A View From The Hook

What is Bunker Fuel? The Pollution Threat From The Costa Concordia Cruise Ship Disaster

2012-01-29T12:37:00.031-05:00

Photo: Friends of the Earth

As anyone who visits this blog regularly knows, I've had quite a hiatus from writing over the last 6 months or so. This is partially due to the events last year that secured a deal that guarantees the implementation of the use of shore-power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, which should be up and running this year (2012), that will allow the visiting cruise ships to turn off their idling engines and reduce the pollution and health impacts they have on our waterfront neighborhoods and their residents. This had been one of the primary issues addressed in this blog, along with waterfront development, transportation and environmental justice, so I guess the resolution* of this matter gave me a reason to slow down a bit. Additionally, the lack of blogging activity has resulted from a work life that hasn't allowed me to spend much time at the computer writing on the important issues that effect our neighborhood. Despite this, I have been watching closely and trying to get information out about local issues, and I hope anyone who is interested in them follows me on Twitter - @viewfromthehook (see the end of this post for some recent stories you might have missed).

The events surrounding the recent Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster, however, have spurred me back to action and back to the computer keyboard to write again about the issue of ship pollution.

Apart from the terrible human tragedy that has unfolded over the last weeks, the Costa Concordia disaster has the potential to be a terrible environmental tragedy as well. At the time of the ship running aground, it had only been at sea for a few short hours, and, as a result, was carrying a full load, according to this article (here) from Marcie Keever at Friends of the Earth, (700,000 gallons) of fuel, for its journey. That fuel - the fuel that powers most large ocean going vessels (cruise and container ships) - has been the villainous subject of this blog ever since its inception.

That fuel is "bunker fuel".

Bunker fuel is, as Ben Goldfarb describes in this recent article (here), the "viscous, bottom-of-the-barrel residue of petroleum distillation, tar too thick to be burned by any vehicle other than an enormous ship."

Photo credit: NOAA

The shame of this is that this extra-dirty fuel is not only the source of much harmful pollution as it is heated up, to make it less viscous, and then burned to power the diesel engines of large ships such as the Costa Concordia and the other cruise and container ships that ply the waters of the globe - which also idle constantly while visiting our ports. It is also that this fuel's very potent and viscous qualities would make for a huge environmental disaster if it leaked out into the pristine waters surrounding Giglio Island, off the Tuscan coast of Italy, where the Costa Concordia now rests.

(UPDATE - Monday: Coincidentally (perhaps?), James Kanter makes the same above point in the New York Times story on the subject today - HERE)

In 1999, in one of the worst environmental disasters from a bunker fuel spill, the "Erika", a tanker that was carrying 30,000 tonnes of bunker fuel, broke up in a storm and sank in the Bay of Biscay, off the Atlantic Coast of Brittany, France. The amount of fuel that was spilled was approximately 19,000 tonnes, and the ship sank between 30 and 50 miles off shore. The spill initially created a 10 mile long slick and, eventually, on-shore pollution that resulted in an oily layer up to 1 foot thick along the shores of the Loire River where it meets the coast, approximately 80 miles away. According to the web site of "Cedre", the Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution, "a viscous oil layer, 5 to 30 cm thick and several metres wide, covered parts of the shoreline." Apart from the huge impact on seabirds, seals, shellfish and even salt production, much of the damage to sea life in the ocean and on the sea floor was not visible. But, as you can imagine, this was a massive environmental tragedy - one that France considers to be its worst environmental disaster which, according to this story at Guano Island blog, "polluted 400 km (250 miles) of coastline and caused damage valued at up to 1 billion euros ($1.30 billion)". It eventually cost the negligent ship-owners, who apparently were aware that the tanker was not seaworthy, $280 Million in compensation. This disaster also lead to the implementation of regulations that required oil tankers to have double layer hulls that would reduce the risk of such environmentally devastating spills.

Most importantly, this event has made clear the terrible impact such a spill would have if it ever happened gain.

Photo: Guano Island

Now, according to "Cedre", the Costa Concordia is only carrying a tenth of the quantity of bunker fuel (2,400 tonnes) compared to the "Erika" (which was not only being fueled by the substance, but transporting it as well). However, the cruise ship is right on the shoreline and is moving with the currents with the potential for its bunkers to rupture and spill the contained fuel, literally feet from shore and in pristine and protected waters. If that leak occurred, the damage to the eco-system and the shoreline would be dramatic, not to mention the damage to the economic health of the whole area (simulation here). Thankfully, the authorities are doing everything they can to ensure that this potential environmental and economic disaster never eventuates, and many of us around the globe are hoping for that positive outcome.

However, this disaster is another reminder of the unpalatable and harmful nature of this substance - bunker fuel - that propels the world's ocean going vessels, pollutes our air, harms our children's health and potentially damages our environment.

Let's remind ourselves, this viscous, tar-like, bottom-of-the-barrel, high-sulfur, (yes, cheap!) fuel - stuff that we all hope will not end up coating the Italian shoreline, killing its economy and eco-system - is being burned at sea in huge quantities to power these cruise and container ships, as well as being burned mere feet from our homes, and from our most vulnerable residents, while the ships idle on the edge of our waterfront communities. As Ben Goldfarb writes, in the previously mentioned article (here) -

"the ongoing use of bunker fuel is also one of the most appalling public health scandals in the world. Bunker fuel, when burned, produces an olio of airborne chemicals, including sulfur oxide, that have been linked with acid rain, asthma, and lung infections. In 2009 James Corbett, a University of Delaware expert on ship emissions, calculated that 64,000 residents of port cities die every year of bunker fuel-related ailments; in 2012, Corbett predicted, that number will rise to 87,000."

The great news for residents of Brooklyn is, some time later this year, these harmful emissions will cease to be produced in-port by the cruise ships visiting our neighborhood's Cruise Terminal when the NYCEDC, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Carnival Cruises (who also operate the Costa Concordia), have promised to implement a long-awaited and hard fought for plan to plug-in the now idling ships to shore power while berthed at the terminal. (my post here)

The not-so-good news is that for the foreseeable future this bunker fuel will continue to be burned in-port and at sea by the container ships visiting the Brooklyn Container Terminal, and by every other cruise and container ship visiting our city, and in much of our country. That is apart from some ports and waters of the West Coast where a lot of work has been done over the last decade to implement such pollution-reducing and life-saving practices as the use of shore power - also called "cold ironing" - while the ships are in port.

There are regulations coming into effect over the next number of years that will reduce the amount of sulfur in the fuels that can be burned by ships using North American waters and using our ports. But, make no mistake, the fuel that will be used by these ships in the future will still be some of the dirtiest diesel on the planet - with Sulfur levels hundreds of times higher than is present (or legal) in the diesel used by trucks or trains, as opposed to the thousand times higher Sulfur levels that are present in the fuel currently used by ships.

So, even though there will be an improvement in the level of pollution that these ships emit while cruising the world's oceans and transporting our goods, if they're not using shore power when they're in port, the ships will still be idling, burning extra-dirty diesel and emitting harmful substances into our neighborhoods' air, compromising the health of our residents.

Additionally, they'll be buying and adding to our reliance on imported fossil fuels, adding to greenhouse gasses, creating soot or black carbon, and adding to the bottom line of already prospering multinational oil companies, instead of purchasing much cleaner electricity from our local, domestic utility companies, thereby helping our local economies.

This doesn't make sense - and it's unnecessary.

For my part, the Costa Concordia disaster is another reminder of what the real-life risks and impacts of shipping are, and the choices that we have to make to improve this industry's impacts. I'm not anti-cruise ships, per se. I'm not anti-industry - at all. It just seems to make sense that these industries should not be making their (sometimes minimally taxed) billions at the expense of the environment or the health of our residents, particularly our most vulnerable. The recent ship wreck on the Tuscan coast, like the one that created the environmental disaster in the sea off Brittany in 1999, is a reminder that we don't want bunker fuel - this noxious, bottom-of-the-barrel, viscous substance - ruining our environment and degrading our quality of life.

Whether it be as a result of a spill - coating the beaches of Brittany, the Mediterranean coast, the wings of seabirds or acres of unseen ocean bed - or whether it's being heated up and burned to power berthed ships, idling constantly at the edge of dense residential neighborhoods, with the resultant, yet avoidable, carcinogenic and asthma-exacerbating emissions being pumped into the air of our cities and into the lungs of our children, there is no place for this substance and its emissions in our environment.

It's time to say good-bye, and good riddance, to bunker fuel.

Photo: Wikipedia

.........

OTHER STORIES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED -

Red Hook Star Review: American Stevedoring Out at Red Hook Terminal | Brownstoner story HERE

Port Authority Honcho: Red Hook/ BK Waterfront Like 'Vietnam', Trucks are Killing NYC | Brownstoner story HERE

Port Authority Boss: "Red Hook must be connected to Governors Island", if not, "the island will never reach its full potential" Crain's New York story HERE

@NYCEDC's East River Ferry feasibility study excludes most of Red Hook's 12,000 residents. In the study - page 25 - http://bit.ly/kSuVtG - even the "secondary market area" excludes most of Red Hook's 12,000 residents

NY's clean truck program sucks! (Same with ships) - Carroll Gardens Patch story HERE

What Clean Truck Program? Only 11 out of 7,000 replaced. MT @FromBKtoBXL: Port Authority Failure (via COWNA's Brad Kerr) http://bit.ly/pAlCSd

In fight against global warming, NASA calls for reduction of black carbon (i.e. soot) http://goo.gl/BQn1M

My post on ships, black carbon and greenhouse gases from Dec. 2010 http://goo.gl/z039g

Plugging 1 container ship into shore power takes pollution = 33,000 cars out of LA's air - C'mon NY. We can do it too! Story Here

And from OnEarth Magazine -

Shocking stat: pollution from 2 dozen giant container vessels equals pollution from ALL of world’s 1 Billion vehicles http://bit.ly/orZ4Xd

ONE container ship can emit as much pollution as 50 MILLION cars. Maersk Line is trying to change: http://bit.ly/orZ4Xd

World’s freighter fleet puts out 3.5% of global warming emissions -- twice the share of aviation: http://bit.ly/orZ4Xd

.

Who Says Cruise Ships are Bringing No Economic Benefit To Red Hook?

2011-07-01T12:50:00.017-04:00

There was a New York Times article (here), published this week, covering the "Philly-Pinoy", a restaurant that opened on Pioneer Street over a year ago that is prospering by serving Filipino delicacies to home-sick cruise ship workers (many who are Filipino), who spend 10 months of the year on the ships, away from home, and craving some authentic home-style food.

It was an interesting enough story that not only educated the reader about the various exotic dishes that are part of Filipino cuisine, but also opened a small window into the lives of some of these ship workers who spend most of their year on the ships, only getting a couple of hours "off ship" on the days when the ships are in port, working hard and sending their hard earned money back to families - spouses, children, etc. - in their home countries, often not seeing them for a year at a time.

The story also noted that, despite this particular restaurant's success due to the patronage of the cruise ships workers, Red Hook was not getting much resultant economic benefit from the visiting cruise ships that have been calling this neighborhood home since 2006.

The NY Times article states -

"Last year, some 120,000 passengers passed through the terminal, spending roughly $30 million on souvenirs, meals and hotels in New York, according to city officials.

But only a small fraction of that money was spent in Red Hook. Most tourists spend their time, and money, in Manhattan or in Brooklyn’s more upscale areas."

Well, that's not much of a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention here in Red Hook, and studies in other cities seem to question the "economic benefit" that cruise ships bring, particularly to the neighborhoods in which they berth.

Take a look at this article from the "Vancouver Sun" regarding the costs v.s benefits of visiting cruise ships in Victoria, Canada -

"Environmental, social costs of cruise ship industry outweigh benefits, study for port neighbours says"

Here are some excerpts -

Annual economic benefits from the cruise industry reach $24 million at most, while costs are at least $28 million and could go up $33 million, the study says.

For the most part, economic benefits go to the business community and the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, while costs are born by residents and government.

Benefits stem from money spent by passengers, crew and cruise lines in Greater Victoria. They include everything from souvenir shopping, tours and attractions to wastewater collection and ship repair by local companies.

Costs include human health impacts from ship emissions, as well as traffic noise, wear on road infrastructure, public subsidies, marine effluents and lower property values.

“We have been far too long gulled by assertions of numbers that simply do not add up. Benefits are often grossly overstated and [there is] seldom any consideration of the costs"

Recently, with the long awaited deal being done to bring "shore power" to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (a deal that will ultimately allow the ships to turn off their idling extra-dirty diesel burning engines, plug in to the city's power grid, and remove dangerous carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances from our neighborhood's air) there has been a little more coverage of the "costs" of cruise ship pollution. (In the last 5 years The New York Times has not done a single story on the broader issue of port pollution - from idling container ships, trucks and port equipment - its impact and cost to New York residents).

In testimony to the Pubic Service Commission, the Port Authority's Chris Ward stated that plugging-in cruise ships to shore power at the Brooklyn terminal will save Brooklyn residents an estimated $9 Million in monetized health costs - yearly.

That's some serious cost we're currently carrying - in asthma, heart disease, cancer, premature mortality and more. The EPA states that these costs are being carried disproportionately by our most vulnerable - our children, the elderly, people with lung disease, those who exercise outside, and low-income and minority communities located near ports

Then there are the other costs too, such as those created by the use of the traffic cops who are stationed around the neighborhood to direct traffic, the congestion, the wear and tear on the roads, etc. We're all paying for these through our taxes - while Carnival, which operates the cruise ships, is currently paying 1.1% in taxes (story here).

So let's get real about the cruise ships' economic benefit to Red Hook - directly. There are some who are benefiting, for sure, like the "Philly-Pinoy", the "Ling Gee" Chinese Restaurant on Van Brunt (I wrote about that in October 2009, here), "99c Dreams" on Lorraine Street, and I have heard that a few of the officers from the cruise ships drop into the various restaurants and cafes on Van Brunt Street.

But, let's be honest, we've yet to see much benefit from these sea-going behemoth's presence on our waterfront.

Even the terminal itself, surrounded by an asphalt, barren wasteland of a parking lot, gives very little back to the community that gave up meaningful waterfront access and the prospect of more "people friendly" uses for the building of the $56 Million terminal that was supposed to bring greater economic benefit of the city.

The NYCEDC who brought the cruise terminal to our neighborhood (and, more recently, the tourist helicopters) has yet to make good on "improvements" to the terminal site - through better access or community uses - nor has it been pushing forward on the promised new uses around the terminal, such as the creation of a permanent home for PortSide New York at the unique and historic Atlantic Basin, nor the promised creation of water-borne transportation (hello East River Ferry!), nor even the Governors Island Ferry that was a part of the deal "sweetener" when the EDC (controversially) gave Pier 11 to Phoenix Beverages (aka Long Feng Trucking), even though they already had a deal for Pier 7, defying the will of the community, our 197a Plan and Community Board 6 recommendations. Frustrating Side Note: The Pier 11 shed is currently used by Phoenix for recycling and garbage.

The point is, there is supposed to be "balance" when it comes to planning for our waterfront. When economic development is cited as the reason for the introduction or expansion of activities on our waterfront, these uses should not come at the expense of our residents - particularly the health of our most vulnerable, as has been the case with the cruise ships.

On a lighter note - it seems like one of Red Hook's newest establishments, "Paris Burlesque", is hoping to benefit from a little patronage from the visiting cruise ship workers once it opens later this month. You see, as I was wandering down to have a look at the ship idling at the end of my family's residential street this morning, I spotted a car pull up to a few men - workers from the ship, I'm pretty sure - who were exiting the Cruise Terminal pedestrian gate at the bottom of Pioneer Street.

Out of the car jumped three ladies, dressed in black, night-club attire (not risque, just a little dressy for the - as the NY Times called it - "scruffy" setting), with flyers, etc. in hand, who eagerly passed out brochures (pic below) to the men who were making their way up Pioneer Street - perhaps to Philly-Pinoy. Just as quickly, the women hopped back into the car and sped off - maybe hoping to intercept more prospective patrons up the street (I guess they were in a rush because 2 hours off the ship offers a pretty short opportunity for getting this information to these workers).

So, good for you "Philly-Pinoy", "Ling Gee", "99c Dreams", "Paris Burlesque", and the other businesses that are benefiting from the patronage of workers from the visiting cruise ships. It's nice that a few of our local businesses are seeing an opportunity here and are taking advantage of it.

But, wouldn't it be good to see a little more benefit to the neighborhood, our businesses and residents - and a lot less costs?

Left to Right (if you look closely - click on image to enlarge): Statue of Liberty, Caribbean Princess at BCT, Atlantic Basin "Blue Space", Container Terminal cranes with NY skyline, Empire State and Chrysler Buildings, Brooklyn Bridge, Bulkhead - Future Home of PortSide New York, Pier 11 Shed.

Everybody's* Red Hook Sidewalk Sale - Sunday July 19th, 11am - 4pm

2011-06-16T09:45:00.009-04:00

RHED (Red Hook Economic Development), the organization that works with local storekeepers, businesses and residents, that has, among other things, brought Van Brunt Street new and additional trash cans, tree plantings (lots of them! - soon with additional Red Hook designed and manufactured tree guards), created events calendars (look out for the 2011 Summer Calendar), organized neighborhood clean ups (Clean Me 1 and 2), and brought last years' successful "Buy / Sell" neighborhood wide sidewalk sale, is doing it again.

Anyone can get involved - here's the info from RHED

As RHED says, this is everybody's* sidewalk sale - *by and for businesses, families, nonprofits, and neighbors. So if you're in the neighborhood on Sunday, get involved.

If your visiting Red Hook on Sunday - perhaps planning on going to "Showboat Shazzam" at the Waterfront Museum barge - come along and see what's on sale. Yes, the barge is back in Red Hook this Sunday and next (two shows, 1pm and 4pm), back at its permanent home pier on Conover Street, right next to the Fairway overflow parking lot, after relocating to the Riverdale F estival in the Bronx this last weekend.

Note: Between July 14th and July 26th the barge will temporarily relocate to Pier 6, Brooklyn Bridge Park, at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue, and "Showboat Shazzam" will take place on the barge at that location on July 24th.

.

Why We Love Red Hook - Upcoming Events

2011-06-02T13:58:00.026-04:00

In this blog, I have focused a lot on the challenges that Red Hook has faced in the past, and is continuing to face - from cruise ship and container ship pollution, poor planning - both with development and transportation - continuing and increasing congestion and pollution from trucks, and, the most recent affront to our neighborhood's quality of life (sadly, courtesy of the New York City Economic Development Corporation ... again!), tourist helicopter noise. There will be more on all of these subjects in subsequent posts - oh, you bet there will! - but I also wanted to remind myself, and anyone reading this blog, why this place - Red Hook - is so worth fighting for.

In this post I'd like to just touch on a few unique Red Hook institutions that enrich our community and give a lot of joy to our residents and many who come to our waterfront neighborhood to enjoy themselves. They have programs throughout the summer that I'm sure will draw many patrons - both from Red Hook and the city beyond.

SHOWBOAT SHAZZAM - 2011 Shows: June 5th, 19th, 26th and July 24th.

The first time I came to Red Hook, over a decade ago, before moving here (which my family and I did shortly afterwards), I came to take my family to see "CIRCUSundays", the amazing mini-Circus that David Sharps has been hosting on the Lehigh Valley No. 79, a historic barge that he literally dragged out of the mud years before and lovingly restored and reincarnated as the "Waterfront Museum".

That wonderful program continues this year in its 15th season under its recently updated name, "Showboat Shazzam", and, in that tradition, the shows (two daily - 1pm and 4pm) will be held on the barge on three Sundays in June (5th, 19th, 26th) in Red Hook at the Waterfront Museum's permanent home pier on Conover Street (right next to the Fairway overflow parking lot). Additionally, in an effort to expose this wonderful experience to even more New Yorkers, between July 14th and July 26th the barge will temporarily relocate to Pier 6, Brooklyn Bridge Park, at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue, and "Showboat Shazzam" will take place on the barge at that location on July 24th.

Please check out the "Showboat Shazzam" schedule and buy tickets here.

The barge will also be visiting other city neighborhoods throughout the summer including Riverdale and Hudson River Park. Check the Waterfront Museum site for details.

This unique Red Hook experience is not to be missed - for young and old alike!

ENVIROMEDIA MOBILE MUSEUM - Summer and Fall Series - First Event, Sat June 25th - "SOLAR FEST 2011"

The Urban Divers and their Director, Ludger Balan, have created a mobile museum they call the "Enviromedia Mobile". Essentially this is a huge trailer - a mobile museum on wheels - that is parked at the Erie Basin Waterfront Park (part of the IKEA site) and from there they bring a series of exciting children and families programs.

You may have caught Ludger's educational events - sometimes about falconry, the ecology of our estuaries - including New York Harbor - and other environmental issues. The Urban Divers' mission is to provide "quality and innovative public engagement programs in Environmental Literacy and Maritime Cultural Enrichment". Ludger and his organization are passionate advocates for these causes, and the Summer and Fall events at the Enviromedia Museum will expand on these themes and - most excitingly - incorporate music in events including the "Solar Fest 2011" (Saturday, June 25th), a "Pirate Festival" (Saturday, July 30th), and "Sunset Concert and Movies" (Saturday August 20th) and as well as tours of the museum, "Truck Farm" and much, much more.

From the Urban Divers' blog (here), the events will include -

Environmental Education, Conservation Support, Community Stewardship, Youth Development , Cultural Enrichment & Maritime
features:
LIVE ACOUSTIC MUSIC CONCERTS , VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL RECREATION STATIONS distributed throughout the Waterfront Park, PUBLIC TOURS of The MOBILE MUSEUM, The MOBILE MUSEUM GIFT SHOP, RELAXATION and REFRESHMENTS.

Here is a flier with all the upcoming events (click to enlarge). You can get there via the IKEA Water Taxi. Check out some of the great things coming to our waterfront!

