Law suggest that the technical staff of NYSDOT shared many of these concerns but appear to have been overruled by policy makers that have been under pressure to facilitate the approval of the AMR and thus of the Willets Point Plan."

So, after acknowledging serious problems in the EDC ramp report, NYSDOT proceeded to shut off any public vetting of the data submissions-relying exclusively on AKRF. But was this prudent and in the public interest? It is even more questionable considering that AKRF has a prior consulting relationship with NYSDOT-and is in fact used by the agency for all or most of its third party reviews. It is the closeness of this relationship, in our view, militates against both transparency and thoroughness.

Concerns over AKRF's impartiality are certainly not new. In the environmental and eminent domain reviews surrounding the Columbia University expansion, AKRF represented both the university and the Empire State Development Corporation-and was excoriated by the Appellate Court for this conflict of interest. Arguably, in the case of the Van Wyck ramps, the relationship between the agency and this consultant could easily impair impartiality, given the fact that there would be an a priori assumption on the part of NYSDOT staff that AKRF's work didn't need to be fully vetted.

This, at least according to the e-mails that WPU obtained, appears to be exactly what did happen-and the, "Environmental Group," at NYSDOT was poised to green light what turned out to be a defective AKRF submission:

"Jimmy Lau (NYSDOT), 9/25/2009 at 12:48PM: "... I read through the Willets Point Draft Access Modification Report. ... In every aspect the report is complete and well documented through my cursor [sic] review.... After this review I have no major comments that would change the relevance of this submission and that they should finalize this report and submit for final design approval."

But this cursory and cavalier review was demonstrably inadequate-as the subsequent intervention by Brian Ketcham underscored fatal flaws in the ramp report. But the Ketcham critique should have triggered a red flag at NYSDOT concerning the integrity of its consultant contractor AKRF. Ketcham's letter to the commissioner makes the point that AKRF's ramp report thoroughly contradicted the original EIS traffic study that AKRF supervised in its role as lead consultant in the Willets Point land use review:

"The draft AMR assumed that, in contrast to the 50% of total Willets Point traffic reported in the FGEIS, just 16% would utilize the new ramps. This unexplained discrepancy leaves a third of the PM peak hour traffic, about 1,900 vehicles, unaccounted for in both the Willets Point FGEIS and in the AMR, presumably on local roads."

How could AKRF, given its dual role in the crafting of the two discrepant studies, submit the second report-if it were acting in good faith-with no reference to the original land use review? Here's the money quote from the Ketcham letter:

"AKRF was the lead consultant for both the FGEIS for the Willets Point Plan and the AMR for the Van Wyck ramps (as well as the FEIS for nearby Flushing Commons. They must have or should have been fully aware that these two reports present traffic projections that are hugely different. AKRF’s role was further compromised by their ongoing contractual relationships with NYCEDC and with NYSDOT which ordinarily relied on them to provide third party review of environmental analyses. Clearly, something is wrong with NYSDOT’s review process."

The existence of these discrepancies and the coziness of the relationship between NYSDOT and AKRF/EDC is why the state's leading environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote to the agency-and to the FHWA-advocating for a fully independent review of these Van Wyck ramps under the National Environmental Policy Act. The fact that NYSDOT blew NRDC off in its request dramatizes the suspicion that whatever is going on at the agency, isn't a fair and open review process.

The environmental impact of the massive Willets Point project-a development that will flood Queens roads and highways and severely challenge the inadequate mass transit infrastructure-needs to be reviewed impartially. What we have seen in the original land use review, and now in the ramp oversight as well, is a review process that is simply broken. The failure to analyze what this project's impact would be-along with an additional 20 million square feet of additional development-will have a profound, and severely negative, consequence for all of Queens County.

We'll give the persevering Ketcham the final word: "NYSDOT must undertake an independent review of the Willets Point FGEIS and the Van Wyck ramps AMR. Your agency does this routinely as is evident in your ongoing term contract with AKRF to review Region 11 EISs. A dozen groups representing Queens communities within two miles of the Willets Point site strongly support an independent engineering review. There is clearly precedent for taking this action. So, what is stopping you from hiring another consultant to undertake an independent review?"

Will Queens Roads Become Like China's?

The oversight of the proposal to build two ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway-in order to accommodate the massive Willets Point development-is mired in secrecy; and the question of just how honest and accurate the regulatory review will be is definitely up in the air. If nothing is done to create an independent oversight process, it is likely that Queens residents will be facing road conditions-as the picture on the left dramatizes-that will mimic those of China. Under the current methodology implemented by NYSDOT, the reliance on the flawed work and questionable ethics of the enviromental consultant AKRF, indicates to us that the process has been hot wired and the public interest jettisoned.

