Judge sinks suit versus Pier55 / ‘Diller Island’ PIER55 continued from p. 1
Furstenberg has pledged $113 million for the project that would replace the old Pier 54 just north of W. 13th St., was jubilant. “The court did what we hoped, reject completely the claims made by the City Club,” Diller said. “On behalf of the Hudson River Park Trust and all those involved in this project, I’m glad we can get back to the work, that of building a great park and performance center for the people of New York and all those who come to visit.” Madelyn Wils, president and C.E.O. of the Trust, the state/city authority building the 4.5-mile long riverfront park, said, “This marks a victory for the tens of millions who enjoy Hudson River Park. We’re pleased the judge dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, and we’re eager to move ahead with what will be one of the most spectacular public park piers anywhere, yet, happily in Hudson River Park.” Tom Fox, a City Club member and an individual plaintiff in the suit, said on Tuesday that the City Club board of directors would decide later this week whether to appeal the dismissal. The square-shaped project, more an island than a pier, with two access ramps, would cover 2.7 undulating acres, supported on 547 concrete pil-
A design rendering showing an aerial view of the proposed Pier55 project, which will overlap old pile fields of Piers 54 and Pier 56. The new pier would be accessible by two pedestrian bridges.
ings. Its height above the river would vary from 8 feet to 62 feet. The pier would have three performance spaces, with a total audience capacity of nearly 6,000. The Trust and the Diller-von Furstenberg Family Foundation have agreed that 51 percent of the performance events on the pier would be completely free and 49 percent could charge market-rate admission. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation approved the project at the end of last month. However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over navigable waters, has not yet issued a permit for the project. Nevertheless, the Trust hopes to be-
gin construction on the new pier later this spring, with completion expected in 2019. The lawsuit, filed in June 2015, contended that the Trust’s approval of the project violated the public trust doctrine, both the city and state environmental quality review laws, and the state Hudson River Park Act, which is the legal basis of the park and which established the Trust. The public trust doctrine holds that “parkland is impressed with a public trust requiring legislative approval before it can be alienated or used for an extended period for non-park purposes,” according to the decision. But Judge Lobis held that the doc-
trine applies to municipal parkland and not to state parkland, like Hudson River Park. Moreover, the judge ruled that the uses envisioned for Pier55 are all legitimate park purposes. (The park was built on a combination of state- and city-owned land.) Regarding the environmental review requirement, the Trust last year filed an environmental assessment form, or E.A.F., and found that Pier55 would not have a significant environmental impact, so would not require further study. Projects deemed to have a significant impact must complete a full environmental impact statement, or E.I.S., which could take a year. The City Club suit contended that the E.A.F. failed to take the required “hard look” at the project to assess the potential impact. But Judge Lobis held that the E.A.F. examined alternatives and potential risks to reach the “No significant impact” judgment. Pier55 only partially overlaps the footprint of the old Pier 54, built in 1906 for the Cunard Line, which it would replace. The state Legislature last year amended the Hudson River Park Act to permit the new location. Judge Lobis held that the project does not violate the act. The Pier55 project has the support of Friends of Hudson River Park, the Municipal Art Society, New Yorkers for Parks and former city Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe.
M.T.A. really missed the bus with split M5 route TALKING POINT BY SHIRLEY SECUNDA AND TERRI CUDE
O
n Wed., April 20, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority / NYC Transit is holding a public hearing on its proposal for a revised M5 bus route. Unfortunately, the revised route is far from what we asked for, in both concept and convenience. After years of our pleas and carefully reasoned resolutions, the M.T.A. has finally responded, but not with what the community and Community Board 2 Manhattan requested multiple times. Instead they’ve proposed to alleviate the well-known and frequently suffered M5 delays and “bunching” (no buses for extended periods, followed by multiple buses arriving at the same time) by forcing riders from our area — many of whom have difficulty climbing on
26
April 14, 2016
and off of buses — to transfer at 37th St. to get to or from anywhere north of there. Two separate M5 routes are proposed — one between 178th St. and 37th St., and the other between 37th St. and South Ferry. Forget a seamless trip to Lincoln Center or points in the 40s in Midtown. Look forward to being left at a frequently deserted location and to long waits between transfers. Our community asked for full restoration of the M1, M3, M5 and M6 routes, which served riders admirably. You could get to where you needed to go without climbing on and off buses and waiting for the next leg of your journey. Since the 2010 cuts in M.T.A. bus service, riders in the Village, Soho, south Noho, Little Italy and Chinatown have had to hike to a bus, or have given up and taken a taxi or waited interminably for AccessA-Ride. Included among these bus riders are many seniors, caregivers with small children, and those who are mobility impaired or for whom the subway stairs make taking the train impossible. Even if there’s an elevator-served subway station near-
by, there’s rarely an elevator at the rider’s destination. Those who are able to take the subway often can’t get into the packed No. 6 train, or get so squashed between rush-hour passengers that they more resemble flattened paninis than riders. In view of the ill-advised 37th St. split, it’s crucial to attend the April 20 hearing, which will be held at M.T.A. headquarters, 2 Broadway, from 5 p.m. to 7pm. Registration to speak starts at 4 p.m., or you can register online at http://web.mta.info/mta/ news/hearings/#M5-Bus. You can provide written testimony through that link if you cannot attend in person. We need to show our numbers in opposition to the split, so being there to talk is important. Some key points we suggest for testimony include demands to: • Restore the M1, M5 and M6 to pre-2010 routes (this is the most preferable). • If full restoration of these routes isn’t possible, increase the number of M5 buses and have two of them per hour turn west on Houston St. to start their uptown route on Sixth Ave. from there. This would serve
those who can’t make the hike to Sixth Ave. to get the M5 northbound. (The crosstown M21, when it comes at all, stops far from Sixth Ave. — not a convenient or easily navigated connection and one that entails long waits and multiple ons and offs that are especially difficult for physically challenged users.) • Have the M1 run downtown on Broadway to South Ferry and return uptown on Centre /Lafayette Sts., providing needed uptown bus service for the Village, Soho, southern Noho, Little Italy and northwestern Chinatown between Bowery and Sixth Ave. to serve the currently neglected middle of Manhattan below Ninth St. • Shift the M1 to Park Ave./Broadway above 23rd St. so we again can have service on Broadway in the Union Square/14th St. corridor. • If the M5 routes absolutely must be split to provide reliable service, overlap the north and south routes between 14th and 59th Sts. to avoid long transfer waits for completing trips. Secunda is chairperson, Community Board 2 Traffic and Transportation Committee; Cude is vice chairperson, C.B. 2 TheVillager.com