PORTSIDE NEW YORK

Carolina Salguero's excellent organization, PortSide New York, has been creating programs on the Red Hook waterfront for many years. Activities mostly center on PortSide's ship, the Mary A. Whalen, a re-purposed oil tanker, on which PortSide has held a wide variety of events - from "Tanker Opera", to the "Roots and Ruckus" festival (in collaboration with the Jalopy Theatre), tours, waterfront education, community outreach and other cultural activities. PortSide also hosted the excellent "Dutch Flat Bottomed Boats" event at the Atlantic Basin, and co-ordinated events over the last year or so that brought tall ships such as the "Gazella", "Clipper City", and historic tug "Pegasus", that drew hundreds to Red Hook's waterfront and gave us all a first hand glimpse of the wonderful waterfront that is mostly inaccessible to our residents.

PortSide's future permanent home in the Atlantic Basin, the unique and historic harbor nestled between Red Hook's residential blocks and the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, their creation of a "cultural center" and headquarters in a part of the adjacent Pier 11 shed (the major part is used by Phoenix Beverages for garbage and recycling), and use of 600 feet of water frontage is going to give them an opportunity to hold more of these events and share the waterfront with more of our neighborhood's and city's residents.

Here's what PortSide says -

Our plans for Atlantic Basin include direct service to the working waterfront; visiting vessels (from tugs to tall ships); more H2O arts, cultural tourism products and harbor advocacy; youth programs, a marine career center; and a maritime interpretive center—programs for diverse economic groups and individuals.

In 2011, PortSide plans for this space, and our vision in general, were affirmed in New York City’s new comprehensive waterfront plan, Vision 2020.

I don't have any specifics on PortSide's planned activities over the Summer, but check their web site, here, for information and below is a snippet from their most recent email news letter (subscribe via Constant Contact here).

In case you missed our BIG NEWS from May, the Mary A. Whalen was determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This is very exciting because eligibility increases funding opportunities and visibility for the ship, for PortSide and for Red Hook

This summer PortSide can employ five youth from Brooklyn public housing to complete the restoration of the Captain's cabin through NYC's Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). Below, see how to help us offer this program or go straight to the fundraiser page here. To learn more about the restoration work click here.

PortSide/Jalopy "Roots and Ruckus" event on the Mary A. Whalen at the Atlantic Basin

KENTLER INTERNATIONAL DRAWING SPACE - K.I.D.S. Event - Saturday, June 4th

The Kentler International Drawing Space, has been open in Red Hook since 1990. It's director, Florence Neal, has created a focus for artists in Red Hook, as well as reaching out to the community through educational events and programs such as K.I.D.S. Art Education.

From the Kentler site -

The gallery sponsors monthly and bi-monthly exhibitions featuring solo, group shows and installations by some of New York's most exciting emerging and under-recognized artists. Shows drawn from the international community have given traveling artists an opportunity to visit America and bring their work to a New York audience. The gallery is open to the public Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 12 - 5pm.

Kentler is holding a K.I.D.S. event on Saturday, June 4th, at Valentino Pier as part of the "Red Hook Fest" waterfront arts festival. This festival is presented by "Dance Theatre Etcetera", another excellent Red Hook organization.

This from their email -

K.I.D.S. Art Education

presents

DRAWING TOGETHER

FREE Saturday Art Workshops for Families

SUSTAINABLE GROUP DRAWING
at Valentino Pier
as part of
Red Hook Waterfront Arts Festival

Saturday, June 4

1:15 - 2:45pm

OUTDOORS AT VALENTINO PIER
Drop-ins are welcome.

Kentler International Drawing Space and K.I.D.S. Art Education invite children and their adults to discover new ways of drawing through the art of knot making (sailor knots! Boat mooring knots! Silly invent-your-own knots!). Teaching artist MEGHAN KEANE invites participants to join her in making a giant growing 3D drawing out of knots and other ways of connecting recycled materials together! Materials will include cut plastic bags and other linear delights.

Designed for ages 4 & up
with their care givers (no drop offs)

For more information about K.I.D.S. Art Education:

K.I.D.S. Art Ed blog

K.I.D.S. Art Ed

KENTLER INTERNATIONAL
DRAWING SPACE
353 Van Brunt Street /(Red Hook) Brooklyn, NY 11231/ 718.875.2098
info@kentlergallery.org / www.kentlergallery.org

There are many other organizations and institutions I could mention - many other reasons to love Red Hook - from the excellent and unique stores, businesses, bars and venues (hello Sunny's!), restaurants, Latin American food vendors, Valentino Pier (minus helicopters), Coffee Park (even without our much-missed gardener, John), incredible neighbors, sense of community and so much more, but I actually have a whole other life outside of blogging ... you know, being a dad, husband, playing and teaching music, and all of that. So, that will have to do for now (my son needs to be fed!). I hope this short list gives you some reason to feel good about living in, or even visiting Red Hook.

As we battle the things that attack our quality of life in Red Hook and beyond, it's good to know that these wonderful experiences are right here - in our neighborhood - on our waterfront and within our community.

So get out there .... and enjoy!
.

STOP THE CHOP : Rally to End Tourist Helicopter Noise in Brooklyn - Sunday, 1pm. Pier 6

2011-05-13T16:47:00.010-04:00

(Image from Word On Columbia Street blog)

I tweeted about this event earlier (follow me on Twitter here). Sometimes I don't get a chance to write posts on this blog on issues relating to the neighborhood in a timely manner, but if it's a matter of importance, I will at least try to tweet. See the sidebar of this blog for my Twitter feed.

Check my previous post and this comprehensive story (here) from the South Brooklyn Post for more details regarding the helicopter issue.

The Word On Columbia Street blog has the details of the rally - here they are.

Join State Senator Squadron, Congressman Nadler, Congresswoman Velazquez, State Senator Montgomery, Assemblywoman Millman, Councilmember Levin and Councilmember Lander

at a

Rally to End Tourist Helicopter Noise in Brooklyn

Sunday, May 15 - 1:00PM

Pier 6 Brooklyn Bridge Park

(at the end of Atlantic Avenue)

Join your neighbors, community leaders and local elected officials to rally to end all tourist helicopter flights from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport. Brooklynites from DUMBO to Red Hook have put up with this nuisance for too long!

Rain or Shine!

Questions? - please contact

Senator Squadron's Office

718-875-1517 or adelisi@nysenate.gov

Follow the issue further at "Redhook Noisecopters" Facebook page - here

More Work To Be Done - Container Ships, Helicopters and Diesel Generators

2011-05-09T15:22:00.023-04:00

The excellent news of last month, concerning the deal to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, has made many in our community, including me, feel like we've actually gotten something done here in Red Hook. This success could also make many of us feel like we can 'take a breather' from the work of trying to address challenges in our neighborhood - and to our residents - from pollution and other threats to our quality of life.

However, there is still more work to be done.

Concerning the shore power deal, obviously this is a great result, and the fact that this 5 year deal will allow the plan at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal to move forward is a good thing. Especially while the process to bring about a long term solution - i.e. the case requesting the creation of a permanent "shore power tariff" - is still weaving its circuitous and protracted way through the Public Service Commission and elsewhere - perhaps to be nudged along by the NYC Council Resolution (that still hasn't had a hearing) at the City's Committee on Waterfronts.

But, as I've said all along, and as I was quoted (below) in the article (here) from the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance's newsletter, WaterWire, this Brooklyn shore power plan should just be a "first step".

"The use of shore power in Brooklyn should set the example for the rest of our city's ports where similar 'green' practices could and should be implemented, with resultant health benefits for all New Yorkers."

"So, bravo Brooklyn, and let's keep pushing towards a healthier, cleaner and greener future - for our ports, for our city, and for all of our residents."

So while we're all feeling good about the Cruise Terminal plan, unfortunately, in the foreseeable future, ships will still be idling their extra-dirty diesel engines at the end of our residential streets.

I'm referring to container ships, such as the ones that visit the Brooklyn Container Terminal. As the Caribbean Princess pulled out of its berth yesterday (having spent Mothers Day idling at the end of my family's street) I thought - Wow, if all goes to plan, this time next year the Princess and the Queen Mary 2 will have kicked their smoking and idling habits.

Cool!

However, I woke this morning to see the belching smokestacks of the ship, Grande Marocco (a "roll on roll off" container ship docked at the Brooklyn Container Terminal which has an unimpressive "E" efficiency rating on ShippingEfficiency.org - here). There it was, idling, carcinogenic and asthma inducing smoke belching out of its funnels - constantly - as was going to be the case for its entire stay in our neighborhood (TUESDAY UPDATE: The Grande Marocco is in its second day of constantly idling on our waterfront - 24 hours and counting!). The sad fact is, these ships burn the same dirty diesel (bunker fuel) that the cruise ships do while they're idling in port, and there should be a plan to make sure that their emissions aren't harming our residents unnecessarily either.

As I've previously said, this is the unfortunate reality for ALL ships visiting the ports of New York and New Jersey. They're all idling. They're all burning extra-dirty diesel and blowing harmful substances into our air, (equivalent to the emissions of 7.8 Million cars, according to the Environmental Defense Fund), and whether it's Brooklyn, Staten Island or Manhattan in NYC, or Elizabeth, Newark or Bayonne in New Jersey, we all share the same air. Actually, the fouled air from the New Jersey ports (the largest in our region) generally blows towards New York City - especially Brooklyn and Staten Island - due to prevailing winds. So shouldn't there be a comprehensive plan to get shore power and similar emissions eliminating and life saving practices established throughout our area's ports, with all types of ships - cruise and container?

This has been the case in California and elsewhere on the West Coast, where shore power has been used for many years at multiple ports, with all types of ships. In communities such as Long Beach and Los Angeles, where the two largest ports in the country abut dense residential populations, the strategy implemented over the last decade has been to make their ports as clean as possible. Not just the through the use of cleaner diesel, but by the widespread use of shore power - allowing the ships to "cold iron" - i.e. turn off their engines, thereby eliminating, not just reducing, the harmful substances that compromise the health of the ports' neighbors and nearby residents. In LA there has also been a successful and comprehensive "clean truck program" (something that is sorely needed here in New York, though a similar but less robust plan, yet to be instigated, is being championed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler and the Coalition for Healthy Ports). In these ways, the burden of the operation of that city's ports is being taken off their residents - especially the many who are already vulnerable.

This should also be the case in ports of New York and New Jersey, the third largest in the country.

The great thing about using shore power, is that it not only eliminates the harmful substances that I have written about extensively in this blog - SOx, NOx and Particulates - substances that are (as noted by the EPA and others) carcinogens, asthma inducing, contribute to heart and lung disease and to premature mortality - even premature birth and low birth weight outcomes. But the use of shore power also significantly reduces CO2 and other greenhouse gases and lessens our reliance on oil - yes, that "foreign oil" we're all trying to wean ourselves off. Actually, the ships will be buying their electricity from us - from domestic sources - from our City's utilities - rather than giving their money to oil companies. These are all good things, right? Can anyone say, "Win, Win, Win"?

It's true, there are regulations coming in the next number of years that will compel all ocean going ships to use cleaner fuel while in North American waters, including in our harbors and ports, and that will bring great improvements to our nation's air quality and health benefits to many Americans. But, where there is port activity that abuts dense residential populations - as is the case in Red Hook and many of our city's and region's (aka NJ) ports - surely the use of the most clean practice should be the goal. Why should we settle for the reduction of the pollution and the resultant environmental and health burden on our residents, when its elimination is possible - as is the case when ships use shore power while in port? There's no good reason why we should. Not when there are so many benefits, and especially when we're talking about real people - often the most vulnerable - with real lives whose health is, and will continue to be, compromised by the continuation and acceptance of the status quo.

So, we need to work toward this goal - the goal of creating the cleanest port operations possible in our residential neighborhoods. We need to make our representatives aware of our concerns about the matter of the container ships, too (as well as the other cruise ships in Manhattan and New Jersey). And, the press needs to play its part in getting the information out to the wider public and to expose the facts.

On the latter point - about the press - I'm not holding my breath. The most disappointing thing about the fight for the cruise ship shore power plan was that the press coverage that was needed to push the issue forward and to help get the information out was so lame - absent for a great part. When the facts were coming out, through statements made by such "fringe elements" as the EPA and the Port Authority themselves, the press never quoted them nor helped get the information out - information that would have informed the public and precipitated the serious attention and response that was required. There was nothing on the subject from the New York Times or even the Brooklyn newspapers for over a year. In fact, a journalist from the Brooklyn Paper told me that a story was written on the shore power plan and the health burden that was being carried by our residents as a result of the ship pollution - including statements from the Port Authority about the shore power plan potentially saving Brooklyn residents $9 Million per year in health costs - but, apparently, the Brooklyn Papers' editor decided not to publish the story. I sent the editor,"Gersh", a couple of emails about that. His response was that he couldn't comment on the decision not to publish it - he referred me to a PR company. I guess he had another "my bike was stolen" story to fit in.

Considering this history of the press' dereliction of duty, it seems like we can't count on them to do the job. So it's up to us. OK?

Which brings me back to my broader point.

It's also up to us to make sure that we, the residents of Red Hook, etc., don't continue to have stuff shoved into our neighborhood that wouldn't be accepted anywhere else. Development or activities that are meant to bring broader economic benefit should not happen at the expense of our quality of life, result in added pollution, serious congestion or anything else.

So - Helicopters!

What's the story? It seems like there are rules in place that are meant to limit their flying - one after another after another - over our neighborhood. But it seems as though the helicopter operators aren't exactly obeying those rules. Apparently, it's our old friends at the NYCEDC who have created this mess by redirecting helicopters over Red Hook, rather than over the West Side or Brooklyn Heights. It's the EDC that is now dealing with this mess. The EDC is the agency that brought to our neighborhood: the cruise terminal, without shore power, aesthetic considerations or public access; Phoenix Beverages - without pollution mitigation to address the expanded operations of the container port and snapping up the prime location of Pier 11 ... for garbage and recycling; the agency that wants to create a tug boat parking lot in the Atlantic Basin, without requiring the use of cleaner fuel or other pollution mitigating practices.

On a positive note, the EDC Maritime Department did negotiate the deal to make the shore power plan happen.

There is a Facebook group called Redhook Noisecopters (here) that has been addressing this helicopter menace.

Here's their advice -

Please call Patricia Ornst, director of Aviation at the EDC. This is the person responsible for re routing Tourist helicopters over Red Hook Brooklyn 212-312-4226 or you can
email her at patricia.ornst@nycedc.com

They advise residents to direct complaints to 311 and to our representatives as well.

Red Hook's City Rep. is Councilmember Sarah Gonzalez. Her details are here.

Brad Lander represents the Columbia Waterfront District. His details are here.

Another thing - the Christie's Auction House diesel generator.

The local blog, Fifty Car Pileup, has noted in a post (here) that Christie's, the art auction house that stores its wares in the converted warehouse on Imlay Street, is illegally running a diesel generator, constantly, outside of their premises. First, it's ironic that Christie's, who have to carefully maintain the climate and air quality inside their art storage facility, don't seem to give a hoot about the deterioration of air quality that their generator is creating outside. Second, Christie's are new to the neighborhood - do they have to be such inconsiderate neighbors? Third, why do they need to use such a generator - why can't they get their power from the grid?

Brownstoner has taken up this story and will hopefully deliver this story to a wider audience - and get some action to address this matter. Fifty Car Pile Up also has some video footage of the generator, some facts about its fuel consumption (It is stated that the generator uses "39.3 gallons of diesel fuel an hour..as if 40 semi trucks were constantly idling on our block"), and there are some further statements about the harmful effects of diesel emissions - ones of which readers of this blog should be well aware.

Fifty Car Pileup asks -

Why is Christie's choosing to endanger the health of folks in Red Hook instead of purchasing power from the grid?

Sign our online petition
Tweet about @ChristiesInc irresponsible generator
Email Christie's PR department

WEDNESDAY UPDATE - Fifty Car Pileup has an update today, here - with a response from Christies stating they intend to use the generator only for "four or five months". That's 24/7 ..... constantly idling ... wow!

Fifty Car pileup rightly states,

"I'm baffled why they chose to begin storing art at this facility when it lacked sufficient electrical power from Con Ed. Before this facility came into use last year, Christie's was utilizing other locations for art storage. The fact is, Christie's choice to use a generator to warehouse art in Red Hook is detrimental to the health of our community."

Lastly, I believe that The Word On Columbia Street blog is closing shop. I'll be sad to see it and its publishers go. This blog has been covering the Columbia Waterfront and Red Hook for years and has not only operated as a publication supporting community events and local enterprises, it has played an important and invaluable role in raising awareness of many community issues - especially ones relating to pollution and quality of life, including the Cruise Ship shore power plan, the container ship issue, Phoenix's trucks, the uses of the Atlantic Basin, the ASI salt pile, the BQE trench, the Brooklyn Greenway and more - so I must commend them on their excellent and important efforts.

I wish Chris and his family all the best in their travels and adventures - it's been great knowing you and much success in whatever you do. Hope to see you back here in the not too distant future.

For the rest of us .... there's more work to be done.

.

Deal For Shore Power at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal ..... is DONE!

2011-04-13T20:24:00.011-04:00

The great news came today, via a press release from Mayor Bloomberg (here), and articles in the New York Times and South Brooklyn Post, that a deal that will allow cruise ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook to plug in to shore power is done.

The deal between the NYC Economic Development Corporation and the New York Power Authority creates a rate of supply for the electricity that the ships will use for their on-board power while in port, instead of idling their extra-dirty diesel engines, as they currently do. This electricity rate will be set for 5 years, and, presumably, by that time, the slow moving Public Service Commission will have created a permanent power rate for the ships and this pollution mitigating practice can continue.

The deal for the rate of electricity supply was the missing piece in the multi-part plan to make the use of shore power in Brooklyn a reality. The Port Authority, aided by an EPA Diesel Emission Reduction grant, had committed funds for the building of the appropriate infrastructure, the cruise operators, Carnival, had committed to retrofitting their ships to accept shore power, and basically everyone else was "on board". The sticking point was the rate of electricity supply to the ships, and a case in the Public Service Commission requesting the creation of a permanent "shore power tariff" had been stuck in some sort of limbo for over two years. So, even though the PSC case is still not resolved, this 5 year deal allows for the shore power plan to finally ... and thankfully ... move forward.

The announcement today was the result of the work of many, including the previously mentioned NYCEDC, the Port Authority, Carnival, the EPA, the NY Power Authority, the Mayor and City of New York and many of our representatives in government.

But it should be remembered that it was the community that forced this issue into the public realm and onto the politicians' agenda. It was our residents who pushed for this improvement to their quality of life. We were acting in response to our concern about the negative affects of these dangerous yet avoidable substances, contained in the smokestack emissions of the ships, on the health of our residents, our neighbors - particularly to our most vulnerable - children, the elderly, minorities and low-income populations, people with lung disease and asthma.

There was a lot of good will shown in today's announcement, and a lot of people were speaking and writing passionately about the benefits this plan will bring to our neighborhood and beyond, and much congratulation was given to these different agencies for the the great work they have done in making this happen.

But 6 years ago, when the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal opened, I'm sorry to say, there was not a single mention or word of acknowledgement from anyone - politicians, government agencies, Borough Presidents, anyone - about the negative health effects that the newly visiting ships would be bringing to our portside neighborhoods. There was not a single line in the New York Times nor the Brooklyn Papers about the dangers of port pollution - from ships or other sources. Nothing about the tons of SOx, NOx and Particulate Matter that would soon be spewing into our neighborhoods' air and into our residents' lungs. When I wrote my first letter to the Mayor in 2005, asking whether the ships that would soon be calling my young family's neighborhood home would be "cold ironing" - i.e. using shore power instead of idling their dirty diesel engines, as I had read was being done in many ports on the West Coast and elsewhere in the world - the response from the City was, "No" - this pollution mitigating and life saving technology was not being considered for Red Hook.

After a number years of just talking about "cold ironing", talking to my neighbors, writing emails to friends and politicians, going to Community Board and other meetings and talking about this stuff, etc. there was still little discussion about cleaning up the pollution from the ships - at least from anyone who had any power to do something about it. Finally, in 2009, after the expansion of the operations of the Container Terminal and after the concern in our neighborhood about port related pollution was starting to register, the Port Authority came to our neighborhood and said they were committing to establishing shore power infrastructure at the Cruise Terminal. It was good news - but the representative from the Port Authority told me he had only recently, "in the last year or so", heard about "cold ironing". Really? The Port Authority had heard about "shore power" 4 years after I had first read about it, 9 years after the first US cruise ship cold ironing port in Juneau, Alaska, and decades after the Navy had been using the practice? That was worrying.

It was around this time that I started writing this blog in an effort to share some of the information I was discovering about this issue. It was also an attempt to push the case for shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and elsewhere on our waterfront. But this was just one little blog, and to really get the shore power plan to happen there needed to be political will, and pressure from the major press. There was very little forthcoming. The Brooklyn Papers wrote a piece here and there, the the NY Times did a piece, but the coverage was pretty thin. It was frustrating.

However, there were more and more people and organizations in the community becoming aware of this matter - the Red Hook Civic Association, Red Hook Economic Development, Red Hook Initiative, COWNA (including the indefatigueable Diana Schneider - an early advocate for this cause. Thanks Diana!) , Community Board 6, and more - and they were making their concerns known, and that's when things started to happen. Armed with facts and statements made to the Public Service Commission from the EPA (see the sidebar of this blog) and elsewhere regarding the health impacts these emissions were having - cancer, asthma, heart and lung disease and more - the community started to drag some politicians into fighting this fight on our behalf. The newly elected Councilmember Brad Lander was a standout, taking this issue on as one of his highest priorities. The same was the case for Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, and soon State Senators Daniel Squadron and Velmanette Montgomery, Assemblywoman Joan Millman as well as Councilmembers Sara Gonzalez and Steven Levin were on board.

Despite further testimony from the Port Authority supporting the creation of a shore power rate, citing $9 million per year in health care savings to Brooklyn residents resulting from a switch to shore power, the case at the PSC was still stuck in the mud, but these representatives started letting them and the City know that that it wasn't good enough.

Despite the real seriousness of "port pollution" issues, and the situation in Red Hook, coverage in the New York media was still non-existent (negligent, in my opinion), with not a single story written in over a year. However, in November, 2010, the newly launched South Brooklyn Post took up the matter and did an excellent story (here) on the stalled plan to bring shore power to Brooklyn and about this blog's coverage of the issue.