Let's start by examining what the NYSDOT's normal protocol is when they are confronted with an expensive and complex application that will impact the state and federal highway system. Thanks to the freedom of information data we have received we know the answer to this. The following inter-agency e-mail exchange illustrates the department's standard operating procedure:

Ian Francis (NYSDOT), 9/24/2009 at 10:19AM:

"The only outstanding comments are from the Environmental group, Jim Lau's group has to do the review in-house since AKRF prepared the report and they are the consultant retained to assist Environmental with reviews."

Jimmy Lau (NYSDOT), 9/25/2009 at 12:48PM:
"... I read through the Willets Point Draft Access Modification Report. ... In every aspect the report is complete and well documented through my cursor [sic] review.... After this review I have no major comments that would change the relevance of this submission and that they should finalize this report and submit for final design approval."

What does this signify? In the first place, it indicates that NYSDOT has a standard procedure for conducting an independent review, one that utilizes a consultant and not the in-house expertise of the agency-whatever that may be. The problem in the case of the ramps, however, is that EDC's consultant, AKRF, is also-in good monopoly fashion-the agency's own independent contractor.

In a true best practices environment, then, NYSDOT would proceed to let a contract out for an independent review of AKRF's submission on behalf of EDC. It did no such thing-and in fact allowed AKRF's flawed work to be vetted by the in-house staff that traditionally relies on this independent contractor; one that the department-and particularly this division-undoubtedly has a close working relation with.

Unsurprisingly, the head of the Environmental Group was poised-a year ago-to green light the AKRF work that was later found to be flawed; a consequence in large part of the intervention of WPU's Brian Ketcham who demonstrated just how defective AKRF's submission was. In the best of all possible worlds, NYSDOT would have reacted to these events with extreme caution-and would have, as a result, looked to get an unbiased traffic consultant in to review Ketcham's and AKRF's conflicting reports.

However, it did no such thing. It maintained an exclusive and secretive relationship with the EDC consultant in its review; in spite of the claims expressed in a meeting in February that there would be an open line of communication with the whistle blower Ketcham-whose superior work product had forced EDC to revise its defective ramp report.

But it gets worse. Seeing just how egregious the defective AKRF report was-and the way in which NYSDOT was continuing to rely on a consultant that had submitted shoddy and deceptive work-WPU approached the Natural Resources Defense Council-arguably the state's leading environmental group. When NRDC reviewed the Ketcham critique of AKRF's work, it fired off a letter to both NYSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration calling on both agencies to initiate an independent review of the ramps.

NRDC's request was a simple one: "NRDC is not taking a position on advancing the Willets Point project or on constructing the ramps. But based on our preliminary review, we are concerned over the discrepancies in the study results, and also by the prospect that a project could impair regional mobility..:Thus consistent with our position on other large-scale regional development projects we believe that the stakes are high enough with the building of new access ramps for the Willets Point project to warrant a full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)...By undertaking such independent review, the public can be satisfies that the proposal's impacts have been adequately assessed..."

In July, however, NYSDOT informed NRDC that it didn't need to do any independent review saying, "The NEPA documents that are being developed are an Environmental Assessment and a revised Access Modification Report....We understand the request for an independent review but believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the data will be based on sound data."

How blatant a slap in the face is this to transparency and the public interest? How can anyone trust the consultants who attempted to deceive the state agency with a fatally flawed document-one that contradicted its own earlier report submitted to the NYC Council as part of the land use review application? And what does it say about NYSDOT's integrity when the agency ignores the deceptive practices of the consultant and allows it to continue to perform as the exclusive agent for providing traffic data to determine the viability of the Van Wyck ramps?

We can see just how NYSDOT lacks trustworthiness and integrity in its apparent willingness to ignore the keen skeptical insights of Michael Bergman, its own structural engineer. Bergman told agency policy makers that the EDC report was simply junk.

Michael Bergmann (NYSDOT), 12/18/2009 at 3:40PM:

"I am not satisfied with the original document or with any of the responses. The consultant apparently refuses to recognize that his entire data collection work on the VWE near (former) Shea Stadium was badly flawed, because it took place during a major construction project. I have criticized his speed analysis, and his response was that the speeds and traffic volumes are related. His statement is correct, but that means that the traffic volumes used in the report are also flawed...

In my opinion, the report we have is poorly done and is not adequate justification for changes in access to an Interstate highway."