Earlier this year, on a cold morning in January, many of these previously mentioned representatives staged a protest rally at the cruise terminal hoping to force the negotiations forward and to get a resolution to the impasse that was stalling this plan. Again, the South Brooklyn Post covered the story, and thankfully - due to the high profile political presence - a lot of other media outlets covered the rally as well (my post here).

It seemed to help.

The City's Committee on Waterfronts scheduled a hearing on shore power, proposing a resolution supporting the creation of a shore power tariff and urging the PSC to create it, urgently. The hearing was postponed (twice) but the message was clear. A long term plan is needed, and this shore power plan needs to go forward - now.

It was clear for a while that the NYCEDC, who had built the terminal, and the NY Power Authority were working towards a deal to make the shore power plan happen - regardless of the outcome or glacial pace of the PSC case. The pressure from the community, the advocacy of the politicians and, finally, the scrutiny of the press was requiring a solution, even if it was short term.

It seems that Mayor Bloomberg, who had so far kept a low profile on this issue, was also keen to get this done.

Then came the news today.

It was a good day. The Mayor, the representatives, agencies and other parties involved should be congratulated on their efforts in getting this done. Everyone should be feeling good about this.

But, something tells me that if we hadn't "kicked up a fuss", none of this would have happened.

Even though it's 6 years, many tons of unnecessary and harmful pollutants and many blog posts late, ..... this is still good ... no ...

... GREAT news.

"Tug Boat Parking Lot" at the Atlantic Basin?

2011-04-10T16:28:00.018-04:00

Photo: NY Post

Did you hear the news, recently reported in the New York Post (here), that the City was putting out an RFP (Request For Proposal) for an operator to create a "massive parking lot for tugs" inside the Atlantic Basin on Red Hook's waterfront? For those unfamiliar with where and what the Atlantic Basin is, it's the historic "harbor" that lies behind (inland of) the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. This body of water has been designated as the future home for PortSide New York, who's ship, the Mary A. Whalen, will be moored in the basin permanently. PortSide will also occupy part of the Pier 11 shed (currently used by Phoenix Beverages for recycling and garbage), and have the use of 600 feet of Atlantic Basin water frontage. For anyone who attended any of PortSide's excellent programs held last summer, you know what a great addition their permanent presence in the Atlantic basin will be to our neighborhood, and what a great use of this underused "blue space" this promises to be. The Brooklyn Greenway will also run along the basin, connecting more people to this unique yet underused waterfront location, right at the foot of Red Hook's residential streets.

With these proposed future uses in mind, it was of concern to me that the City and the NYCEDC, who play a large hand in the planning of our waterfront, have put out this RFP without acknowledging the fact that bringing tugboats to the Atlantic Basin - up to 15, as the NY Post article states - will also bring more pollution right into the heart of our neighborhood.

My problem with this plan mostly stems from the fact that the City and EDC have had a history of bringing new activities to our waterfront that impact our neighborhood and its residents with harmful pollution, but never seem to seriously concern themselves with meaningfully mitigating the pollution - that is until the residents discover the negative health impacts they are being subjected to and start to voice their concerns. This was certainly the case with the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, where the visiting ships have been continuously idling while in port, spewing their dangerous fumes into our neighborhood's air for the last 6 years, when they could have been plugging in to shore power and eliminating the negative health impacts they have been needlessly imposing on our community, especially our most vulnerable - kids, the elderly, people with lung disease including asthma, minority and low-income communities, etc.

The City's indifference to the negative health impacts that their plans were having on our residents was also apparent when they facilitated the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to our neighborhood where there was some long term plan (taking over 7 years) to reduce the impact of the emissions from the 200 truck trips that Phoenix was bringing to Red Hook, but there was no acknowledgement that this new business would also be bringing more ships, more emissions, more sulfur, particulates, etc., more resultant negative health impacts to our residents, and nothing was being done to address those impacts.

As with the Cruise Terminal, neither the City nor the Port Authority who operate the terminals were required to do an Environmental Impact Study - because of current land use rules, they can basically do what they like.

This is why I have an issue with the tugs. Tugs currently use dirty diesel similar to the stuff that cruise ships and container ships burn. It's high in sulfur and creates particulates and other dangerous substances that are harmful to human health.

Don't just take my word for it.

"Pollution from the diesel-powered tugboats and other port emission sources has caused negative health effects on the surrounding population, including cancer and respiratory illnesses." (article here)

And this from a recent study - (story here)

"Tugs emit nearly a gram of soot per kilogram of fuel burned — twice as much as any other vessel type, the authors found. The high levels point to their low-quality fuel — a thick, black tar left over from crude oil after the gasoline and kerosene have been removed. Engine age and maintenance also play a role.

Tugboats have a disproportionate impact on air quality because they travel within ports, emitting potentially harmful particles near populous urban areas, according to the authors.

“Tugboats are a huge source of black carbon that may be under-reported or not reported at all in emissions inventories compiled by ports,” said Lack."

These are reasons to be concerned about the introduction of these new sources of pollution into the heart of our neighborhood where residents are already bearing the burden of pollution from other sources in the port and elsewhere.

If the City really wants to bring tugs to the Atlantic Basin, why wouldn't they use the opportunity to set an example for "green" practices, by requiring the use of ultra low sulphur fuel by the tugs that would be using this location - a location that is tucked into a dense residential population? Why couldn't the city put out an RFP for a "hybrid tug" operator using the clean green vessels like those that are being put to use in California and elsewhere (story here). Why wouldn't the city use this opportunity to give substance to some of the environmentally friendly rhetoric about "greening the ports" that emanates from the Mayor's office?

It's certainly the case that over the next 5 years or so, tugs and other vessels will have to use cleaner diesel in US coastal waters, including within our ports, due to regulations coming from the IMO (International Maritime Organization). These new rules are being implemented in response to the real negative health effects that ship pollution is having on our population - both on the coast and inland - including cancers, asthma, heart and lung disease, premature mortality and more.

However, when shipping switches to this new, cleaner fuel, it will reduce - not eliminate - these harmful emissions, so in areas where shipping and dense populations operate in close proximity, as in portside communities such as Red Hook, it's important that port and shipping practices are made as clean as possible. That's been the case in California, where the two largest ports in the country - the Ports of LA and Long Beach - abut dense populations, and as a result the operation of those ports involve the cleanest possible practices - cold ironing (the use of shore power), clean electric cranes and port machinery, a robust clean truck program and more. In California, when the agencies and representatives in government, spurred on by activism in the community, started to address the issue of port pollution in the early 2000s, they decided that where dense populations were impacted by the ports' close proximity, the response must be as robust as possible. Nearly a decade later, those ports and their surrounding populations have been reaping the benefits - in their environment and health. These strategies have the added benefit of reducing the ports' (and our country's) reliance on oil and significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This should also be the case in Red Hook, not to mention the entire Ports of New York and New Jersey, which are the 3rd largest in the country.

In New York, as on the West Coast, shipping business is growing. Where there is more shipping, there is more pollution, so it's important that our dense portside populations are not impacted unfairly by this pollution and it's important that, going forward, the best possible practices are pursued at the ports in our city, and with the ships that visit them, so as to offset this increased impact.

That's my point about the tug boats presence in the Atlantic Basin. Why should we accept more unmitigated pollution, courtesy of the tugs - especially when we already have unresolved issues with cruise ships, container ships, trucks and more? Why shouldn't we expect that the City and the EDC sort out their previous mess before bringing more problems to resolve? Why should anything that the City brings to our neighborhood add to our residents' pollution burden?

That's just going backwards.

Yes, the Atlantic Basin should be re-activated. Yes, the activities of PortSide New York are a great example of what can be done in this unique "Blue Space". Yes, there is a place for commercial vessels, and tie ups - ferries, charter boats, etc. - and, hey, whatever happened to the plan for the Governors Island Ferry in the Atlantic Basin?

But to create a "massive tugboat parking lot"? To inject more pollution into our neighborhood's air from what is known to be a significant contributor to port pollution - i.e. tugboats - without having a plan to mitigate it? That is unacceptable.

Just as we're getting something done with cruise ship pollution with the seemingly imminent, but long fought plan to get them to "plug in" to shore power, why should our residents be asked to accept the same sort of dangerous unmitigated pollution from a different source?

It just isn't right.

PortSide New York at the Atlantic Basin

"Shore Power Resolution" Hearing Delayed ... Again.

2011-03-10T18:23:00.005-05:00

Unfortunately, there was miscommunication about the Committee on Waterfronts' Shore Power Resolution hearing that was was scheduled to have happened this last Tuesday (see my previous post). After the postponement of the hearing last month, I, and others who were invited to testify, were given notice that the hearing had been "tentatively" rescheduled for March 8th. However, it wasn't clear that there would be further confirmation of the hearing (I figured that if we didn't hear otherwise that it was happening, not that it wasn't). So I, and a couple of others, turned up at the hearing to find that a hearing on dredging, not shore power, was taking place. It was a bit of a waste of a day, having missed out on work as a result, but I do understand that some of the responsibility to check the confirmation of the hearing lies with me. However, even the organization that had invited me to testify, the Red Hook Initiative, despite being in communication with those organizing the hearing, weren't aware that the hearing wasn't going to happen. They, too, were left out of the loop on this one.

Slightly annoying.

From speaking to a couple of people involved in this matter, it seems like the reason for this second postponement was due to a yet to be announced agreement that would, in the short term, subsidize the rate of electricity being supplied to the ships, thereby reducing the economic "burden" on the ship operators, Carnival, of plugging in and using electricity, rather than idling their engines and burning extra-dirty diesel (creating carcinogenic and otherwise dangerous emissions) while the ships are in port. This agreement was hinted at by a spokesman of Mayor Bloomberg in this recent South Brooklyn Post article, here, where the representative, Andrew Brent, is quoted as saying that the pending deal "would benefit all of the parties involved, and we're all working to finalize one."

This is obviously good news, and the deal, if secured, should ensure that there is a workable, quickly implementable short term solution to the frustrating stalemate that has been delaying the plan to get the cruise ships to plug in to shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook.

I don't see, however, how the news of this interim deal (even if it's in place for a number of years), takes away the urgency of getting a real, long term solution in place. That's exactly what this "Shore Power Resolution" was hoping to spur.

The resolution was urging the Public Service Commission, which has been dragging its feet on this case for two years, to finally create a "shore power tariff" - a special rate of supply of electricity - that would be supplied by Con Ed and would allow the ships to plug in at the Brooklyn terminal. This would be a permanent tariff, so it could be the piece that puts in place the long term solution that everyone has been waiting for.

This "shore power tariff", if created, could also set the precedent for other uses of shore power and the practice of "cold ironing" (ships turning off their idling engines) throughout the ports of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority has said, in addition to its use at the Brooklyn location, that it would also like to bring "shore power" to the cruise ships visiting the Manhattan Cruise Terminals, and has outlined plans to create a new "cold ironing" berth at the Howland Hook Container Terminal in Staten Island. Presumably, these plans are all contingent on the creation of a "shore power tariff".

Adding impetus to this matter, there was also the news, this week, that the Ports of New York and New Jersey increased their business by 16% last year. A spokesman for the International Longshoremen's Association in Newark is quoted in this New York Times article, here, as saying, "We're doing super great". In an economy that's still struggling to find its feet, this is good news, but with the booming business, there comes more ship movements, more idling while in port and - unfortunately - more pollution and more people bearing the burden of the resultant negative health impacts - in cancer, asthma, heart disease and more. That's why it's so important that the Port Authority keeps driving towards 'greening' the operations of their ports. The use of "shore power" for ships should be a big part of any plan to do so, and the creation of this "shore power tariff" would surely create the incentive for the building the infrastructure to allow all types of ships to plug in - container, cruise and others - as has been the case on the West Coast and elsewhere.

The short-term solution, referred to by the Mayor's representative, won't do a lot (as far as I can see) to address this "bigger picture" issue - i.e. pushing the Public Service Commission to create a shore power tariff, so that the cruise ships can plug in at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, while also setting a precedent and encouraging the expansion of this life-saving and green-house gas reducing practice throughout the city's ports.

The "Shore Power Resolution" is pushing for this big picture, long term solution. (Read it at the end of this post).

So, I say, let's not delay this hearing any longer.

The Public Service Commission has already shown that it is capable of moving at a glacial pace.

I don't see why the City's Committee on Waterfronts should be mimicking them.

City "Shore Power Resolution" Hearing - Tuesday, March 8th, 1pm - Open to the Public .... More Shore Power News.

2011-03-06T11:04:00.008-05:00

Disney ship leaving Shore Power berth - photo credit: Port of Los Angeles

The City's Committee on Waterfronts has rescheduled its hearing on the proposed "Shore Power Resolution" for this Tuesday, March 8th at 1pm, 250 Broadway, 16th Floor. The hearing is open to the Public.

See one of my previous posts (here) for the details of the resolution which has been proposed by many of our City's representatives (I've copied it in its entirety at the end of the post). Basically, this resolution urges the Public Service Commission (PSC) to set a "shore power tariff" - a rate of electricity supply - that would then be offered by Con Edison to allow cruise ships to plug into "shore power" while in port at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, instead of idling their extra-dirty diesel engines, as they currently do.

The adoption of the recommendations of this resolution would bring great benefits to the neighborhoods surrounding the port - Red Hook, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill and beyond - both in improvements in air quality and in the resultant health benefits. The EPA states that smokestack emissions from ships are particularly harmful to our most vulnerable - children, the elderly, minority communities and people with lung disease - and the Port Authority has made statements in testimony to the PSC that estimates the yearly savings in health costs to Brooklyn residents resulting from the switch to shore power at the Cruise Terminal "approaches $9 Million".

A LONG TERM SOLUTION

The setting of the shore power tariff seems the be the preferred long term solution to finally getting the cruise ships to plug in at the Brooklyn Terminal. There have been arguments - also made in this blog - that the cruise ship operators are getting off pretty easy in this deal. After all, they're doing very well, paying little tax, and their business is breaking records. Also, in the long term they'll be having to deal with a higher price for cleaner diesel when the Emissions Control Area is implemented around the coasts of the US and Canada.

However, it seems like to get this done, absent some form of legislation that would require the use of shore power (as is the case in some West Coast ports), this special rate of electricity needs to be created to actually get the cruise ships to "plug in".

There is some logic to this path being taken. If a shore power rate is created for Brooklyn, it should set the precedent for the use of this technology anywhere in the Ports of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority has stated that it has plans to create a "cold ironing" berth at the Howland Hook Container Terminal in Staten Island. Surely they'll need a "shore power tariff" in place to make that plan feasible. The EPA stated in testimony to the PSC that "implementation of an appropriate Shore Power Tariff in New York City would provide an impetus for ship owners to invest in ship-side Shore Power equipment and for widespread use of this technology in other ports on the East Coast."

That would be a very good thing.

SHORT TERM SOLUTION - via Mayor Bloomberg?

Hopefully this resolution will get the result it seeks for the long term solution to this problem. However, the PSC moves very slowly, and in the short term, we still need to get the ships to plug in so these dangerous emissions can be taken out of our neighborhoods' air.

On that front, there is this news - under-reported as it is - from the South Brooklyn Post, reporting that Mayor Bloomberg says there is a deal in the works for a short-term solution for the Brooklyn cruise ship pollution problem.

The article, "Bloomberg Writes In", by Lisa M. Collins states -

Andrew Brent, a spokesman for Mayor Mike Bloomberg, contacted South Brooklyn Post to say that a deal is in the works to solve the major air pollution problem on the coast of Red Hook. Brent was responding to a series of articles in South Brooklyn Post revealing the fact that Carnival Cruise Lines, which netted $6 billion in profits over the last three years, is at a stalemate with city and state officials over a $1 to $2 million a year electricity bill that would clean Brooklyn’s air and the air quality over the New York harbor.

“A deal would benefit all of the parties involved, and we’re all working to finalize one,” Brent wrote in an email.

The South Brooklyn Post also reports that Port Authority studies reveal that "ships are the No. 1 cause of air pollution in the New York/New Jersey harbor".

WORLD NEWS ON SHORE POWER

In other shore power news around the world, the publication "BunkerWorld" reports that -

"The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) and European Community Ship-owners Association (ECSA) have come out in support of a proposed European tax exemption for shoreside power electricity."

The sister publication, "PortWorld", reports on a OECD study, entitled "Environmental Impacts of International Shipping: The Role of Ports". The PortWorld article states -

"The study also said using shoreside electricity should be made mandatory because "unless ships are obliged to use it, they have few incentives to do so."

The study focuses on the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Vancouver, Rotterdam, and Busan."

Meanwhile, the Port of Los Angeles has upgraded one of its shore power facilities to accommodate three different cruise lines, with the ability to "plug in" two ships at a time. Story here and here.

CATCHING UP

It's frustrating to see these shore power incentives and initiatives, whether "sticks" or "carrots", being used elsewhere - on the West Coast and around the world - while we on the East Coast, and in Brooklyn in particular, are still waiting.

We've got a lot of catching up to do.

Hopefully, this new City resolution will be the piece that finally gets all involved to the get this shore power deal done so that we can begin - yes, just begin - to take these harmful, yet totally avoidable, pollutants out of our city's air, and our residents' lungs.

City Postpones "Shore Power" Resolution Hearing - Carnival Breaks Records - Residents Left Waiting ...... and Continuing To Pay With Their Health

2011-02-19T16:03:00.016-05:00

Photo by Joshua Kristal (edited), South Brooklyn Post

As I noted in the updates to my previous post, the City's Committee on Waterfronts has postponed its hearing on the resolution (here) urging the Public Service Commission to establish a new rate of electricity that would allow the use of shore power for the ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. The new date for the hearing is tentatively set for 1pm., March 8th, at the same location - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor. Open to the public.

While we're waiting - yet again - for further action to be taken on this long awaited plan, I think it's helpful to reflect on a couple of pieces of news that are pertinent to this issue.

I'm pleased to see that the "South Brooklyn Post" is continuing to do a great job of covering the story of the stalled process that is holding up the implementation of the shore power plan in Red Hook. After covering the story of cruise ship pollution when the rest of the city's media was AWOL, and after covering the protest that was held in January that urged the breaking of the impasse that was holding this plan up, this week they did a follow up to their initial story, which was published in November, that went into further detail about the conflict. The most recent article, "Big Money Ignores Brooklyn Air" by Lisa M. Collins, basically asks this question: If Carnival are doing so well right now - making huge profits ($11.3 Billion over the last 5 years, $2 Billion in 2010) while paying very little in tax (1.1%, in fact) - why is it such an imposition to ask them to pay a little more, a tiny percentage of their Queen Mary 2 sized profits, to pay for the ongoing costs of using clean, green-house gas reducing electricity while in port, instead of idling their engines and using the dirtiest form of diesel on the planet, the burning of which spews carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances into our city's air, and into our kids' lungs?

This article clearly puts at least some of the onus for the resolution of the shore power stalemate on the shoulders of the cruise operators, Carnival.

And it's only fair.

You know, for the most part, in my writing on this blog, I've tried not to demonize the cruise ships, their operators and billionaire owners. In full disclosure, I've worked on cruise ships in the past as a musician, I've taken a cruise with my family, I've enjoyed the cruising experience on the whole and haven't had any particular animosity towards them. When the cruise terminal opened at the end of my young family's residential street, I, like most of my neighbors, wasn't against it. We all thought it could bring a little more vitality to our waterfront and our neighborhood. However, after that "vitality" never materialized, greatly due to the expedient and shoddy planning of the terminal and its site (without shore power), and since finding out more about the harmful emissions from the visiting ships and generally about the cruise industry and their practices - particularly their patchy environmental record - I've obviously become more ambivalent about it.

Still, the reality is that recently many of the cruise ship operators have been trying to clean up their environmental act - at least a little. (See Friends of the Earth's 2010 "Cruise Report Card" here). For example, some have been reducing or eliminating practices like the disposal of rubbish and waste (including sewerage) at sea. To their credit, Carnival and others are converting some of their ships to accept shore power, as is the case with a number of the Carnival ships that are based on the West Coast, so that they can eliminate the practice of idling in port. Unfortunately, none of the cruise lines, as far as I can see, are volunteering to switch to the use of cleaner low-sulfur fuel while out at sea, but the ships that cruise in the continental waters of the US and Canada will ultimately be required to burn cleaner fuel in those waters, due to the future implementation of the North American Emissions Control Area.

I get it. They're a business. They're just trying to make money, and according to the City of New York, the cruise industry is bringing money to the city and benefiting us all.

But, really, in an environment where the cruise operators are doing so well, and where there is clearly the ability on their part to pay a fair portion of the cost of using shore power, why are Carnival being so recalcitrant?

How well are Carnival doing? Well, apart from the facts about their profits (and miniscule taxes) that are noted above and in this NY Times article (here), there is this recent article in USA Today (here) that notes this staggering, record-breaking information -

Carnival Cruise Lines said it set a one-week reservations record, booking 165,308 customers between Feb. 7-13, eclipsing its previous one-week reservations record set nearly four years ago.

The line said bookings were at "unprecedented levels" across its fleet.

It's good times for Carnival. But, while many of the parties involved in this deal to "plug in" the cruise ships at Brooklyn seem to be making some concessions to "get it done", Carnival hardly seems to be coming to the party.

The New York City Economic Development Corporation, the City agency that built the new cruise terminal and brought the polluting ships to our neighborhood, has been trying to strike a deal with the New York Power Authority to subsidize the rate of electricity supplied to the ships to make the practice more economically viable. The Port Authority has allocated $12 Million for the building of the shore power infrastructure. The EPA, through its Diesel Emissions Reduction (DERA) program, has granted nearly $3 Million for the same. (Side note: Worryingly, for proponents of cleaner ports and those wanting to reduce the health burden of port pollution on our most vulnerable, DERA was given no mention in the recently released US budget proposal). Our legislators are pushing for an end to the "idling ships and idling negotiations", as they said at the recent protest, and with the NY City Council Shore Power resolution, they are urging the Public Service Commission to establish a new "shore power tariff" to allow the cruise ships, in the long term, to "plug in" without economic disincentive.

A lot is being offered.

So far, Carnival's only commitment has been to retrofit their ships to accept shore power, at a cost of $1 - 2 Million per ship. That sounds like a decent offer on the surface, but aren't Carnival getting off pretty easily? They've already done many of these conversions on their other ships, and isn't it likely that they'd have to do this with them all anyway because many ports, including some on the West Coast, are making it mandatory to for cruise ships to plug in while in port. Also, as I've mentioned before, there is the coming regulation that would force ships of all types to use cleaner, more expensive diesel in US waters, so the cost differential for using shore power will eventually be far less - a further incentive for its broad use. Additionally, as our cities and nation as a whole tries to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and with the EPA playing a role in regulating these emissions, (despite push-back in the Republican House), the use of shore power will, no doubt, be an obvious and effective method being encouraged to reduce these significant emissions from all types of ships while in port, while reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

My point is, given these factors, and with all of this news about Carnival and the cruise industry as a whole doing so well, why shouldn't we expect them to do their bit to get this shore power deal done - soon?

It's troubling enough to know that Carnival, like many cruise lines, is using every loophole they can to minimize their taxes and reduce their operating costs - like being registered in Panama, or not having to comply with US labor laws - while benefiting greatly from the tax payer-funded services and infrastructure of the cities they visit, like New York. It's hard enough to hear Carnival cry "poor" and unable to pay for shore power when they're operating luxury cruise ships like the Queen Mary 2 and doing business at a record breaking, "unprecedented" pace - in a recession!

While they're getting away with all of that, isn't it at least fair to ask them to give back a little to the communities that they call their neighbors?

What's at stake here isn't just Carnival's bottom line. It's the health of the residents of the communities in which they operate. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, when I criticized the callousness of the way Con Edison and the Public Service Commission were weighing up the "cost" and "fairness" of establishing a shore power rate, this isn't just about money.

You can certainly count the costs of the extra pollution that the ships are bringing in monetary terms. The Port Authority did this in their recent testimony to the Public Service Commission, stating that the avoidable cruise ship pollution was costing Brooklyn residents an estimated $9 Million per year in monetized health costs.

But it's not just about the money.

It's about the boy on our block, a friend of my 7 year old son, who is suffering from increasingly regular bouts of asthma, often ending in a visit to the emergency room.

It's about the three kids in the Red Hook Houses that died from asthma attacks just last year.

It's about the two women on our block, and more in our community, who have recently developed cancers.

It's about the 40% childhood asthma rate, and cancer clusters that occur in our neighborhoods.

Can Carnival - and the others who are dragging their feet - tell these people that the ship emissions are playing no role in these negative health outcomes? Can Carnival tell our residents that they are doing their business and earning their massive profits at no cost to their neighbors - our community, our residents, particularly our most vulnerable?

At a time when there's a lot of talk about shared sacrifice, I think it's clear that our community has done its fair share. We've been bearing the burden of the many hundreds of tons of new pollution that has been emanating from the ships since they started calling Red Hook home in 2006, all in the name of "economic development".

Now it's time for those, like Carnival, who are benefiting from this economic development and are doing very well, to do their bit to make sure our residents don't have to carry this cost any more - in their health or otherwise.

It's Carnival's turn - even if it means taking a small hit to their ever-growing profits.

Council of the City of New York To Hold Hearing on Shore Power Resolution, while Con Edison asks, "Who Should Pay?" (NEW UPDATE - HEARING POSTPONED!)

2011-02-10T19:19:00.017-05:00

UPDATE (2/14/11): HEARING POSTPONED - TENTATIVELY RESCHEDULED FOR MARCH 8TH.

UPDATE: An article in the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance's excellent on-line publication, "Waterwire", titled, "CITY COUNCIL ADDS TO CLAMOR CALLING FOR ELECTRICAL SHORE POWER IN BROOKLYN" (story here), notes that the City Council's Committee on Waterfronts hearing on the shore power resolution is open to the public.

Details: Thursday, February 17, 1pm, 250 Broadway, 16th Floor.
............
In my last post, I wrote about the squabbling that continues to stall the plan to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

This squabbling centers around the debate about who should pay for the added cost of powering the ships by using shore generated electricity compared to the cost of burning the cheapest and dirtiest form of diesel (bunker fuel) to idle their engines while in port, as the cruise ships (and every other cruise and container ship visiting the Ports of NY and NJ) currently do.

There are those that think that Carnival, the operators of the cruise ships, who are making huge profits (while paying very little tax), should just "cough up" and pay the added cost of using electricity. It's been asserted that this is only fair because there is coming regulation that will eventually create an Emissions Control Area (ECA) around the continental waters of the US and Canada that would stipulate that ships had to use a cleaner form of diesel in those waters, and therefore while idling in port. This fuel will be more expensive, and so the difference between paying current rates of electricity, as supplied by Con Ed in Brooklyn's case, and using the cleaner, more expensive fuel would be negligible, according to many - including a commenter on my last post. So the argument is, the ships should pay for the clean, green-house gas and harmful emissions reducing electricity now, because they'll just have to use the more expensive fuel in the future.

The alternate argument is that Con Ed should supply a cheaper rate of electricity so as not to create an economic deterrent to the ships' operators for the use of shore power. This is a strategy that cities on the West Coast have taken to incentivize the use of shore power with all types of ships in many of their ports, including ones that Carnival cruise ships use now.

Con Edison has not been willing, so far, to go along with this idea. This is why there has been this drawn out process at the Public Service Commission regarding a case that has been requesting the creation of a special "tariff", or rate of supply of electricity, which would specifically address the requirements of the cruise ships. The argument has been that the ships would be creating new business for Con Ed, business that they would not otherwise have, and that the unique needs of the ships - i.e., plugging in for short periods (12 or so hours at a time), and their ability to generate their own power if there was any interruption of shore power supply, etc. - warrants the creation of a special reduced rate tariff.

There have been many supporting this idea.

In their original testimony to the Public Service Commission, the EPA made important statements about the harmful health impacts of ship emissions (see them on the side bar of this blog), and made these further points supporting the establishment of a "shore power tariff" -

e. Implementation of a shore power tariff is consistent with economic development in New York City.
f. Implementation of an appropriate Shore Power Tariff in New York City would provide an impetus for ship owners to invest in ship-side Shore Power equipment and for widespread use of this technology in other ports on the East Coast.
g. None of the Company's tariff's accurately account for the unique service characteristics of ships that dock in New York City.

There have been others making similar points - from the Port Authority to many of our elected officials - some who have made their argument in written testimony to the Public Service Commission in support of the establishment of the new tariff.

However, the Public Service Commission - over a year after hearing these arguments - has yet to act, and in a statement made by their staff, quoted in a recent NY Times "Questions About New York" column by Michael Pollock (here), the PSC claims that "the way Con Edison’s delivery rates are currently structured posed “neither a barrier to, nor an unwarranted incentive for” the kind of electrical facilities shore-based power would need."

Not exactly encouraging.

In that column, in a section that deals with a question about the stalled shore power plan, there is also a quote from Con Edison that explains their recalcitrance on this matter, stating that they are reluctant to create a new shore power tariff because they are concerned that setting a "special rate" for one group, i.e. the operators of the ships, may unfairly burden another, i.e. homeowners.

“How do you come up with a fair rate that doesn’t burden other customers?” Chanoch Lubling, Con Edison’s vice president of regulatory services, said in an interview. Shore-based power through feeder connections “happens to be a great idea,” he said. “I think the big debate here is who should pay for their cost.”

Unfortunately, the representative from Con Edison doesn't seem to recognize the fact that there is already a cost being paid. It's a cost being borne by the residents of port-side communities such as Red Hook, Carroll Gardens and others. A real health cost.

Nowhere in their equation of "fairness" does Con Ed acknowledge the real health effects that our communities are suffering - in asthma, cancer, heart disease and premature mortality. This burden is being carried by our most vulnerable - children, the elderly, low income and minority communities, people with lung disease - and the Port Authority has stated in testimony to the PSC that the switch to shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal would save Brooklyn residents yearly health costs "approaching $9 Million".

If the concerned parties could work out their differences and finalize this shore power deal, the burden of these health impacts could finally be lifted from our communities.

The concern about those real health impacts is pushing some of our representatives in the Council of the City of New York to present a resolution that, as Resolution 463 states, "urges the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods."

The entire resolution is at the bottom of this post. It cites many of the facts I have been articulating in this blog and makes a compelling case for the immediate creation of a "shore power tariff".

The Committee on Waterfronts will be holding their hearing on the resolution on February 17, 2011 at 1:00PM at Council chambers, 16th Floor, 250 Broadway, New York, NY. This hearing is open to the public.

Hopefully the resolution will spur some action and push forward a process that will lead to a long-term solution. But while we're waiting for the PSC to rule on this - and given their track record, it might take a while - something needs to be done to get the shore power plan up and running, a.s.a.p.

The bottom line is, at least in the short term, someone might need to pay - whether it's Carnival who seem to be doing pretty well right now, or perhaps the NYC Economic Development Corporation (who could subsidize Carnival or Con Ed in the short term), or, hey, Con Ed could just create a cheaper rate for the ships and know that they're getting a whole lot of new business, and maybe more to come with what should be the expansion of shore power throughout the Ports of New York.

What is clear is that it's unfair to ask our most vulnerable to pay this cost any longer. Kids with asthma, the elderly, minority communities and people with lung disease shouldn't have to bear this burden any longer.

Action is needed - right now.

Here's the resolution -

Res. No. 463

Resolution urging the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods.

By Council Members Nelson, Chin, Fidler, Gentile, James, Koppell, Lander, Palma, Rose, Sanders Jr., Williams, Rodriguez, Seabrook, Levin, Gonzalez and Halloran

Whereas, Bunker fuel, a heavy petroleum product that is left behind after the distilling process, is one of the dirtiest fuels and is used to power most cargo ships because it is much cheaper than other fuel sources; and
Whereas, Bunker fuel releases gases such as carbon, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide when it is burned and therefore, 43% of particulate matter in ports are due to marine vessels; and
Whereas, According to a study published in the journal of the American Chemical Society, pollution from cargo ships in 2002 was linked to the premature deaths of 60,000 people worldwide; and
Whereas, When cruise ships dock, their engines idle at the terminal in order to keep the electrical systems on the ship running; and
Whereas, Environmentalists believe that a ship docked for one day emits as much exhaust as 10,000 cars; and
Whereas, To avoid idling, ships have begun to employ a process called shore power, or cold-ironing, in which a ship plugs into an electrical power supply at the port, allowing the ship to turn off its engine; and
Whereas, Shore power permits a large extension cable from the pier to be plugged into the ship, giving it power to operate its machinery without running the engine; and
Whereas, According to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, implementing cold-ironing at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal would reduce annual nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions by 100 tons each, particulate matter by 6 tons, and carbon dioxide emissions by almost 1,500 tons; and
Whereas, The Port Authority also estimates that reducing emissions by switching to shore power would create $9 million per year in health benefits; and
Whereas, Shore power is already in use at ports such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego; and
Whereas, In order to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, the Port Authority has committed to invest $15 million in capital for infrastructure improvements and the Environmental Protection Agency awarded the Port Authority $2.85 million to support improvements as well; and
Whereas, Carnival Cruise Lines has also committed to investing $1 million to $2 million per ship to enable the vessels to connect to electric power; and
Whereas, A major obstacle, however, that is standing in the way of implementing shore power at the cruise terminal is the price of electric power, which can cost millions of dollars more than leaving the ship idle; and
Whereas, Con Edison's electric rates for shore power are too costly and must be lowered in order to be competitive with the cheaper bunker fuel that is used while idling; and
Whereas, New York City and the Port Authority have both lobbied the New York State Public Service Commission to institute a shore power tariff that is economically viable for cruise ships; and
Whereas, An appropriate shore power tariff in New York City would discontinue the use of high polluting diesel engines, improve the air quality of Brooklyn and New York City in general, and provide the potential for the establishment of shore power throughout the ports of New York; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York urges the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Despite Carnival paying only 1.1% Tax, the Quibbling Continues about Who Pays For the Cost of Shore Power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

2011-02-05T13:53:00.014-05:00

There was a New York Times article this week, "The Paradox of Corporate Taxes", by David Leonhardt, that detailed how little many corporations pay in taxes in this country due to the exploitation of loopholes in the tax code - this being despite the US having an official corporate tax rate higher than many other countries.

The example that Mr. Leonhardt cites as an example of this practice of tax minimization - an "extreme case", as he puts it - is Carnival Corporation, the operators of Carnival Cruises, the company that operates the cruise ships that use the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

The NY Times article states -

"Over the last five years, the company has paid total corporate taxes — federal, state, local and foreign — equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits (That's profits folks - not earnings - Ed). Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes."

It's also noted that Carnival operates with the benefits of many tax payer funded services - Customs officers and services; infrastructure, including roads, bridges and terminals; US Coast Guard services, etc. - and that Carnival "wouldn't have much of a business" without these publicly funded services. Anyone who has ever wondered who was paying for the NY City Police who park their cars to stop traffic going through to Summit Street from Hamilton Ave at Van Brunt Street and control traffic at the Bowne Street intersection while the ships are in - well, if Carnival aren't paying their fair share of taxes, I guess we have our answer.

We are.

Now, many corporations are benefiting from these corporate tax loopholes, but the reason that the revelations about Carnival's tax avoidance seem so egregious, is that they come at at time that there is a squabble about who should be paying for the ongoing costs of supplying "shore power" to the visiting ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. This is in relation to the already funded plan to build infrastructure and implement the practice of "cold ironing" at the terminal, allowing the visiting ships to stop idling their dirty-diesel burning engines while in port, as they currently do.

In my previous post, I wrote of the rally that was held in January, convened by many local politicians and attended by representatives from the community, demanding that the drawn out process that was taking place to resolve the differences between the various parties involved - The City of New York, The NYC Economic Development Corporation, Con Edison, The New York State Public Service Commission, Carnival Cruise Lines and others - finally come to a close by getting an agreement to finally get this deal done.

The message from that rally was that this process was taking too long. Despite all parties being in agreement about the merits of the "shore power" plan, and various entities, including the Port Authority, the NYCEDC, Carnival Cruise Lines the EPA and others, committing real funds to build the infrastructure and support the plan, many were still quibbling about who was going to pay for the ongoing operating costs, or whether the Public Service Commission should set a new rate of electricity supply from Con Edison to make this plan more economically viable, or whether Carnival should just pay the additional cost of electricity vs. diesel - yadda, yadda, yadda.

The quibbling continues.

The City of New York will be holding a hearing on Monday, Feb. 17th, during which there will be a resolution presented, as the text in Res. No. 463 states, "urging the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods."

Full Google Docs text of the resolution here. (It outlines many of the facts and figures I have been trying to disseminate in this blog).

The Public Service Commission moves very slowly and this may be a long process - this case has already been at the PSC for over a year - but, if this resolution has any influence, maybe there's hope that something will get resolved concerning the long term operation of the terminal.

But, we also need to make sure something gets done in the short term - like right now.

We've already waited 5 years .... it's 5 years since the "state of the art" terminal was built .... it's already hundreds of avoidable tons of carcinogenic SOx and smog causing NOx later ... it's already tens of tons of avoidable asthma inducing Particulate Matter later .... it's already $27 Million in avoidable health costs later .....

We need someone to step up to take these burdens off our communities. But, at least in the short term, who will pay?

Will it be the NYCEDC who built the terminal without this already proven "shore power" infrastructure that was being used up and down the West Coast a decade before? Will it be the Port Authority who own the terminal, but who, according to one of their spokesmen, weren't aware of the pollution mitigating practice of "cold ironing" till 2007 (despite the U.S. Navy using it for decades)? Will it be the City of New York that benefits economically from the visitors that the cruise ships bring ($145 Million last year), but, despite the proclaimed "green" credentials of the Mayor himself, seems slow to acknowledge and address the health burdens the operation of their ports - cruise, container, etc. - puts on the residents of the city? Will it be Carnival, a company that in the 5 years since this terminal was built has seen profits of $11.3 Billion, while paying little tax, but can't seem to "cough" with the added cost of using electricity while in port, instead of burning extra dirty diesel?

No one seems to be putting up their hand.

Meanwhile, the residents of Brooklyn are still breathing in these carcinogenic and otherwise harmful substances. The residents of Brooklyn, especially our most vulnerable, are paying with their health, and as the statement of the Port Authority to the Public Service Commission states, "we estimate that the annual health benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal), adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million".

That's a $9 Million Per Year health cost to Brooklyn residents - to our kids - to our elderly - to our minority communities - you know, in cancer, asthma, heart disease, premature mortality - right now.

I wonder how much of that is covered by the 1.1% tax rate that Carnival currently pays?

.

Rally For "Shore Power" at Red Hook Cruise Terminal Generates Much Needed Publicity

2011-01-04T13:34:00.016-05:00

Yesterday, representatives from government and the community braved the cold to hold a rally and press conference to try to push forward the stalled plan to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. This is a plan that will allow the cruise ships to turn off their extra-dirty diesel engines while in port instead of idling, as they currently do, spreading dangerous substances through the air of the neighborhoods of Red Hook, Carroll Gardens, the Columbia Waterfront, Cobble Hill and beyond.

In attendance were Councilmember Brad Lander, state Sen. Daniel Squadron, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, State Sen. Velmanette Montgomery and Councilmember Stephen Levin. Also in attendance were representatives of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (who's district includes the Red Hook waterfront and a few of its residents) and CM Lander conveyed the support of Councilmember Sarah Gonzalez, who represents Red Hook in the City Council, who was absent.

We should be thankful that those who are representing us in government are providing the political muscle to try to break the deadlock that is stopping this deal, more than two years in the making, from being finalized. It's been missing in the past, but, in recent years, Congresswoman Velazquez, CM Lander and Senator Squadron have really taken the lead on this. I'm happy to say the others are now truly "on board", and at the rally showed themselves to be outspoken advocates for our communities on this matter.

Rather than explain the details of what the "hold up" is with making this deal happen and finalizing this plan (I've discussed that at length in my previous posts), please take a look at the list of articles at the bottom of this post that this event generated in local news and blogs.

After spending many years asking questions (writing my first letter to the City in 2005 about whether "shore power" was going to be used at the $56 million Brooklyn Cruise Terminal being built at the end of my young family's residential street), trying to educate myself about, and raise awareness of the issue of ship pollution - not only with cruise ships, but with container and cargo ships too - and after starting this blog in early 2009 in response to the frustration I was feeling about the lack of action on this matter, the lack of political advocacy, the absence of coverage in the media, and in an effort to try to spread the information that I had gathered concerning the problems and solutions regarding the impacts of port pollution, I am so pleased to see this matter being given the coverage it deserves in the press.

It's something that should be being getting broad coverage and a matter that should be addressed seriously by the Ports of New York and New Jersey. In reality, the plan for "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal should be the first step in implementing this pollution mitigating practice throughout our city's ports - cleaning the air and bringing the resultant health benefits to all of our city's residents.

Hopefully, this recent coverage will help to push this initial, important process forward - urgently. The bottom line is (and many people said this) - this is taking too long. All parties involved agree this should happen. The EPA has made statements that this plan will eliminate tons of harmful substances from our neighborhoods' air and the lungs of those who are most vulnerable to their impact - "children, the elderly, people with lung disease" and asthma. The Port Authority has stated that this plan will save Brooklyn residents a monetized amount "that approaches $9 Million" in yearly health costs - that's in cancer, heart and lung disease, premature mortality and asthma - every year.

I don't really care about the quibbling, who wants to pay, who doesn't. At the moment it's our residents who are paying, many who are the most vulnerable in our community. As others have also said, this is a matter of "environmental justice".

All I can say is let's get this done. For our kids. For our neighborhood. For our city.

It will be worth it.

NEW YORK POST - "B'klyn moves to clean up pollution from Cruise Ship Terminal at Pier 12", by Rich Calder

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS - "Cruise ships docked at Red Hook terminal are 'choking Brooklyn,' community leaders say", by Erin Durkin

GOTHAMIST - "Red Hook Sick of Cruise Ships' Idling Engines", by John Del Signore

NY 1 NEWS - "Advocates Make Push for "Shore Power" in Brooklyn"

CBS New York / 1010 WINS - "Residents: Idling Cruise Ships Choking Brooklyn", by Al Jones

BROOKLYN PAPERS - "Pols: City needs to ‘cruise’ on green solution to pier pollution", by Gary Buiso

CARROLL GARDENS PATCH - "A Big Push For Shore Power In South Brooklyn", by Georgia Kral

BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE - "Officials Call for Cleaner Power at Cruise Terminal"

NEW YORK OBSERVER - "Meanwhile, Red Hook Choking on its Tourists", by Matt Chaban

SOUTH BROOKLYN POST - "Rally Demands End to Cruise Pollution", by Lisa M. Collins

PARDON ME FOR ASKING - "Local Politicians Start The New Year By Calling For Agreement On Shore Power For Brooklyn Cruise Terminal", by Katia Kelly

Rally For Shore Power - Monday, Jan 3rd, Noon. Cnr. Pioneer and Van Brunt Street, Red Hook, Brooklyn.

2010-12-30T15:03:00.009-05:00

Photo, above, by Joshua Kristal, from South Brooklyn Post article - here.

There has been much frustration in the community about the inability of the City of New York, the state's Public Service Commission, New York Power Authority and other 'powers that be' to finalize the much anticipated deal to bring "shore power" the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, thereby allowing the visiting cruise ships to stop idling their extra-dirty diesel engines while in port, and consequently eliminating the harmful yet avoidable pollutants from our neighborhood's air and residents' lungs.

This frustration has finally forced our representatives to start asking questions about why this deal - years in the making, with all parties in agreement about its benefits - is so hard to close, and why this proposal, which has been referred to as "low hanging fruit" and a "no-brainer" by advocates in the community, government, industry and environmental groups, is all taking so long.