Yet, in spite of Bergman's attempt at righteous intervention, policymaker Pete King wants to move ahead:

Peter King (NYSDOT), 12/23/2009 at 5:22PM:

After several phone calls with EDC and internal discussion, we have the attached. Mike, I think you're correct in noting, earlier in the review, that the questions we raised were not being answered. Rather than tell us how they would address an in issue, they kept telling us why the issue wasn't being addressed. However, in looking at the attached, I believe that, by and large, they are making credible comments to our concerns. I know that there have been considerable discussions with EDC, URS, P/B (who did the modeling for X735.56) and regional staff. Planning is satisfied, as is Traffic/ Safety that the modeling and design speed issues have been adequately addressed."

But, of course, nothing had been adequately addressed-and the intervention by Ketcham and WPU blew a hole in this rush-to-approve effort to accept a ramp report that NYSDOT was later forced to admit was defective. Now the public is being asked to accept the agency's judgment that it can trust the defectors over at AKRF-this should be unacceptable to any Queens resident-or any local elected officials who still have their wits about them.

As Ketcham asked in an e-mail to us: "Does NYSDOT really want to trust an outfit that could not do quality control of their products and protect them from this nonsense?" And Queens gadfly Benjamin Haber, writing in the Ridgewood Ledger, agrees: "In addition to the loss of hundreds of small businesses and the jobs of thousands of employees and their dependents, the proposed Willets Point project also involves the general public, whose daily lives will be affected by the huge increase in the volume of vehicular traffic on the Grand Central Parkway and the Van Wyck Expressway. Suffice it to say, the Willets Point businesses and their employees and the general public are entitled to a full and fair discussion of the issues, something the Bloomberg administration and the city Economic Development Corp. have sought to avoid."

But if this ramp construction is allowed to go forward-rubber stamped by an agency whose internal communications indicate that it has an unhealthy slavishness towards the mayor and his minions-then it is the communities of East Elmhurst, Kew Gardens, Corona, Flushing and College Point-just to name a few-that will suffer the cosnsequences of the malfeasance of the regulators. If this happens, the China Syndrome will come to Queens.

Courting Disaster at Willets Point

Last Friday. Justice Joan Madden rejected the Article 78 petition brought by Willets Point United against the original ULURP application for the development of the Iron Triangle. City Room reported the decision: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg won a victory on Friday for his $3 billion blueprint for apartments, offices and stores in the shadow of Citi Field in Willets Point, Queens, when a judge rejected a challenge from opponents in the area.The judge, Justice Joan A. Madden of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, turned down their request for an injunction to keep the city from going ahead with the project."

 But, as WPU's lawyer Mike Gerrard pointed out: "Michael Gerrard, a lawyer for the opponents, called the decision a “two-edged sword for the city.” In a statement posted on the Web site of Willets Point United, a group that is fighting the city, he noted that in dismissing the opponents’ case, Justice Madden concluded that the environmental impact statement had adequately covered the traffic issues. “But in so doing,” he said, the decision “stressed the terrible traffic effects forecast by the environmental impact statement; the need for federal approval for the Van Wyck ramps; and the fact that if the ramps are not approved, the project cannot go forward.” “The city can’t paint one picture to the court and a completely different picture to the federal government,” he said."

So, just what exactly did the judge say-and what is the meaning of the decision for the ongoing dispute over the building of the Willets Point ramps; an acknowledged linchpin for the entire development? In rejecting the WPU petition, Judge Madden said the following: "She rejected their arguments against the environmental review, particularly as it focused on proposed new ramps from the Van Wyck Expressway. She said enough information had been provided to make possible “informed consideration and comment” on how the project would affect traffic in the area."

And we believe that, in this narrow sense, the judge is spot on-and shame on the city council for ignoring the clear and present danger that EDC's consultants underscore throughout all of the traffic sections of the EIS. Could the council members have possibly read any of this environmental review? As Judge Madden says in her decision-rejecting the WPU's argument that the EIS failed, "to state specifically that the traffic impacts cannot be mitigated;" "The traffic analysis identifies significant increases in the volume of traffic and the resulting deterioration of the levels of service (LOS) on specific sections of, and ramps to and from, the Van Wyck and the Whitestone Expressways, and on the Gran Central Parkway." (pp. 10-11)

And she goes on to say-and this should be understood by all of the local area elected officials and civic groups: "The analysis states that "on several highway ramps and sections, the high Build volume would exceed the capacity, especially during game-day peak hours and the highway network would be unable to process the projected volumes within the duration of the peak hour." The Van Wyck would be exceptionally impacted: "As to the mainline Van Wyck Expressway, during peak hours on both game and non-game days, both directions would operate "at unacceptable LOS F." (emphasis added)

How bad would the degradation of service be? Pay attention EDF and NYCLCV: "The average travel speeds would drop from 30 to 35 mph to about 3 mph for the ramp from the North bound Whitestone Expressway and from a range of 25 to 35 mph to about 1 to 3 mph from the Westbound Northern Boulevard." (pg. 12)

We call out the less than independent enviros here because of what the NYC DOH has found out about the city's air quality: "And guess what the DOH found? That's right, outer borough neighborhoods right next to highways are those that are most dangerous to your health: "Lower and midtown Manhattan, The Bronx and outer-borough neighborhoods that flank major highways have higher levels of this form of pollution. Neighborhoods with the largest crowds during the day had, on average, 22 percent higher levels of particulate matter, while areas with the heaviest traffic had an average of 15 percent more than other neighborhoods in the study, which was conducted between June and August 2009."