Two of our local representatives, Council-member Brad Lander and State Senator Daniel Squadron have been outspoken on this subject, and in an attempt to push this process forward have organized a rally and press conference to raise awareness of this issue .... and maybe even generate some much needed press coverage of this issue (hello, Brooklyn Papers?).

Gas masks will be issued at the event - this Monday, Jan. 3rd, Noon, at the corner of Pioneer and Van Brunt Streets.

See the flier/ press release from CM Lander, below (click to enlarge).

If we can get this shore power deal done, the Port Authority has stated in testimony to the Public Service Commission that the estimated savings in "monetized health costs" to Brooklyn residents will be $9 Million, per year. My post with links to this statement, here.

That means that currently the cruise ships are costing Brooklyn residents, especially our most vulnerable, $9 Million in health costs, per year - that's in cancer, asthma, heart and lung disease, and more.

In reality, this plan should be the first, small step in taking these harmful ship-created emissions, including greenhouse gasses, out of our entire city's air. Shore power and the idle-free practice of "cold ironing" should be being pursued throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey with all types of ships - cruise, container, etc., (as has been implemented over the last 10 years in L.A. and Long Beach and other West Coast ports), with resultant health benefits to all of our residents, but especially to vulnerable port-side communities.

Please attend this rally to show that you want to see this deal closed and this important first step taken.

Click above to enlarge.

The Queen Mary 2 will be in port, so don't forget to get your gas masks!

Oh, and another thing .... Greenhouse Gases and Black Carbon (UPDATED: w/ Link to NY Times Article)

2010-12-06T09:25:00.011-05:00

Observed black carbon - from NASA

This blog has mainly concentrated on the substances in the smoke-stack emissions from ships that are harmful to the public health, directly. These emissions, which include Sulfur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides and Particulate Matter, are created by the burning of extra-dirty diesel (called bunker fuel) and they have been designated by the EPA as likely carcinogens, harmful to children, the elderly, people with lung disease and the most vulnerable in our communities - particularly low-income and minority communities near ports.

These health effects are of great concern to those of us who have become aware of their impact, and the growing acknowledgment of their impacts have been an compelling reason to establish "clean port" practices in cities around the world, where ships currently idle while in port, emitting these dangerous emissions for the duration of their stay. This has been the driving reason for the yet to be realized initiative to establish "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, for example, where the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states that the "plugging in" of the cruise ships that visit that terminal, which all currently idle while in port, would save the residents of Brooklyn an estimated $9 Million in annual monetized health costs (you know ... cancer, asthma, heart disease, premature mortality, etc.).

There is, however, another good reason to pursue cleaner shipping and "clean port" practices in our ports, and throughout the world.

The ships' contribution to climate change.

It is estimated that by 2050, if unabated, ships will contribute 18% of all man-made CO2. The Friends of the Earth also states that NOx emissions that ships produce could have an equally significant effect on climate change as the CO2.

Another little-known contributor to climate change in which shipping emissions play a large role, is the matter of "black carbon", more commonly known as soot. In 2007, in a petition to the EPA regarding the effects of shipping emissions on climate change (see it here), the organization Earthjustice, supported by Friends of the Earth and others, make the argument that "black carbon" has the potential to be the second greatest contributor to climate change, second only to CO2.

This is because "black carbon" particles are both suspended in the air, as well as falling on ice and snow. In both cases, because of its non-reflective qualities, the particles conduct heat and therefore contribute to warming, as well as, in the case of snow and ice, contributing to melting. It's also thought that with melting Arctic ice and shipping lanes becoming open in those previously unnavigable waterways, the ships will deliver the "black carbon" more directly to the ice and snow, thereby accelerating the damage.

Given these reasons, momentum has been building, world-wide, to acknowledge the contribution of shipping emissions to green house gasses and to assess and address their contribution to climate change.

With that in mind, organizations around the world have been trying to draw attention to the impact of shipping on climate change, as well as trying to share information about ways to mitigate the impact of these emissions.

In that spirit, Sir Richard Branson and partners in the shipping and energy industry have launched a site called "Shipping Efficiency" in an effort to "increase information flows around international shipping's energy efficiency and ultimately help reduce the environmental impacts of the world's shipping fleet."

The site goes on to state -

"Shippingefficiency.org enables anyone with access to the internet to tell an efficient, low-emission ship from an less efficient one, for the first time. Using a simple search function, users can pull up an A to G rating for around 60,000 existing ships, including the majority of the world's container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, cruise ships and ferries."

This means that, for instance, if I'm interested in the Grande Nigeria that is berthed at the Red Hook Container Terminal for a couple of days (idling continuously, I might add), I can go to the Shipping Efficiency web site and look up the "rating" of that ship.

As it turns out, that ship gets a "D".

I can also see the other information about that ship's engine size, fuel efficiency, etc., and if I had the skill (which I don't), I could analyze that information and work out how much fuel that ship consumes and how much pollution it creates - not only at sea, but while it's idling at the bottom of our neighborhood's residential streets.

Now, the information on this site is intended to be a tool to allow choice of shipping and to increase the overall efficiency of the world's shipping fleet. But its existence provides acknowledgment of, and insight into, the real impact that shipping has on the health of the planet, as well as the health of it's inhabitants - particularly the residents of port communities.

The point is that there are many ways that shipping can be cleaned up - both at sea and in port. Lower Sulfur fuels can be part of the equation, as their use can help drastically reduce the creation of some of these harmful emissions - including "black carbon" that not only contributes to climate change, but also is a dangerous contributor to cancers and lung disease, including asthma. There are technologies and practices out there that can be used to reduce these emissions and their impacts.

The goal should obviously be to take measures to reduce all of these impacts - on both health and climate. In the case of the ships visiting New York and New Jersey, there are efforts being made to reduce the impact that the ships emissions are having on health. There is program that is supposed to encourage the use of low-Sulfur fuels in the City's waters, as well as a much bigger long-term plan to reduce the sulfur in the fuel of all ships using the continental waters of the U.S. and Canada through an ECA (Emissions Control Area). There are plans to reduce the speed of ships and to encourage "slow steaming" in open waters. These plans are worthy, and, if implemented well, will significantly reduce harmful emissions from ships in our city's air, with flow-on health improvements to our residents.

However, in the short term - and, more importantly in the long term - don't we want to reduce all of these emissions as much as possible?

By plugging a cruise ship into "shore power", by practicing "cold ironing", (even taking into account the effect of the extra power produced by power stations, which is zero if you use hydro-electric generation as is a large proportion of NYPA provided power), you not only virtually eliminate the emissions that are harmful to human health that have been so much a focus of this blog - SOx, NOx and PM - but you also reduce the emission of Greenhouse gasses much more than any use of alternate fuel or low-sulfur diesel would.

Look at that site, Shipping Efficiency. Take a look at how much diesel these ships burn - even when they're in port. When they're idling in port it's equivalent to tens of thousands of cars, or thousands of trucks - idling right on the edge of our residential neighborhoods.

Do we want to burn more of that carbon-based fuel than is necessary? Do we want to import more petroleum products from overseas? Do we want to keep relying on fossil fuels or move to a cleaner energy economy?

So, when it comes to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, or the Brooklyn Container Terminal, or any of the ports of New York and New Jersey, it's time to get a move on in implementing these clean port and shipping practices - especially "cold ironing" - because it's not only about ridding the air and our kids' lungs of these dangerous emissions, it's about ridding the air of the Greenhouse gasses and "black carbon" that threaten our planet's climate.

UPDATE: Dec. 6th. Coincidentally, yesterday, the New York Times did a story on shipping emissions titled, Shipping Faces Calls to Lower Its Carbon Footprint, By JAMES KANTER. The first line of the story reads,

"In an era when industries are competing to shrink their carbon footprints, shipping has charted a slower course."

Please read on .....

.

"South Brooklyn Post" Sheds Further Light on the Fight To Plug Idling Ships into Shore Power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

2010-11-18T22:41:00.021-05:00

Today I was thankful to read the 'front page' story in the new on-line newspaper, the "South Brooklyn Post", on the battle in Red Hook, Brooklyn to get the visiting cruise ships to plug into "shore power", thereby turning off their idling, extra-dirty diesel burning engines in a practice called "cold ironing", at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal.

The story, "State Stalls on Brooklyn Air Pollution" by Lisa M. Collins (click here), was the first I've seen in the press on the subject in over a year.

Anyone who has been following this blog has read about the attempt to raise awareness of the facts of ship pollution and its remedies since learning about the issue in 2005, when the City's Economic Development Corporation was planning and building the cruise terminal at the end of my family's residential street. I attempted to do this first by writing letters to the City of New York, the mayor and other politicians, bringing it up at community meetings, then by starting this blog in early 2009 in an effort to push the issue further into the spotlight.

Over the last couple of years, there has been some decent progress in establishing this practice at the Red Hook terminal, with the Port Authority, EDC and cruise ship operators, Carnival, all offering commitments - financially and otherwise - to get it done. (my post here) But, as Ms. Collins notes in the article,

"the city and the New York State Power Authority are battling over the cost to subsidize Carnival Cruise ships for making the switch from idling with bunker fuel to plugging in and paying for electrical power.

Until the rates and who will pay them are determined, the project to build the electrical plug-in station is stalled."

Ms. Collins goes on to state that,

"The issue is a political hot potato—nobody wants to talk on the record about the rate dispute."

The reporting continues, referring to Michael Saltzman, spokesman for the New York Power Authority, who was unwilling to comment on the rate dispute other than saying,

“We do not have an agreement with the city,”

Also quoted is Craig Hammerman, District Manager of Community Board 6, who affirms,

“The funding is set aside, the only thing holding everything back is for the Power Authority to establish a rate. We would have expected that they would realize how important this is to the community.

“The stars are lined up to help solve this problem. We just have to get to the Power Authority to move this thing forward”

And that's where the press should be playing more of a role.

The last part of the article mentions this blog and its attempts to raise awareness of the ship smokestack pollution issue. This being a problem not only for the Brooklyn-based cruise ships, but with all types of ocean-going ships, every one which currently idles while visiting the ports of New York and New Jersey - whether container, cruise, etc. - producing total smokestack pollution that is equivalent to that created by 7.8 Million cars.

However, as far as getting this first step done in eliminating these dangerous yet avoidable emissions from our air - i.e. the establishing of "shore power / cold ironing" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - that cause could have used a lot more help in the way of coverage by the press - local or otherwise.

When the case to set a new shore power rate at the Public Services Commission (PSC) was stalled in early 2009 - yes it's been going that long - there was a little press coverage of the story in the Brooklyn Paper (here), and in a story and a blog post at the NY Times (here and here). But since then, there has been almost nothing - no significant attempt in the press to raise the awareness of the issue itself nor of the important facts that were coming to light in the PSC case, no pressure put on the entities that were dragging their heels, and, as a result, no help in moving this process forward.

When the EPA, in testimony given to the PSC at that early 2009 hearing in support of the establishment of this power rate, made such statements as this, regarding the unmitigated ship smokestack pollution -

"Such air emissions are harmful to the pubic generally, and especially to our children, the elderly, people with lung disease, those who exercise outside, and low-income and minority communities located near ports." (and the other statements permanently listed on the side-bar of this blog)

... where was the coverage in the press?

When our local politicians, such as Joan Millman and Brad Lander made similar statements later, noting that these avoidable pollutants ...

"damage lung tissue, increase respiratory illness, suppress immune systems, aggravate breathing problems and asthma" and additionally that they "contribute to premature death for people with respiratory and cardiac disease"

... where was the story in the New York Times?

When the Port Authority, in testimony to the PSC in January this year, included this statement from their Executive Director, Chris Ward (full statement here) -

"we estimate that the annual health benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal), adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million"

..... in other words, that currently the annual monetized health cost of the cruise ships visiting Brooklyn to our community is estimated to be $9 million - that's roughly $150,000 per ship visit ....

.... where was the coverage in the Brooklyn Paper?

Couldn't coverage of these facts in the press have leveraged a more urgent response from the PSC, or pressured the New York Power Authority to set a rate that could work for everyone - including the residents that are still breathing in these harmful emissions?

On this last matter, regarding this staggering $9 Million figure cited by the Port Authority, after reading that testimony I did try to spread the word to local papers and in my blog (my post here) but was ultimately disappointed by the absence of coverage. I spoke to a reporter at the Brooklyn Paper who told me that he'd write an article about the subject, including these facts, but none materialized.

I happened to bump into that reporter recently, and he told me that he had written the story, but it hadn't been published.

I decided to write an email to Gersh Kuntzman, the editor of the Brooklyn Paper, to ask why this had happened, especially since he had recently interviewed a newly elected Representative and quizzed him about his lack of environmental advocacy, asking him whether lack of regulation could lead to a situation as seen in "other countries", where "kids are dying of pollution". His response to my question about the reason for not publishing the story about the $9 Million in annual "monetized health costs" to Brooklyn residents from the cruise ship pollution was not particularly reassuring.

He advised me to contact some guy at a PR firm ... not really sure why. Then he concluded with this statement -

"He handles all outside questions about our coverage. I am not authorized, unfortunately, to discuss such matters."

Oh well.

At least we have the "South Brooklyn Post".

Maybe their excellent story will help to shine a light on this agonizingly protracted process, the compelling arguments that are being made about the benefits of establishing shore power, and finally push the entities involved toward a resolution.

Then, finally, we'll have taken the first small step in ridding our city's air of these harmful, yet avoidable emissions.

.

Activity at the Atlantic Basin - Visit the Expedition Vessel "Wanderbird" - 4pm and 7pm Saturday, Nov. 20th - FREE!

2010-11-17T16:50:00.006-05:00

This Saturday, November 20th, in an event staged by the NYC Economic Development Corporation, there will be the opportunity to visit the expedition ship "Wanderbird" while also vicariously experiencing the Arctic seafaring adventures of the hosts, Captains Rick and Karen, who will be sharing their tales through Q and A, photos and music.

The "Wanderbird" will be moored in the Atlantic Basin /Pier 11 at the bottom of Pioneer Street in Red Hook, Brooklyn - the stunning and historic location where PortSide New York held its successful series of events over the Summer (and its future permanent home). On Saturday there will be two opportunities to board the visiting vessel - one at 4pm and later at 7pm. The EDC has passed on the information that at 4PM there will be a show for the "younger set" that will be held inside the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. Then, everyone can visit the boat.

And this good new from the EDC -

"All free including refreshments!"

So hope to see you there for this free, family friendly event. It's another opportunity to experience the waterfront that is literally at our doorstep. Another chance to see and imagine what more is possible on our waterfront. And, as an added bonus, it may be an opportunity to experience the Cruise Ship Terminal, that has been, up to now, mostly only accessible to cruisers .... (and 4,500 conference-attending rabbis).

Click on map for details (location is Red placemark)

View Atlantic Basin Event in a larger map

Final Community Design Workshop to "Fix The Ditch" - Tonight. Monday Nov. 15th, 6:30pm

2010-11-15T16:15:00.003-05:00

Click the flier below to enlarge for details.

DEADLINE: 5pm, Friday November 12th. Last Chance for Public Input on NYC's Vision 2020 - Comprehensive Waterfront Plan - Comment On-Line

2010-11-11T09:20:00.007-05:00

5pm tomorrow, Friday November 12th, is the deadline for the public comment period of the New York City Vision 2020, Comprehensive Waterfront Plan. Comment on-line HERE.

After public workshops in all the boroughs and other city-wide meetings including those regarding the future planning for waterborne transportation in the city, something the Department of Planning is calling the "Blue Network", the public input period is drawing to a close.

Comments can be made on-line HERE till the deadline, 5pm, Friday, November 11.

The draft recommendations have been out since early October (my post HERE), so have a look at them if you haven't already, have a think about what you might want included in plans for our waterfront. More transportation? Better waterfront access? More connection to the upland residential and commercial communities? Creation of a connection to Governors Island? Better and more equitable use of publicly owned property - e.g. Cruise Terminal site, Atlantic Basin? More programs like the successful ones PortSide New York mounted over the summer? Cleaner and greener port practices like "cold ironing"?

Below is a summary of the draft recommendations for our stretch of the waterfront - click HERE to see a more comprehensive Google doc version (Red Hook is in the section on Reach 14 South).

Make sure you voice your opinion - this plan is set to shape the use of our waterfront for decades to come.

PortSide / Jalopy event on the Mary Whalen, Atlantic Basin, Summer 2010
.

While Brooklyn and NY Wait, other Ports in the U.S. and Around The World "Plug In" Idling Ships, Ridding the Air of Harmful Emissions

2010-11-07T16:28:00.018-05:00

Picture from Triple Pundit

Did you hear that there's a plan to begin to remove from the air in our city carcinogenic diesel smokestack emissions produced by ships - both container and cruise - that are currently idling while visiting our ports? Did you hear that the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook is going to take the first step of this plan, with the visiting cruise ships "plugging in" to the City's power grid while in port, thus allowing them to, in a practice called "cold ironing", turn off their idling diesel engines - engines that produce the equivalent emissions of 12,000 cars per day / per ship visit? Did you hear that the Port Authority has committed, financially and otherwise, to building the "shore power" infrastructure required to make this practice possible and has received an EPA Diesel Reduction grant to assist? Did you hear that Chris Ward, Executive Director of the Port Authority, said that plugging the ships in would save the residents of Brooklyn an estimated $9 Million per year in "monetized health costs" - you know, in cancer, premature death, asthma, heart disease, etc? Did you hear that the cruise ship operators, Carnival, have committed to retrofitting their ships to accept "shore power"?

Did you also hear that the power supplier - Con Edison or the NY Power Authority (which one of these entities supplies power to the Port Authority is still unclear to me) - doesn't want to supply a power rate that would make this practice viable, and that the Public Service Commission, which can set rates from utilities, after undergoing a baffling and ponderous process, hasn't yet made a ruling that would require this rate to be established?

But, don't worry, did you hear that the NYC Economic Development Corporation, which brought the $56 million cruise terminal (and the unmitigated pollution from the ships) to the Brooklyn waterfront in 2006, has offered to subsidize the power rate so that the cruise ships can "plug in", without economic disincentive?

Well, if your answer is yes to all of these questions, you've been paying close attention (perhaps to this blog). Most of this is pretty old news, actually, though I'll forgive you if you've missed anything. There's been little written about it in local press - in Brooklyn or in the city's major newspapers - which, I think, is part of the reason this is all taking so long.

From January 2009 the Port Authority and NYCEDC has committed to the implementation of "cold ironing" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. Along the way there have been various "hoops" through which to jump, but it seemed that everyone (who was required) was 'on board' with these plans. Politicians from Brad Lander, Joan Millman and others have presented testimony at Public Service Commission hearings endorsing and encouraging this plan. Chris Ward at the Port Authority, as I mentioned, produced those startling figures stating the importance of this plan in cleaning the air and reducing the health burden on our residents in testimony to the Public Service Commission. The EPA also produced statements outlining the importance of this plan - these statements are permanently listed on the right hand side-bar of this blog.

But still - the ships are idling - Brooklyn is waiting.

Still waiting ... despite the known facts about the harmful effects of these dangerous, but avoidable emissions. Despite the reality that establishing shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal would only be the first step towards instigating city-wide "cold ironing" throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey, taking the equivalent of 7.8 million cars off the streets - to truly make NYC - Idle Free.

But while Brooklyn and the rest of New York City dawdle, others are moving ahead.

San Francisco has recently opened a "cold ironing" berth for visiting Carnival cruise ships (see? Carnival want to do the right thing - it's good publicity). San Fran's port has the added advantage of having its power supplied by Hydro-Electric power, making it zero emissions. (Note: the linked story states that this is the 4th cold ironing port in the world. That's not actually true. It's the 4th Carnival Cruise cold ironing port in the world.)

Tacoma, WA, has recently established a cold ironing berth for container ships (story here). This will take 1.9 million tons of asthma causing diesel particulates out of the air, as well as reducing Sulfur by 90%. In the Ports of Long Beach and L.A., where cold ironing has been practiced for a number of years, the "plugging in" of a large container ship is estimated to take the equivalent of 30,000 cars off the road.

Shore power is also being used in other parts of the country and world - like Juneau, Alaska (the US's first cold ironing port), Seattle, San Diego, Vancouver, ports in Sweden, Belgium, Finland, and Germany and others. (see here).

California has been on the vanguard when it comes to the broad implementation of these measures in the U.S., as you can see by the number of Californian ports on that list. The defeat in the last election of Proposition 23, the Big-Oil backed attempt to undo the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in that state (see my post), is a win for all those hoping to clean the air in California and the rest of the country. It was thought that the adoption of Prop. 23 would have had flow-on effects to things such as the implementation of cold ironing in California and around the country, so its defeat was good news for all clean port advocates.

With such barriers out of the way (fingers crossed and Republican controlled House willing), and more and more awareness of the benefits of such practices, I'm sure there's going to be more action on the cold ironing front in the U.S., with proposals in busy cruise locations such as Florida already underway.

There's also been international action on the reduction of port emissions (Carbon Positive story here), with a group of European ports offering "discounted fees to vessels that outperform a new environmental ship index (ESI) measuring SOx and NOx emissions performance, and quality of CO2 reporting."

From the story -

"Under the voluntary World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI), the Dutch ports of Amsterdam, Moerdijk, Dordrecht and Rotterdam will apply a new Environmental Ship Index (ESI) to arriving vessels from January 1 next year. Antwerp, Hamburg and Bremen are expected to participate soon after. The WPCI involves 55 ports of the International Association of Ports and Harbours which are looking at reducing their greenhouse gas emissions."

Again, this will be an incentive to instigate clean port practices, including cold ironing, all over Europe.

So if the rest of the country and the rest of the world are moving ahead on all of these measures, what's up in New York? Isn't that what we're all about? If they can do it there, why can't we do it here? .... it's up to you, (boom) New (boom) York, (boom) Neeeewww Yo .... OK, I'll stop.

But seriously, this is taking too long.

At the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (and remember, this is only the cruise ships in Brooklyn - not including container and other ships), each year we wait is an extra 100 tons of carcinogenic SOx in the air. Each year is an extra 100 tons of smog causing NOx. Each year is an extra 6 tons of asthma causing particulates - spewing out over a neighborhood that already has 40% childhood asthma rates. Each cruise ship visit is costing Brooklyn residents, by the Port Authority's estimate, $150,000 in "monetized health costs".

And I haven't even talked about greenhouse gases.

Why are we waiting?

I dunno. You'll have to ask them.

Pic from PortSide - Mary Whalen in the Atlantic Basin, Queen Mary 2 behind - idling.

The Hope and Anchor Hosting Halloween Fundraiser for "Falconworks"

2010-10-29T18:36:00.005-04:00

Our friendly neighborhood diner, the Hope & Anchor, is throwing a Halloween costume Party to benefit Red Hook based Falconworks. "Falconworks Artists Group" is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is, in their own words, "to empower communities and individuals through the arts. Falconworks is everyday people making theater about the issues, big or small, that affect our families, friends and neighbors."

This event is a night-time, adult, Halloween night party, (but they'll allow kids till 9pm) so get all of your Trick or Treating done and get along afterwards. This will also work for those who are coming along to the "Red Hook Howler" neighborhood block party (bouncy castle, music - including AudraRox @ 1pm - pumpkin carving, food and drinks from local vendors), on Van Dyke Street, between Van Brunt and Conover Streets, between noon and 7pm.

So, the details -

when: Sunday, October 31. 8pm until...
where: Hope & Anchor (347 Van Brunt Street)
what: Halloween Costume party; music all night, juke box karaoke, best costume prizes, raffle prizes
how much: $20 (going directly to Falconworks)

Happy Halloween!!

.

Red Hook's Archaic Zoning Regulations Kill Plans for CIty's First Zero Emissions Building

2010-10-25T17:02:00.015-04:00

Photo from Redhook Green website

The sad news came this week that "Redhook Green", Jay Amato's proposed live/work building project in Red Hook - the first "zero emissions building" to have been constructed in New York City - has been 'killed' by a ruling in the Department of Buildings.

Jay writes on his blog post, titled "Buyer Beware" (here), that when he was looking at plots of land on which to put his building he was having a hard time finding an appropriate block - one that was zoned either R - residential, or MX - mixed use, that was on a corner which would be most appropriate for a solar powered building. He did, however, find a perfectly located block with an M-manufacturing zoning.

Jay writes,

"I was advised that given my particular use, I could make an “M” zoned plot work. What that means is that given the majority of my structure was to be dedicated to commercial use, the living quarters would be an ‘accessory’ to the true function of the building. Therefore we would request the building department grant us permission to live in what would is called a “caretakers apartment”, which would be incidental to it’s primary use. Jim Garrison ( Jay's architect) assured me on the advice of a former NYC Building Commissioner and “a careful and correct reading of the zoning law”, that this was very common and would “sail through the building department” without incidence."

Well, unfortunately it seems that wasn't to be. After proceeding appropriately and "dotting his I's and crossing his T's" this is how things turned out for Redhook Green. Jay writes,

"That brings us to where I am today (basically screwed)! After a telephone hearing last week, the all knowing, politically charged and narrowly minded men and women of the NYC building department capriciously determined “that the proposed living or sleeping accommodations for caretakers in this case is not incidental to the principal use”. To quote James P. Colgate; Assistant Commissioner of Technical Affairs and Code Development “ The request to have a living or sleeping accommodation for caretakers as per ZR 12-10 as an accessory use to this new office building is DENIED.”

Just to give you an idea of how inappropriate partial residential use would have been on this site, let me show you a screen shot of the Google maps Street view of the location -

That's the lot on the left - NEXT TO THE TWO HOUSES!

... and Jay's structure would have had a street front and whole first floor that looked more industrial than residential - take a look at more of his renderings (here).

This is a problem not only for Jay Amato and Redhook Green, but for Red Hook as a whole. How can this archaic zoning and the Dept. of Building's strict adherence to it serve our community's need for more housing and residential regeneration. Our own 197a Plan has laid out the need for supporting residential uses in Red Hook, as have Community Board 6 recommendations - such as the ones that were laid out when the plans for Pier 7-12 were being discussed. Despite the fact that these recommendations have been often ignored by City planners, the NYC Economic Development Corporation and others (as was the case with the uses of Piers 7-12), it's not an excuse for these anti-residential attitudes to continue.

The recently released draft recommendations for the City's "Vision 2020 - NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" (my post here) - omit any significant mention of the potential for the regeneration of residential use in the City's waterfront neighborhoods. The Wall Street Journal has an article titled "A Sea Change in Waterfront Plans", in which the writer, Eliot Brown, states, in regard to the City's draft recommendations,

"there is a notable omission: new housing and commercial redevelopment. While it was a top goal of prior strategy documents, it's barely mentioned in the new strategy. The emphasis instead lands on areas such as expanding the maritime industry, ferry service and public access."

Maybe the Dept of Planning didn't see residential planning as being 'within their scope' this time, and I get that the city doesn't want a rerun of the high rise development on the Williamsburg waterfront taking place in Red Hook, or Sunset Park, for instance - the residents of those neighborhoods hardly want that either - but I hope the Department of Planning isn't relegating our mixed use waterfront neighborhoods, like Red Hook, to a more industrial and more polluted future, with disregard for the quality of life and health of our residents.

Isn't it all about balance? Residential use. Industrial use. Commercial use. Upland connections. Waterfront access. Public transportation. All working together to everyone's benefit.

That's why this decision seems so wrong-headed. Red Hook has a history of these battles, where reasonable residential development is thwarted by pro-industrial advocates who - falsely, in my opinion - complain that residential uses can't co-exist with industrial uses (despite the evidence to the contrary in my old home town of Sydney and elsewhere in the world). This was seen in the fight for the rezoning of the 160 Imlay Street building, where the battle was so drawn out that, despite the ultimate court ruling allowing for at least partial residential use of that magnificent building, it has been left empty, shrouded in black netting and generating no activity, no economic prosperity for the neighborhood and it's small businesses, nor revenues for the City. It's a waste and an awful shame.

I remember another example of wrong-headed zoning decisions when, in 2006, the Community Board voted against recommending a variance for 146 Conover Street, a vacant lot which was zoned, like Jay Amato's block, M-Manufacturing. The owners had wanted to build a residential building on the site, but because of the CB6's denial of the zoning variance, they couldn't.

Here is the lot in question -

... right in-between the TWO HOUSES. How inappropriate!

So, Jay, you're not alone in being on the wrong side of one of these wrong-headed decisions.

Unfortunately, these decisions don't bode well for the regeneration of Red Hook's residential population and innovative solutions such as Redhook Green's. Without residential regeneration how can Red Hook's burgeoning small businesses hope for more activity, how can our residents hope for better transportation or services, or a greater say in what goes on in and around our neighborhood - more advocacy for cleaner air and better quality of life? If Jay Amato can't get this one done, what is the hope for anything else?

Redhook Green has laid out their possible options going forward (from Jay's post)-

Build a green office building - It’s too small and off the beaten path to make a sound business case for such a structure in the next few years.
Apply for a zoning variance - 60 to 100K in professional services expenses, one year and no guaranty that it will be successful.
Walk
None of these seem particularly appealing. Any thoughts, ideas, recommendations, contacts or kind words of encouragement would be appreciated. I will think about this a bit and keep you posted on my progress.

Contact details HERE

If Mr. Amato can't find a way to get around this decision, it will be a great loss, not only to him, but to Red Hook, Brooklyn, the City as a whole, and the advocates of healthy cities around the world - ones in which, in Jay's words, we can all "live and work responsibly".

.

"Vision 2020, NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" Draft Recommendations - Have Your Say - Attend the Final Public Meeting or Comment On-line

2010-10-07T13:53:00.027-04:00

VISION 2020 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS - LAST CHANCE FOR PUBLIC INPUT - PUBLIC MEETING, OCT 12th, or COMMENT ON-LINE BEFORE 5pm NOVEMBER 12th

Following a series of public workshops, the NYC Department of Planning has released a number of draft recommendations for its "Vision 2020 - NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" - a plan that hopes to shape the use of our city's waterfront for the next decade and beyond.

You can go to their web site (here) and download the various recommendations in full (PDF) or in sections, each pertaining to the individual 5 boroughs. The section relating to Brooklyn, specifically, and our neighborhood is also available (here), as a Google doc. The recommendations for "Reach 14 South", the section of waterfront that includes Red Hook, Cobble Hill, the Gowanus Canal area and Sunset Park can be found starting on page 5 of the Brooklyn section. You can also find, (here), an additional section, containing broader "Programmatic Recommendations", that outlines the "recommendations for citywide policy and programmatic changes".

These are "draft" recommendations, so the Department of Planning is still looking for public input. If you would like to have your say, you can still do so on line - HERE - till 5 p.m., November 12th. Additionally, you can attend the final public meeting that is being held on Tuesday, October 12th. The details of the meeting from the Dept. of Planning are here, but please find below the main details from their web site -

The Department will be holding a public meeting on October 12th. At this meeting the Department of City Planning will give a presentation, which will be followed by an opportunity for public comment. Many thanks to all those who have participated so far, and we hope you will continue to be a part of the process!

Public Meeting on Draft Recommendations
Tuesday, October 12th, 6 p.m.
Rosenthal Pavilion, NYU Kimmel Center for University Life
60 Washington Square South, 10th Floor, New York, NY
(corner of La Guardia and West 4th)

Subway:
A,B,C,D,E,F,V at West 4th St.
R,W at 8th St-NYU
6 at Astor Pl.

As the Dept. of Planning is stating, "participation is a critical component of the Vision 2020 process", so make sure you make your ideas known.

What do you think of these draft recommendations for Red Hook and surrounds? (click to enlarge) -

There's some good stuff here, but is there something else you think should be addressed? For instance, I don't see anything specific about increased access to waterborne public transportation here - ferries, water taxi. etc - at the Atlantic Basin or elsewhere. There is nothing that acknowledges Red Hook's connection to Governor's Island via its close proximity to it, or anything that works towards strengthening that connection via transportation or other means, something that would benefit our residents and small businesses. It would be a shame if Governors Island - with its new parks and other development - essentially turned its back on Red Hook, its closest neighbor.

Something that is included in these recommendations - something that wasn't included in the initial goals set by the Dept. of Planning for "Vision 2020" - is the "support for green port initiatives, including cold-ironing" at Piers 7-12, which would include the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. When the initial Vision 2020 Plan was announced, there was actually no mention of the impacts of port pollution on the residents of our city. I made note of this point in my post (here), written after attending the Brooklyn Workshop in May this year. I wrote -

"In all of the points listed in the various handouts, including the “Preliminary List of Goals and Issues” distributed at the workshop – a list that contained 7 goals, and 27 specific issues under the headings: Natural Waterfront; Working Waterfront; Public Waterfront, Mixed Use, Residential and Commercial Waterfront; and Blue Network (which includes transportation and freight movement, alternative energy, etc) - not once was mentioned the idea that the activities of the ports are actually polluting, and that the Vision 2020 Plan should acknowledge that fact and seek out a strategy to mitigate this pollution and its detrimental health effects."

It's good to see that these issues are now being taken somewhat seriously by the Dept. of Planning and not only in Brooklyn. As part of the broader section I mentioned before, (here), titled "Programmatic Recommendations" that outlines the "recommendations for citywide policy and programmatic changes", there is a 'goal' titled, "Support Economic Activity on the Working Waterfront". Under this goal is a section encouraging the use of "green technology and practices to make waterfront industrial areas and ports throughout the city more environmentally sensitive and to reduce negative impacts on neighboring residential areas". Outlined are a number of potentially port 'greening' initiatives, including encouraging the use of shore-based power and cold ironing. If this is a city-wide recommendation, then this is a thankful acknowledgment of the impact of port pollution on the residents of our city and the urgent need to mitigate it - especially when the Environmental Defense Fund estimates that pollution created by ships visiting the Ports of New York and New Jersey is equivalent to the pollution produced by 7.8 million new cars, and when the Port Authority itself acknowledges that the monetized health cost of the pollution from cruise ships visiting Red Hook, Brooklyn (alone - not including the container ships) is estimated to be $9 million a year.

Hopefully these recommendations will spur serious and urgent action on these issues - something that has been lacking so far, even with the "lowest hanging fruit" - the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - where, despite serious commitments both financially and otherwise from the cruise operators, the Port Authority and others, the promise to initiate cold-ironing at that terminal has languished in some sort of limbo, lost in a void between the impenetrable deliberations of the Public Service Commission and a mindset at Con-Edison that refuses to provide an electricity power rate to make this practice economically viable - thereby saving lives, and taking carcinogenic gasses and asthma causing particulates out of the air and the lungs of our children in the process.

So, while you wait (don't hold your breath!) for the cold-ironing situation at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal to be sorted out - something that Rich Kassel from the National Resources Defense Council described as being a "no brainer" at the New York City Council's Committee on Waterfronts' "Oversight - Clearing the Air: Greening New York City's Working Waterfront" hearing in June - have a look over these other draft recommendations.

Have a think about what you might want included in plans for our waterfront. More transportation? Better waterfront access? More connection to the upland residential and commercial communities? Creation of a connection to Governors Island? Better and more equitable use of publicly owned property - e.g. Cruise Terminal site, Atlantic Basin? More programs like the successful ones PortSide New York mounted over the summer?

Let your thoughts be known - at the meeting, details HERE, on Tuesday October 12th - or on-line HERE before 5pm November 12th.

(Photo: The Atlantic Basin and tall ship, Clipper City - an event made possible by PortSide New York)

Red Hook's Sidewalk Sale Returns + more stuff to buy/sell at the PS15 School Yard Flea Market

2010-10-01T18:59:00.007-04:00

This SUNDAY, OCTOBER 3, Red Hook neighbors are turning out for a COMMUNITY DAY of Van Brunt Sidewalk Sales / PS 15 Flea Market & Community Activities.

Community Activities at PS 15's school yard (Van Brunt between Sullivan and Wolcott)

Local organizations will provide the following activities:

11:00am - DRAWING TOGETHER: Families and people of all ages can participate in a community drawing project guided by Kentler's K.I.D.S. Art Education teaching artist, Meghan Keane.

12:00pm - Come learn from the Urban Divers Estuary Conservancy: A Center for Environmental Education, Community Stewardship, Culture and Maritime

1-2pm - Creative Movement Sample Classes. Children ages 3-12 can leap, gallop, spin and laugh together in 10-minute sample creative movement classes offered throughout the hour by Shannon Hummel, Artistic Director of Red Hook's own Cora School for Dance.

2pm+ - Get to know Falconworks Artists Group and Dance Theatre Etcetera

FAQs:

Are there vending fees? There is NO FEE to sell goods either along local sidewalks or in the PS 15 school yard - RHED has just received funding to cover the school yard permit cost!
So, no fees!

Can I set up along Van Brunt? You can set up in front of your own residence or business. If you don't own or rent property, get permission from those who do before staking out a place.

Can I set up in the PS 15 school yard? Everyone is welcome. You'll be joined by various neighbors and community groups, including Falconworks - who will have a mega sale/fundraiser (with a wild variety of goods donated by supporters); several families with children attending the school (sounds like a good place for buying/selling kid's things); AND fun activities provided by several of RH's stellar organizations.

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

2010-09-09T15:02:00.008-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That measure could be suspended under Prop 23.

The article continues -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

10 Days Left of "PortSide New York" Activities @ the Atlantic Basin on the Red Hook Waterfront.

2010-08-12T19:22:00.013-04:00

Smitty, Tall Ships, Pirate Burlesque, Knots, Roots and Ruckus, Talks and Tanker Time ... all at the historic Atlantic Basin on the Red Hook Waterfront in Brooklyn ... and if you'd like more of it, come along and, while you're at it, let the NYC Dept. of Planning know that you'd like more of this on our waterfront. Please read on ....

PortSide New York has been bringing some fantastic programs to the Atlantic Basin over the last six weeks. Since the beginning of July they've brought tall ship sails, ferry tours of the harbor, educational tours on the historic tug "Cornell", youth programs, tours of their flagship vessel, the Mary Whalen, "City of Water Day" celebrations, music, food, the Urban Divers EnviroMedia Mobile, movies, talks, story telling, Brooklyn Greenway walks, and more.

PortSide has only 10 days left until their temporary permit at this location expires, and the way to ensure that PortSide snags a permanent home at the historic Atlantic Basin at the foot of Pioneer Street (as has been assured by the New York City Economic Development Corporation), allowing us all to benefit from the waterfront access that our neighborhood and its residents so crave, is to make sure that this last week or so of activities is as successful as the previous month's activities have been.

This information is from PortSide's Carolina Salguero -

You have less than 2 weeks to make it to PortSide programs in Atlantic Basin. We leave on 8/24.

Please come. The sea breezes are cool; so are the programs.

You will be supporting locals who are performing in many of these last programs.

And... a big turnout will help get you future programs on Pier 11.

We are in lease negotiations, and the Powers That Be need to see that the community wants access to this waterfront, that you want H2O Arts, TankerTime, visiting tall ship, and a permanent PortSide here.

Please see our summary of activities below, please come, and please forward this email.

Full info at www.portsidenewyork.org/PortSideNewYorkSummer2010programs.htm

HERE ARE THE DETAILS OF THE COMING WEEKS' ACTIVITIES - from PortSide

Fri 8/13 - 8:30pm Pioneer St resident Smitty plays wicked steel guitar w/drums + keyboard... on the whining side of Mississippi delta blues.. traces of bluegrass, country, Tejano and Hawaiian... truly hot and really cool. Just $10. cash bar with beer and wine. Buy tickets here or at the door.

Sun 8/15 - 11am local resident Seth Goodwin with captivating show n tell about knots, rope and the history of their uses. FREE reserve here

Sun 8/15 - 5-9pm TankerTime - make the ship deck your own. Bring dinner, drinks, the kids, your dog and enjoy sunset. FREE

Tue 8/17 - 8:30- 8:45pm Pratt Inst Chief Engineer Conrad Milster on the romance, commerce and technology of steamships of the Hudson, a slide show & talk. FREE, reserve here

Wed 8/18 8:30pm - Jalopy Theatre brings their weekly Roots & Ruckus show to the deck of the Mary Whalen with Two Man Gentlemen Band AND Stephanie Nilles and Dayna Kurtz and Feral Foster. $10 includes great music, ziit, lasagna, salads. Cash bar with beer and wine. Buy tickets here or at the door

Thurs 8/19 - Mon 8/23
We make history by hosting the tall ship Gazela, the oldest wooden square-rigger in the USA still sailing, which has tried to come to NYC for years. Daytime tours at the dock: Thurs, Fri, Sun, Mon (no Sat) $5 donation requested. In the evening, 2 shows of pirate cabaret burlesque aboard (t'aint just about sailing pirates, the pirates of Wall Street make the story line) on the deck of the Gazela with soaring masts overhead. $25 for 8 or 10pm show. Tickets here.

You can make history and be named the sponsor of the Gazela visit by bidding on the eBay auction to be named the sponsor. See http://bit.ly/cCFJhl. No corporate sponsors have been found for Gazela's visit, so please help PortSide cover the costs of rental generator and dock fees for the Gazela by bidding now!

Sat 8/22 11am Walking tour, Norwegian American history of Red Hook. FREE reserve here

Event info and fotos at www.portsidenewyork.org/PortSideNewYorkSummer2010programs.htm

And, below, there's some more info from the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance about the visit of the "Gazela", the on-line auction PortSide is holding for sponsors, and the activities that this event will bring to Red Hook - including tours and "pirate burlesqe".

..... and while you're at it, if you want more of this sort of stuff on Brooklyn's Red Hook waterfront, make sure you submit your comments regarding what you would like to see on our waterfront to the NYC Dept. of Planning's "Vision 2020 : NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" web site. The comment period is almost over, closing on August 15th, so make sure your voice is heard in this process that hopes to shape the use of our waterfront for decades to come.

Online comment form can be found HERE.

This from the MWA -

Philadelphia's flagship offers education by day, pirate cabaret by night
For the first time in a decade Philadelphia's flagship, the barkentine Gazela, will be visiting New York City.

Presented by PortSide New York at Pier 11 in Atlantic Basin, Red Hook, from August 19 through 23, Gazela is the oldest, wooden squarerigger in the USA still sailing. She was built in Portugal in 1883 as a fishing vessel.

During the day, Gazela offers ship tours. Visitors will learn about the vessel's history fishing for cod in the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. Evenings will bring pirate burlesque aboard the barkentine.

Why has it been so long since the white sails of the Gazela have been seen in New York Harbor? In part, the answer lies in lack of docking infrastructure. Eric Lorgus, president of the Gazela, said, "Tall ships have found it increasingly hard to visit this place. and I've been trying to crack NYC for years. We really appreciate the efforts PortSide has made on our behalf."

To cover the costs of the ship's visit, PortSide New York has taken the unusual step of instituting an online auction for sponsors. Click here for the auction.

"PortSide was founded to bring the BlueSpace, or the water part of the waterfront, to life in New York City," said Carolina Salguero, director of PortSide NewYork. "We are excited that the Gazela is coming, because tall ships are education and inspiration afloat. We hope her visit opens the door to more visits by more boats-of all types -- at this pier and other piers. We are encouraged by recent government initiatives focusing on the water itself and grateful that the EDC [New York City Economic Development Corp] has made Pier 11 available to us for Gazela's visit."

See you there!

.

PortSide New York Activities this Weekend - "City of Water Day"

2010-07-23T23:04:00.011-04:00

Hi all,

At the moment my family and I are visiting relatives down in the other "city of water", Sydney, Australia, but I wanted to make sure you knew of the fantastic activities taking place in the wonderful waterfront neighborhood we call home - Red Hook, Brooklyn - over this weekend and over the next week, courtesy of PortSide New York.

Here's the info from PortSide -

This weekend is PACKED with activities in Atlantic Basin. Saturday, Pier 11 will be bustling with activity for City of Water Day. Sunday morning, Mary Habstritt gives a walking tour of Red Hook Industrial History. Sunday evening, the Mary A Whalen opens up her deck for TankerTime.
Saturday: Come to "City of Water Day in Atlantic Basin!"