But we digress from the judge's decision and EDC's crowing for a reason. The Willets Point development stands as a monument to the hypocrisy of Mike Bloomberg-and his carbon footprint reduction posturing while, at the same time, he is elevating unhealthy air quality by promoting-not only Willets Point-but all of the auto dependent mega-developments in the city's outer boroughs. His motto appears to be: Manhattan congestion free-damn everyone else!

But back to the issue at hand. As Crain's points out: "The Willets Point group had focused its argument on the impact two proposed ramps would have on the Van Wyck Expressway. The ramps require state and federal approval, and the group hopes that the project still might stall as the process move forward...“It will be interesting to see how the city will now back away from its recent claims that the project wouldn't be so bad for traffic after all,” he said."

And in this, Judge Madden is WPU's ally-as her decision underscores: "Petitioners are correct that the FGEIS does not identify the impacts on the three highways in either the Mitigation chapter or the Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impact chapter; however, the severity of the traffic impacts is clearly identified and analyzed in the chapter on Traffic and Parking...The Court concludes that this analysis contains a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts." (pg 15)

We'll leave aside for a moment whether the EDC consultants' failure to specify in those chapters was a deliberate effort to obfuscate that dire data in the traffic section. Here's the judge's money quote on what the EIS does in fact say: "Moreover, contrary to petitioners' arguments, the analysis does not suggest that the impacts can be mitigated. While a discussion of the impacts in the chapter on Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts would have been consistent with the purposes of the SEQR process and would have assisted local officials in evaluating the Plan, and the public in commenting on it, the absence of such discussion does not necessary infer that impacts could be mitigated." (emphasis added)

Indeed not. But to that admonition let us add the fact that the slicksters over at AKRF actually low-balled the vehicle trips in its original traffic study. As we have pointed out-citing Brian Ketcham's work here-the consultants minimize vehicle trips by dishonestly assigning loads of new trips-almost 50%- to a mass transit system that, frankly, can't accomodate them. Who is going to step up here and call out the irresponsibility of EDC and the rest of the Bloombergistas?

As Gene Russianoff said in his letter to the mayor-focusing on both the Willets Point and Flsuhing Commons project: "Mr. Ketcham studies new development that might be completed by 2017 as reported in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) for the Willets Point Development Plan and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Flushing Commons project. He finds:“… [added] subway trips could total more than 92,000 on weekdays and bus trips more than 70,000. …the estimated auto and truck trips, more than 144,000 that might be generated by more than 90 new projects identified in the environmental impact statements referenced above.”

All of which leads to the Van Wyck ramps-and the corrupted review process that the NY Times wrote about a few weeks ago. What Judge Madden is saying, and what Mike Gerrard is referring to when he talks about the "double edged sword," is that EDC is up against it in any honest and open review process. Added to this double edged sword-a sword of Damocles in our view-is the fact that EDC and its Swift Lazar consultants tried to put one over on NYSDOT by altering the severe data points that this original EIS had dramatized-and did so by claiming that the original diverting ramp traffic (estimated at 46% of the Willets Point traffic) would only be 16%. The consultants knew that allowing the original numbers to stand would have aborted this baby in the first tri-mester.

Which gets us to the relationship between the ramps and the overall project: "At oral argument, counsel for respondents {that would be the city} stated that if the ramps are not approved, the respondents cannot 'proceed with the plan as conceived and approved.'" And if they can't? "For the purposes of this review, this court assumes that if the ramps are not approved, additional review under SEQR will be required." (emphasis added)

So, what this decision means is that Judge Madden feels that the original EIS demonstrates the severe traffic impacts of the Willets Point project-and she states that it is not the court's purview to question why the city council chose to ignore the handwriting on the wall. But, now that the cat's out of the bag, anyone who ignores this devastating traffic impact is being malfeasant-and where this puts the EDC three card monte game is any one's guess.

But the judge's ruling doesn't take away from the centrality of the ramp review process-it does in fact add to its significance. And if her highlights of just how severe the Willets Point traffic impact will be is seen as a victory by EDC, it may just turn out to be a Pyrrhic one when the final reviews are in.