For the first time, City of Water Day has expanded off Governor's Island, and PortSide is proud to have created a City of Water Day site with unprecedented activities. Come to Atlantic Basin in Red Hook, Brooklyn this Saturday, July 24th from 10am to 4pm for a wide array of water-themed activities for all ages. (entrance at Pioneer & Conover Streets)

We are very excited to have the impressive Steamship Lilac alongside for her first tours ever in Brooklyn. Plus, tours of our own Mary A. Whalen will be given throughout the day. There will be food from Kevin's Restaurant and Kustard King ice cream truck, kiddie pools, a Port-Side nautical-themed photo booth, make-your-own fish t-shirts, water-themed books from BookCourt, and the boisterous musical entertainment of the Red Hook Ramblers. Underwater NY's SoundTank will be on the scene recording your thoughts about the waterfront and stirring up some interactive fun for kids.

Ever wonder how shipping containers get scanned? You'll also get a close look at a US customs marine security display with a VACIS container scanner, sniffer dog and videos. American Stevedoring is lending a reach stacker container mover.

Join PortSide NewYork for a City of Water Day you'll never forget!

Volunteers still needed! Email research.portsidenewyork@gmail.com

Sunday 11am: Walking Tour - Red Hook Industrial History

Join industrial historian Mary Habstritt for a walk along the Red Hook waterfront and discover the many 19th and 20th century remnants of the area's maritime and industrial history, from the New York Dock Co. to Lehigh Valley Railroad Barge #79 to Todd Shipyards.

The tour will take about two hours so wear comfortable shoes, dress for the weather, and bring a water bottle. We will end near Fairway Market, which has a café with waterfront seating where you can buy lunch or a cold drink. Mary is Past President of the Society for Industrial Archeology, Museum Director of the Lilac Preservation Project, and a historic preservation advocate.

Space is limited, reserve your spot here: http://walkingtoursmaryhabstritt.eventbrite.com

Sunday 5-9pm: TankerTime

Come aboard the Mary A. Whalen! Hang out, enjoy the sunset, meet fellow Red Hookians, and enjoy summer on a boat while you can.

Coming Up Next Week

Wed, July 28 7am: TankerTime
Wed, July 28 8:45pm: TankerTalk - Conrad Milster
Fri, July 30: 8:45pm: TankerTunes: Sara Bouchard and The Union Street Preservation Society String Band

VIEW OUR COMPLETE SUMMER CALENDAR HERE

.

"NO IDLING" - Facts about Ship Pollution.

2010-06-29T07:13:00.013-04:00

This is what 12,400 cars idling at the end of your residential street looks like.

Anyone annoyed at the idling buses ringing Coffey Park in the mornings, or chugging their fumes in front of your house? This ship is creating the equivalent asthma causing particulate matter (PM) of 6,000 big diesel buses, idling at the end of your residential street.

According to a Port Authority statement, the estimated monetized health cost to Brooklyn residents of these harmful yet avoidable emissions, just from the cruise ships visiting Brooklyn, is $9 million - per year.

On the West Coast, the news is that the act of plugging a container ship into "shore power" (allowing it to stop idling its extra dirty diesel engines) has the effect of taking 33,000 cars off the road - with the flick of a switch.

As the summer break starts, and as the ships continue to visit Red Hook, Brooklyn, and the rest of our city's ports - and idle - despite our city's otherwise strict "NO IDLING" rules, I wanted to put this information at the top of my blog again.

You can also find a quick "NO IDLING" fact sheet HERE.

Just a reminder of what the real impact is of these ships - and of the already known solutions being used elsewhere, but unfortunately not yet in New York, that can take this burden off the residents of port communities - especially our most vulnerable - our kids.

PortSide New York - Breathing Life Back Into Red Hook's Waterfront.

2010-06-22T16:19:00.013-04:00

PortSide New York is having a "Funraiser" on July 3rd to help support their Summer "BlueSpace" programs being held on, and in conjunction with, their flagship, ex-tanker Mary A. Whalen, moored at their new summer home at Pier 11 on the historic Atlantic Basin.

Buy your tickets HERE!

PortsSide has been given a temporary permit to operate out of (what will eventually be) their permanent home at this location from July 1st to August 24th. They will be doing programs and events throughout this 55 day period, including tall ship sails (such as was done recently with "Clipper City"), ferry tours of the harbor, educational tours on the historic tug, "Cornell", youth programs, tours of the Mary Whalen, "City of Water Day" celebrations - including music, food, and and the Urban Divers EnviroMedia Mobile, there will be movies, talks, story telling, Brooklyn Greenway walks, and much more. Have a look at their entire program, HERE .

PortSide has been working over many years to create a more vibrant waterfront in Red Hook, and has had some wonderful successes with "Opera on the Tanker", and the hugely popular Dutch Flat Bottomed Boat Event. Earlier this year, they facilitated the "community sails" on the tall ship, "Clipper City", and that event may lead to the "Clipper City" operating out of the Atlantic Basin commercially this summer.

As a great advocate of more waterfront access in our neighborhood, I'm excited to see how PortSide is reinvigorating our waterfront in this way - by bringing people to it. That was also seen with the Dutch Flat Bottomed Boat event (pic at bottom, post here), where my family and I had our first chance to experience both this enriching and interesting event and the "blue space" of the Atlantic Basin that's only a few steps from where we live.

To my mind, the NYC Economic Development Corporation did a great disservice to our community when it grabbed most of Pier 11 on the historic Atlantic Basin, for what has turned out to be Phoenix Beverages recycling operations (my post here). Most of Phoenix's operations are housed in the much larger Pier 7 - that's why, despite EDC promises, the empty Phoenix (a.k.a.Long Feng) Trucks are now clanging and racing down Columbia Street. This deal was made at the expense of many of the "people friendly" elements that our residents were craving, ones that were supported by Community Board 6 and outlined in our 197a Plan, that would have balanced the uses of the Red Hook Piers and reconnected our neighborhood and its small businesses to the waterfront.

However, Carolina Salguero at PortSide, with the portion of Pier 11 and 600 foot frontage of the Atlantic Basin that will be their permanent home, is providing our community with the opportunity to get a taste of what is possible on our waterfront - how we can reconnect to it. It's our chance to get our foot in the door and to say - "We want more of this".

I hope you can get along to the Big PortSide BlueBQ Funraiser.

Here are some more details -

BBQ from 6-8:30. Guests are invited to linger later to watch the sun set over the harbor.

Food from The Good Fork, Red Hook Lobster Pound, Tom Cat Bakery and more

Featuring:

Peter Waldman, the Balloon Meister
Jack Putnam of South Street Seaport channelling Herman Melville
Live auction
kids wading pool, games, chalk, bubbles n balls
music by Smitty & more TBA

Produced by: Brooklyn Based and Brooklyn Based Kids

P.S. from Carolina at PortSide - "Atlantic Basin is open more hours than city parks even when PortSide isn't there. The vehicular gate has been open for several years from about 530am to 1130pm. PANYNJ is going to shorten the hours of that (i think making it dawn to dusk but I don't have exact hours) and will open the pedestrian gate at Pioneer and Conover for equivalent time. I don't have exact hours, but access is already there and increasing."

NYC Council Comittee on Waterfronts Hearing - "Greening New York City's Working Waterfront"

2010-06-21T10:45:00.023-04:00

On Thursday, last week, the New York City Council's Committee on Waterfronts, under the Chairmanship of Councilman Michael C. Nelson, held a hearing titled, "Oversight - Clearing the Air: Greening New York City's Working Waterfront". The hearing was convened so the Committee could hear testimony on this subject from the various entities who operated and made decisions about New York City's working waterfront, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC), representatives in government, as well as hearing testimony from environmental groups and residents who are directly impacted by the harmful pollution that is created as a result of the operations of our city's ports.

The hearing was also attended by various other committee members who, like the Chairman, seemed to come in and out during its course, apart from Councilman Brad Lander, representing the 39th District that includes Carroll Gardens and the Columbia Street Waterfront District in Brooklyn, who was in attendance for the entire three hour hearing, listening to all of the testimony and asking the bulk of the well informed questions.

The hearing covered a range of issues relating to the "greening" of the ports, and the representatives from the Port Authority and EDC outlined some pollution mitigating measures that are currently under way, including the recent beginings of an L.A. style clean truck program (though not nearly as extensive) - called the "Truck Replacement Program" - that is being set up to allow drivers of drayage trucks that move containers in and out of ports to upgrade from older polluting trucks, to newer cleaner ones. There was also mention of an incentive program to promote the use of lower sulfur diesel in ocean going vessels while in New York City waters. Also mentioned was the plan to plug cruise ships into "shore power", allowing them to turn off their extra-dirty diesel engines while in port at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook (this is called "cold ironing"), instead of idling in port, as they are currently doing. Despite the previous statements from the Port Authority saying that this action, with the cruise ships alone, would save Brooklyn residents $9 million per year in health costs, the plan is still in limbo due to recalcitrance on the part of Con Edison, and seemingly ponderous - if not callous - feet dragging at the Public Service Commission (PSC) in setting an economically viable Con Edison power rate (called a tariff) for the ships to use. This new rate could be applied whether it be in Brooklyn or elsewhere in New York City, such as is being proposed (as I heard at the hearing) at the newly planned "cold ironing" 4th Berth at Howland Hook Container Terminal in Staten Island. One piece of news was that the EDC has committed to subsidize the shore power rate for ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal if the case isn't settled at the PSC. No doubt there's stuff to iron out there, but that was a bit of good news.

Rather than go into all of the detail of the hearing, I'd just like to touch on some broader issues - the main ones raised within the testimony presented at the hearing - and raise some questions that still need to be asked.

First, there is the issue of responsibility. In his testimony to the Committee, the Port Authority's Director of Port Commerce, Richard Larrabee, mentioned all the undeniable benefits that the activities of the ports bring to our region - economically, with jobs and otherwise. He also mentioned that these activities were predicted to grow significantly over the next decade and that the ports of New York and New Jersey would have to accommodate that growth. Given the subject being addressed at the hearing, at this stage it would have been expected that the Port Authority acknowledge the fact that the activities of the ports that they own and operate contribute significantly to the pollution that affects the health of the residents of our city and particularly the port communities that they abut, but the stance taken by the Port Authority was a different one. Mr. Larrabee said that their ports were within a "non attainment" region, where the levels of pollutants such as NOx, SO2, Particulates and Ozone constantly fail to meet federally mandated air quality standards. He went on to state that "although" their NY NJ Maritime activities only contributed 2% of the total of all sources of these pollutants for the region, they were "committed to reducing this contribution in an effort to help bring the region into attainment."

Well, let's get a couple of things straight. The "non attainment" region is a huge area that covers large chunks of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York City and State including all of Long Island. So, any figures that the Port Authority quotes surely shouldn't be in relation to this huge area - it renders them meaningless. Rather, they should be in relation to our city and its close suburbs, where their emissions' negative impact is being acutely felt.

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

Ships create 91% of the SO2, 47% of the NOx, and 62% of the particulates the operations of the port produces - that's information from the Port Authority. Trucks that service the ports also contribute significant percentages of these substances, with 25% of the NOx, 12% of PM and 37% of CO2. The EPA calls ship emissions "harmful to the pubic generally, and especially to our children, the elderly, people with lung disease, those who exercise outside, and low-income and minority communities located near ports." This statement is a living reality for residents of port communities who suffer high incidence of asthma, respiratory disease and cancer clusters - to name a few of the negative health effects resulting from port emissions.

For Mr. Larrabee to preface his testimony with the statement that implied that the contribution of harmful pollutants that the Ports of NY and NJ add to our city's air was minimal - but despite that, they were going to be "good guys" and clean it up a bit anyway, was a bit rich. If the Port Authority wants to adequately address these issues, they need to "come clean" on the facts, so that meaningful and appropriate action can be taken - as would be demanded by the public who employs them, if they also knew the facts. How can Mr. Larrabee's "back-slapping" statement that the Ports of NY and NJ eventually hope to be the "greenest" in country be taken seriously, if the Port Authority doesn't truthfully acknowledge how dirty they are?

The person speaking on behalf of the NYCEDC who (sometimes controversially) plan waterfront development for the City, was Vice President of the Maritime Department, Andrew Genn. His testimony covered a lot of the same ground as the Port Authority's, but spoke specifically about the Sunset Park Waterfront Vision Plan that lays out a future for Sunset Park's industrial waterfront that includes maritime industrial use (a possible new container port), waterfront access, a 20 acre park and even public housing. In relation to Red Hook, Mr. Genn also mentioned the proposed "cold ironing" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and the "new paradigm" that the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to Pier 11, facilitated by the EDC, was bringing to Red Hook's waterfront. ( The fact that Phoenix are using 2 piers - both Pier 11 (where they only do recycling) AND the larger Pier 7 wasn't mentioned - I wondered why?)

Now, I keep hearing this "NEW PARADIGM" stuff from the EDC. I heard it from Mr. Genn and from Executive Vice President, Madelyn Wils, at the Brooklyn Workshop for the Vision 2020 Plan. Well if a "new paradigm" means breaking promises, misleading the public, inflicting more pollution and congestion on an already burdened population without Environmental Impact Studies, ignoring Community Board 6 guidelines, casting aside 197a Plans, cutting off much desired access to the waterfront, thwarting the will of the residents and ignoring common sense - when there was a workable, and viable alternative that would have also accommodated Phoenix Beverages and satisfied almost everyone - then, by George, EDC, you've done it. That's some "New Paradigm".

My advice to the EDC - stop repeating it. It's embarrassing. Much like your short sighted and expedient planning for the cruise terminal in the first place - which you should also stop referring to as "world class" - have you seen the rest of the world's terminals? They have windows with views of the water, and kitchens and loading docks for functions and conventions, and outdoor spaces and public access (no razor wire), and .... well, I could go on. Really, I could.

The EDC will play a role in the greening of the city's ports and waterfront, but again, they need to be truthful and cognizant of the role they have played in undermining people's confidence in their decision making. They don't have a great track history in Red Hook - so I'm taking everything they say with a grain of salt - as big as the 5 storey salt pile currently being stored on Red Hook's waterfront.

The other theme that kept coming up with the hearing was that the cost of "greening" the ports had to be weighed against the cost to shipping and building the infrastructure in the first place. The Chairman made this point a number of times, almost as if that was an insurmountable problem.

On the West Coast, I've seen many articles stating that the additional cost of green practices, cold ironing etc. amounted to the addition of a couple of cents to the cost of a pair of sneakers. That doesn't seem insurmountable. The Ports of LA and Long Beach are thriving, despite extensive investments in green practices, incentives and sometimes requirements for trucks and ships to clean up their acts.

The Mayor of Long Beach, CA, Bob Foster, when these mitigating measures were being proposed there years ago, didn't accept the argument that a small added cost borne by shipping or passed on to the consumer was unbearable. His quote was, "We’re not going to have kids in Long Beach contract asthma so someone in Kansas can get a cheaper television set.”

That is an attitude I'd like to see more of from the Waterfront Committee, and from the City as a whole. If the Chairman's suspicion of "greenies" runs any deeper than some of the rhetoric he used at the hearing - suggesting that a "radical environmentalist" agenda could make shipping uneconomical - I don't have much hope for that. If "radical greenies" had more influence, perhaps we wouldn't be dealing with the horror that is now being visited on the Gulf Coast right now, with regular people bearing the burden of careless business practices. In a gesture of appeasement, the Chairman stated, half jokingly, that everyone had environmental issues to worry about. He said that he had to worry about Tsunamis where he lived (presumably Sheepshead Bay, the area he represents), so we shouldn't be so worried about living with the pollution of our neighborhoods' ports. Even though I'm sure this was a well intended statement, it was a little bizarre, and not really respectful of the concerns of the people who were in that room in an attempt to rid unnecessary toxins from the air that their children are breathing.

Just a quick note about effectiveness. The PA Truck Replacement Program's effectiveness was being questioned at the meeting with, as a way to strengthen it, Federal Legislation being developed, initiated by Rep. Jerry Nadler and supported by unions and environmental groups, that would allow for the establishment of a more robust program that couldn't be legally challenged by big trucking companies and the operators of ports, as has been the case in LA with laws suits, etc. After questioning from CM Brad Lander it was noted that LA's program had already replaced 6,000+ trucks, and that NY's program only had funds for under 700, with only 93 applications so far due to the prohibitive cost of replacing the dirty trucks, despite the programs incentives. A professor from Rutgers University said that a new model needed to be developed and that the current plan "can't succeed".

The PA's low sulfur diesel incentive was also having limited results, thus far, again as revealed by questioning from Brad Lander. This was partially a result of the fact that NY doesn't tax dirty bunker fuel, so there was still not enough incentive to switch to the cleaner fuel. The tax issue was one that Councilman Lander addressed a number of times, calling for the taxing of the fuel, as is done in New Jersey, so as to de-incentivize its use in the ports.

I have to say, a large amount of the hearing was occupied by testimony and questions relating to the Truck Replacement Program and in support of the legislation I mentioned above, championed by Rep. Nadler, calling for reform of trucking practices that unfairly classified truck drivers "independent contractors". We heard heart wrenching testimony from desperate truck drivers, stating that they could barely earn a living wage because of the overheads that they personally had to carry - including replacing lights, maintenance, and any work done on their trucks - despite being, in essence, "employed" by the same company for many, many years - without benefits. The drivers said that this mis-classification was costing them enormously, not only financially, but in health costs, as they were forced to drive older, polluting trucks, which often had fumes coming into their driver's cab, and, additionally, they were driving through the very neighborhoods in which their families lived, polluting their air, and causing health and safety risks to their children. The advocates of a strengthened "Truck Replacement Program" stated that, if the legislation passed, the employer would then carry more of the costs, the drivers would be compensated more fairly, and that this would not only provide better work conditions for the drivers, but the newer, cleaner trucks would bring the pollution reductions and health benefits that this Committee's hearing was addressing. Among the organizations supporting this cause - outside of the political force of Congressman Jerry Nadler - were the Coalition for Healthy Ports, the Teamsters Union, the Drum Major Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

It was great to see this show of strength for the truck issue. It's a worthy one - because this is an issue of exploitation and workplace conditions as much as anything - and it's something I fully support, having asked, "Where is Red Hook's Clean Truck Program?" in my second ever post on this blog.

I did however think that the truck issue, with it's heavy-weight supporters in government, unions and other organizations, overshadowed the wider issue of port pollution and the main contributor to that pollution - the ships.

A spokesperson for the Environmental Defense Fund called "cold ironing" at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal a "no brainer", stating that plugging one cruise ship in would take the equivalent of the pollution from 12,000 cars, per day, out of the air. He noted that in L.A., when a container ship is plugged into "shore power", it has the effect of eliminating emissions equivalent to 33,000 cars.

Other speakers gave testimony about the environmental and health challenges that living next to a port posed. A woman representing the North Shore Waterfront Conservancy of Staten Island spoke passionately of environmental justice, of residents needs and welfare being overridden by the pursuit of "economic development". She spoke of trucks roaring through the streets, and precious waterfront land with little public access being eaten up by industry that couldn't care less what effect it was having on the surrounding population. She said that "business was being done at the expense of people". It was something a lot of Red Hook residents could relate to. She, as did others, skipped over the subject of the pollution from ships, but did question how the establishment of a new "cold ironing" berth at Howland Hook could be called "green", if it came at the expense of land-filling their unique wetlands, Arlington Marsh.

Other testimony included that coming from the National Resource Defense Council, South West Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation, the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, representatives of Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and Congressman Jerry Nadler, as well as the others I mentioned (and some I didn't - sorry).

There was also testimony from representatives of residents of the Bronx waterfront concerned about the impact of waterfront activities on their communities.

Unfortunately, the hearing was very long, and the testimony of residents who are actually bearing the burden of port pollution - from Staten Island, from the Columbia Street waterfront and Red Hook - was mostly relegated to the final minutes of a 3 hour hearing. I was second last to present my testimony, and as the hearing had already gone on nearly three hours, I was asked by the Chairman to keep my (what would have been 7 minute, as requested) testimony short. As a result, I tried to skim through most of the material that had been presented before, and tried to keep to my main points. I presented my testimony as a father, a resident of Red Hook, as someone who writes a blog on these issues, and as a board member of RHED - Red Hook Economic Development, a non for profit group that aims to create partnerships between businesses, residents and industry, to vitalize economic development while enhancing quality of life in Red Hook.

You can read the whole written testimony HERE.

As I finished up, the Chairman said, somewhat sympathetically (I think in reference to the so called "world class" Cruise Ship Terminal being built in 2006 without any pollution mitigating infrastructure), "I know. It's not what you expected."

Well, as the final speaker from the Bronx gave her testimony, I thought to myself, it's not really about "what I expected". It's about "what is to be expected" ... from governments, or agencies of governments, or industry, or any other entity that brings business - say cruise ships, or beer trucking companies, or more container ships - to anyone's residential or mixed use neighborhood. Are they expected to be good neighbors and, like the doctors' Hippocratic oath, "first do no harm". Or is it OK for them to avoid doing Environmental Impact Studies, then pump a few more unmitigated tons of carcinogenic Sulfur, or Nitrogen Oxides, or asthma inducing Particulate Matter into your kids' lungs (kids with 40% asthma rates, as is the case in Red Hook) - as long as it's in the name of "economic development" - even if it doesn't do anything for economic vitality, small businesses, etc. in your neighborhood?

I hope the voice of Red Hook came through loud and clear in my testimony. My fear is that these meetings or hearings are often convened so that it can be said that the community had a chance to voice their concerns, then the status quo can continue, with a few little concessions around the edges to appease the locals (think: the cruise terminal bus parking lot).

My hope is that, like the issue with the trucks (whose advocates are on a roll), the comprehensive issue of port pollution, especially concerning the emissions from ships, gains more traction.

This issue needs its "heavy weight" advocates in Congress and in government. We need some local organizations to start speaking out more on these issues - environmentalists, advocates of environmental justice, community representatives. They're out there - there's just not much noise being made yet - which isn't helped by the total neglect and down right negligence of the local press in covering this issue. ( e.g. - Port Authority says cruise ship pollution costing Brooklyn residents $9 Million a year in health costs. Response from press - SHRUG).

As I said, in my testimony,

"We have to get going on this so we can finally take these dangerous, yet totally avoidable pollutants, out of our harbor city’s air.

Then, Red Hook residents and the residents of our entire city will finally be able to breathe easy."

END

Phoenix is Using Pier 11 for Recycling Only.

2010-06-14T11:01:00.012-04:00

More information has come to light on why Phoenix trucks are shuttling between Pier 11 (photo above) and Pier 7, speeding and rattling their way through Columbia Street and other residential streets, despite the lies ... um, I mean assurances made by Phoenix, their owner Greg Brayman and the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) via their Vice President, Venetia Lannon, that Phoenix trucks would be using the internal roadways of the container terminal as much as possible.

Apparently, Phoenix is using the Pier 11 shed for recycling the empty bottles that they collect when they make their deliveries. This is what the I've been told the split is between the uses of the two piers on our waterfront.

This, via someone with some knowledge of Phoenix's operations -

"The (trucks) begin at Pier 7 (where they spend the night), get loaded up with beer/wine/spirits, and then drive out the Pier 7 gate to the BQE and off to their destinations. When they make their deliveries, they pick up empty bottles. Those bottles are then delivered to Pier 11, where they are processed for recycling (per the requirements of the State's bigger, better bottle bill) at a facility that Phoenix has set up there. They then drive (empty) from Pier 11 to Pier 7, to get loaded up again for deliveries ... and it is these trips that go on local streets. (Moving the goods from where they are off-loaded from ships, to the Pier 7 warehouse, does take place within the Port)."

So the Pier 11 shed is being used for recycling? That explains why I saw the recycling bins inside the cavernous shed a number of weeks back, on one of PortSide NY's "community sails" on the ship, Clipper City, as we sailed past one of the huge shed's open doors. (see photo)

So that's what Phoenix is using Pier 11 for? Recycling? That's why the EDC insisted that Phoenix take Pier 11, as well as the much larger Pier 7, when Phoenix only ever said they needed one? This murky deal, all at the expense of more waterfront access and more community and people-friendly elements that were part of Community Board 6 guidelines and our 197a Plan?

The fact is that when the EDC announced their plan to relocate Phoenix Beverages from Long Island City to Red Hook's waterfront, they said that Phoenix's entire operations would be accommodated in the Pier 11 shed. Then, after the community suggested that Pier 7 would be a better location and a deal was struck to get the much larger Pier 7 shed, as was Phoenix's first preference, it seemed like it would be a win-win situation - for Phoenix and for the community who didn't want to exclude Phoenix from the waterfront, but did want to make sure that pollution and traffic issues were addressed as well as their clearly articulated desire for more public access, open space, reconnection to the waterfront and waterborne transportation, etc. That's why it was such a shock when the EDC announced that Phoenix would take up both Pier 11 and Pier 7, book-ending the entire waterfront, at the exclusion of much of what the community had so desired - except for the inclusion of PortSide NY who would be given a 600 foot length of the Atlantic Basin and a small portion of the Pier 11 shed.

So, now, to hear that Phoenix is using the Pier 11 shed for recycling, when surely that could also be accommodated at Pier 7 - the larger shed - is just astounding.

This is in addition to the news that the "EDC and Phoenix feel that they only committed that overweight/container trucks would stay inside the Port ... but that they always knew that delivery trucks would run on local streets (with Van Brunt - Columbia as the truck route)."

Well, we never heard that at any of the meetings, and they are just lying if they're saying otherwise.

All of this, including the revelation that Phoenix is only shuttling their between Pier 7 and 11 along residential streets, posing dangers to pedestrians, creating congestion and pollution, because they have their recycling bins in the Pier 11 shed - when it's pretty clear this activity, and all of their needs could be accommodated in the huge Pier 7 shed - is further reason to sign the petition.

Phoenix Beverages Should Use Pier 7 Only To Reduce Truck Traffic On Our Residential Streets

Sign the petition HERE

Tommorow: Kentler Presents - “Drawing Together” free Saturday art workshops for families

2010-06-11T19:31:00.006-04:00

I meant to pass this on earlier, but our friends at Kentler gallery are having a family workshop tomorrow - Saturday - at beautiful Valentino Pier. Hope you can get along. Here are the details -

Kentler International Drawing Space (K.I.D.S.) Art Education Program presents

“Drawing Together” free Saturday art workshops for families (designed for ages 4 and up but all are welcome)

LED BY PROFESSIONAL TEACHING ARTISTS & K.I.D.S. ART EDUCATION STAFF

For DRAWING TOGETHER in June families will explore Valentino Pier through exciting art making activities!

JOIN US Saturday, June 12, 10:00 – 11:30 am with teaching artist Kate Baird

Workshop will be held at Valentino Pier (at the end of Coffey Street) in Red Hook, Brooklyn

PLEASE REGISTER IN ADVANCE:
Call Kate Baird: 417-839-3619 or email: katebaird@yahoo.com

For more information about K.I.D.S. Art Education please visit our blog:
http://kidsarteducation.blogspot.com/
www.kentlergallery.org

Many thanks to Target for support of this program.

KENTLER INTERNATIONAL DRAWING SPACE / 353 Van Brunt St., (Red Hook) Brooklyn, NY 11231/ 718-875-2098 / info@kentlergallery.org

.

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

2010-06-03T11:46:00.006-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE

.

Phoenix Beverages and the NYCEDC are LIARS

2010-06-01T13:10:00.016-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article continues to say that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks EDC!!! You're the best.

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

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

City Says Red Hook Ballfields are PCB Free (Tuesday, May 25th UPDATE: Maybe Not)

2010-05-21T11:00:00.016-04:00

The Brooklyn Paper, via the reporting of Gary Buiso, who has been on this story from the beginning, is saying (story here) that the City has done testing on the Red Hook Ballfields' soil, digging 18 two inch holes into the ground closest to the now defunct Chemtura factory that adjoins the fields, and has "declared the grounds safe".

The Courier story states,

"None of the samples revealed PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, the once-ubiquitous compounds that were banned in the 1970s after they were discovered to cause cancer."

The news will be welcomed by the Red Hook community and others who regularly use the fields, however, some are still a little skeptical of the City's assurances, perhaps understandably, considering the experience with the Albany based DEC and their poor communication regarding the PCB spill that they said was leaching into the Ball Fields site, taking nearly 10 years to inform the City and Parks Department of their findings. (my post here)

That skepticism was noted by Pete Morales, a regular park user and co-commissioner of the Red Hook Little League, who is quoted in the article.

“It’s very difficult for us to trust the city, particularly with everything that has been dumped on Red Hook,” he said . “The trucks, the cement plant — things we learn about in the last moment. I would like to see more testing.”

Hopefully, better communication, the dissemination of some more factual information and a transparent process will alleviate those concerns.

Meanwhile, this weekend, the excellent Latin American food prepared by the vendors at the Ballfields and the associated "Red Hook Mercado" on Van Brunt Street keeps on coming.

UPDATE: Tuesday, May 25th. According to further reporting from the Wall Street Journal, (here) there is some further skepticism about the City's statements about the safety of the Red Hook Ballfields because the City's definition of a safe level of PCBs differs from the State's definition.

Dr. James Cervino, a scientist who performs environmental analysis for development projects in the city, referring to the fact that the State's DEC statements about contamination at the ballfields contradict the recent findings by the City after their inspection of the site, is quoted as saying that "the discrepancy stems from different criteria applied by city and state when analyzing soil samples for contamination."

The story continues -

“The chemical criteria — the allowance limits for chemical contamination — are much stricter with the state Department of Environmental Conservation than with the city agencies,” Cervino said. He noted that state standards, not those of the city, apply whenever a contaminated site is designated for Superfund or brownfield status. “I would like to see the city’s methodology,” he said. “How many samples did they take? How deep did they go?”

Another possible reason for the discrepancy, raised in the article, could be the difference in the locations from which the City took the samples of soil - they said they took them from the ballfields closest to the Chemtura plant - whereas the findings from the State's DEC state that the samples were taken from sites "in or near" the recreation area. The WSJ speculates that this could be enough of a difference to account for the discrepancy in findings concerning the PCB levels.

Obviously, it's worrying that two different agencies - one State based and and from the City - are reporting such different results.

The City's statement says, “tests on soil samples from Brooklyn’s Red Hook Recreation Area show no evidence of contamination with PCBs.”

Compare that to the State DEC's previous statement that the park's soil contains "110 times the amount of PCBs considered safe."

I think the WSJ gets it right the last paragraph of the article -

"Until the city’s full report is released and reviewed independently, it won’t be possible to dig deeper into the discrepancy between the city and state findings in Red Hook."

Meanwhile ...... our kids are having field day close by, the Latin American Food vendors are continuing to serve their fabulous food and picnickers are sitting on the ground eating while people are playing soccer ....

Time to clear this up, don't you think?

Reporting from the Brooklyn "Vision 2020 - NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" Workshop.

2010-05-19T18:43:00.032-04:00

Monday night, the Department of City Planning held their Vision 2020 public workshop for the borough of Brooklyn (previous post, here). They had already held their first city-wide workshop last month, and will be holding others in all of the boroughs over the next couple of months. These gatherings are being undertaken in order to get ideas from the community about what is needed when it comes to future development of the city’s waterfront – this one focusing on Brooklyn, specifically.

The workshop, held at Brooklyn Technical High School, started off with a couple of statements from Purnima Kapur, from the Department of Planning (Brooklyn) and representatives of the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC), the agencies that will be intimately involved in the planning and implementation of whatever plans the recommendations arising from the Vision 2020 Planning process produce.

From the EDC, Executive Vice President Madelyn Wils spoke. She listed the EDC’s recent accomplishments on Brooklyn’s waterfront, speaking of the recent “Sunset Park Waterfront Vision” plan, (my post here) including a new 22 acre public waterfront park and more housing, that had come out of a process that involved consultation with residents, business and industry groups, and was done in co-ordination with Sunset Park’s 197a Plan. Then she noted the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to the Red Hook waterfront (at Piers 7 and 11), relocating their beer distribution operation from Long Island City, in Queens. Ms. Wils said that the EDC’s work in bringing Phoenix to the Red Hook piers created a “new paradigm” for the business being done on the Red Hook Waterfront.

This “new paradigm” is being felt in the neighborhood right now, as Phoenix Beverages (a.k.a. Long Feng Trucking) and their 200 truck trips a day rumble - or even race - through our residential streets, instead of using the inside roads within the Container Terminal site, as Phoenix and the EDC promised. Meanwhile, the residents are wondering if the polluting diesel trucks will ever be converted to Compressed Natural Gas (another promise), and are still scratching their heads as to why Phoenix was coerced into taking both Pier 7 and Pier 11, when they only ever needed or requested the use of one pier. (Phoenix’s first choice was actually Pier 7 only). The tying up of most of Pier 11 on the Atlantic Basin for 20-years (secured with Phoenix’s lease with the EDC and the Port Authority’s approval) meant the exclusion of more open space, more public access, physical and visual corridors to the waterfront, water taxi service and other – dare I say – resident friendly elements, many that were outlined in Red Hook’s own 197a Plan and articulated in multiple meetings and within Community Board 6 guidelines. Ms. Wils' “new paradigm” not only brings more trucks, as I mentioned, but also brings the expansion of the operation of the Container Terminal (which has now repossessed most of Pier 11, by proxy, at least), without including any measures to address and abate the pollution that is being created by the additional trucks and ships. They didn’t even do an Environmental Impact Study – or a proper assessment of the impact of truck traffic on street congestion.

This isn’t such a surprise, coming from the EDC, as they were the agency who, in 2006, brought to our neighborhood a new, state-of-the-art cruise terminal without including the “shore power” infrastructure that would ensure the new presence of cruise ships and the dangerous smokestack emissions they produce didn’t have any detrimental health impact on our already burdened community. These additional, unaddressed health costs, in human terms (cancer, asthma, lung disease, heart disease, etc), have been carried in our community for the last 5 years. Additionally, the Port Authority recently stated that the monetized health costs of the unmitigated emissions created by the cruise ships burning of their extra-dirty diesel fuel while in port approaches $9 million a year (my post here). That’s from the cruise ships alone. That doesn’t include the additional pollution from the dirty-diesel burning container and cargo ships.

People’s health being compromised in the name of “economic development”. That’s some “new paradigm”.

Anyway, moving on, the next speaker was Michael Marella, the Vision 2020 Project Manager from the Dept. of City Planning, His presentation outlined the history of New York waterfront planning, the broad goals of the workshops and the goals of the Vision 2020 Plan as a whole.

These are pretty well articulated in this story (with video!) from NY 1.

BROOKLYNITES TAKE PART IN WATERFRONT WORKSHOPS (click)

The whole group was then split off into smaller groups of 20 or so made up of people representing different sections of the Brooklyn waterfront. In the spirit of the maritime subject matter, each section of the waterfront was called a “reach” – reaches are segments of waterfront. Our group, made up of residents, architects, environmental experts, barge operators, small business people, fishermen, community representatives, people in government, arts and culture organizers, members of the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, etc. represented the Brooklyn waterfront from Atlantic Avenue, through Sunset Park to Owl’s Head . This section was termed “Reach 14, South”.

It was noted by our coordinators from the Dept. of City Planning that between the end of the new Brooklyn Bridge Park, at Atlantic Avenue, and the end of Van Brunt Street there was currently only one point for public waterfront access – Valentino Pier. Other sites noted where there was currently public waterfront access in our reach included the Fairway promenade, the Ikea Erie Basin Park and the Lowe’s parking lot on the Gowanus Canal (the mention of the latter was greeted with a few well deserved chuckles).

The sites that were seen by the Dept. of Planning as most appropriate for discussion of new waterfront development opportunities were –

Piers 7-12 along the Red Hook waterfront and the Atlantic Basin.
The old Revere Sugar site, now owned by Thor Equities.
The Gowanus Canal area
The Sunset Park waterfront, including Bush Terminal, etc.

Asked if there were other opportunities and ideas for waterfront access and development, a number were suggested by the attendees, including –

What about Governors Island? - or at least the recognition of Red Hook and the Columbia Street Waterfront’s proximity and connection to the island.
Various street ends, where they meet the waterfront (Gowanus Canal included).
The underused parking lots of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, particularly at the end of Wolcott Street,
Other underused Port Authority buildings on their publicly owned waterfront property
The Snapple Building on the waterfront between Wolcott and Coffey Streets
The parking lot and possible sea wall walkway at the ATF building situated on historic “Point Defiance”, next to Valentino Pier.
The end of the Long Pier, at the end of Columbia Street (currently Police Dept. vehicle evidence pound)
The piers in the Erie Basin, next to Ikea (potential for reconstruction and vessel docking)

.. and more.

As the discussion of what we would like to see on these sections of the waterfront proceeded, many issues and proposals were raised. Someone had a plan for creating an elevated roadway above 1st Avenue, approximately the length of what is now the elevated Gowanus Expressway. The old expressway would then be demolished opening up 3rd Avenue and creating a boulevard. This was proposed as an alternative to building a tunnel from the Battery Tunnel to the Belt Parkway, which has been a plan many have supported (including ex-Senator Clinton) for decades.

The people interested in the Gowanus Canal area had ideas for the “sponge park” and other water cleaning proposals. As with many of the comments regarding different sections of the waterfront, the issue of adaptation to climate change and a rise in sea level was seen as being of great importance.

There was widespread enthusiasm for greater access to the waterfront, including open space and recreational access – kayak launches, etc. – and the connection to the Brooklyn Greenway was seen as being vital.

Regarding the Thor Equities owned Revere Sugar site, there was overwhelming consensus that this should not be the location of a big box store, such as WalMart. Some suggested housing or mixed use for the site, but Bob Hughes, the operator of the barge and tug boat operation in the Erie Basin, suggested that his proximity to the site should preclude the use of the site for housing, saying it was incompatible with his business. (I wonder whether that is actually the case - I should have asked Bob whether he got any complaints from the residents in the Fairway building that is not as close as the Thor site, but still within earshot of the bargeport. My feeling, based on observations from my old home town of Sydney and elsewhere, is that often these types of uses can co-exist, and their co-exitsence adds to the character and vitality of neighborhoods such as ours. I mean, people are living in apartments right next to the BQE! Whatever the case, it would seem unfair to force the bargeport out of its historic home in the name of any kind of development).

In that spirit, there was also the acknowledgment that there must be a balance in whatever is developed on the waterfront – balancing maritime industrial uses, real jobs, residential development, the livelihood of store owners, waterborne transportation, public waterfront access and the additional open space and parks that the residents seem to be craving.

It was also noted that whatever came to the waterfront should not impose any unnecessary health or pollution burden on the residents, nor unacceptable congestion on our streets, as had both been the case with my previously mentioned examples – the Cruise Terminal and Phoenix Beverages. Some people from the Columbia Waterfront voiced their great concern about the promises that had been broken by Phoenix regarding their truck routes and the real impact these broken promises were having on their quality of life.

The port pollution issue was one that was raised by me, in relation to the operation of the Red Hook Container Terminal and adjoining Cruise Terminal, and was also raised by residents from Sunset Park. As well as having some concerns about their new “Sunset Park Vision Plan”, and stating that any new industrial use at Sunset Park should not have an environmental nor health impact on their residents, they also voiced an insistence that if a Container Terminal was to be developed in Sunset Park, ready for larger post-Panamax ships, as has been suggested, then it should be done in a “green” way – using modern technology such as “shore power”, clean vehicles, electric cranes etc., so that the operation of that port doesn’t impact their residents adversely. I added that I didn’t think the residents of Red Hook would wish the pollution and adverse health effects that they had been enduring all these years on the residents of Sunset Park.

It’s interesting to me that the issue of pollution was not really on the agenda. The Dept. of Planning had stated that one of the goals of the plan should be to “maintain and improve the environmental quality of our waterbodies”, but that referred to the water itself, not the activities that rely on it.

In all of the points listed in the various handouts, including the “Preliminary List of Goals and Issues” distributed at the workshop – a list that contained 7 goals, and 27 specific issues under the headings: Natural Waterfront; Working Waterfront; Public Waterfront, Mixed Use, Residential and Commercial Waterfront; and Blue Network (which includes transportation and freight movement, alternative energy, etc) - not once was mentioned the idea that the activities of the ports are actually polluting, and that the Vision 2020 Plan should acknowledge that fact and seek out a strategy to mitigate this pollution and its detrimental health effects. The plan does mention that the city needs to ready itself for more shipping and larger ships (like the post-Panamax ones I mentioned) by dredging channels and raising bridges (as is being planned with the Bayonne Bridge), but there is no mention of the challenges that this uptick in shipping size and volume and resultant increase in pollution, if unmitigated, will pose to the health of our city's residents.

When the EDC came to our neighborhood after concerns, now being realized, about the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to the Red Hook waterfront, the resultant pollution from the extra trucks and ships via the expansion of the operations of the Container Terminal, they told us, in the words of Venetia Lannon (VP, Maritime), that we had to end the “victim mentality”. Well, after reading about these Vision 2020 workshops, and seeing that there was no mention of pollution mitigation in their list of “issues”, I sent the project manager, Michael Marrella an email. Part of it referred to Ms. Lannon's “victim mentality” comment. I wrote,

“Well, we have been 'victims' - collateral damage, if you will, in the name of "economic development" and special deals - and you cannot plan a future for Red Hook that exposes our residents to more of the resultant harmful pollution. You cannot plan for our waterfront without paying attention to the neighborhood it abuts and the stated needs of its residents.

Any planning needs to address all of these factors, especially the burden pollution is placing on our port communities. Attention needs to be paid to planning for that reality; where such a terminal makes sense and where investments should logically be made to mitigate pollution - long term - and you should be including these points in all of your presentations.

If you do, I think a clearer idea of what is appropriate for our waterfront will become apparent.”

I managed to chat with Mr. Marella after the workshop, and he seemed to be cognizant of the fact that there was a gaping hole left in the Vision 2020 Plan by the exclusion of these important issues. He mentioned that the Dept. of Planning was working closely with the Port Authority, and that he thought these issues would be ultimately acknowledged. I really hope so.

In the end, the workshop was pretty productive. All of the five Brooklyn "reaches", from Newtown Creek to Jamaica Bay, reported back with their suggestions and specific issues. There was a lot of overlap –

More public access
More parks
Better environmental stewardship and cleaner waterways
Kayak and human powered boating access
Natural waterfronts
Enforcement of 197a Plans, etc.
Waterborne transportation
Climate change resilience
Support jobs and small businesses
Protection of maritime history
Support of economic development
Balanced uses, and ....
... the need to address the health issues posed by shipping/port pollution. (Yes!)

Let's hope that all of this public input counts for something.

There will be another city-wide "workshop", after the borough specific ones are completed, on June 24th, and - another reason to put this one in your book - it will include discussion of the "Blue Network" that will address issues of waterborne transportation, recreation and education, as well as ecology and resilience to climate change.

You can get more information and post your comments online at the Vision 2020 website - www.nyc.gov/waterfront.

Meanwhile here are some snaps of some current waterfront uses -

Cruise ships ... idling behind razor wire fences

Container ships ... idling while in port....

Underused parking lots ....

Salt storage .... (covered)
Salt storage (uncovered, with trucks on top!) ....

Beer trucks .....

Private boat storage ??? ...

.

Red Hook Trolleys and Bus Service Reductions - Take the RHED Survey

2010-05-19T18:42:00.006-04:00

In recent transportation news, the Red Hook trolley plan, supported by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, seems to be gaining steam and getting more publicity (stories here, here and here), and that's good news, considering the imminent reduction in transportation options we're facing with the combining of the B61 and B77 bus services.

The Red Hook Economic Development group - RHED - an organization that represents small-business owners in Red Hook and advocates for improvement in our neighborhood's amenities, quality of life and overall vitality has put together a survey to gather information from Red Hook residents and businesses about their transportation needs. Please take a couple of minutes to fill it out and have a voice in the discussion about this matter. Results of the survey will be conveyed to our elected representatives and the MTA. Also, there will be a Community Board 6 Transportation Committee meeting this Thursday, which RHED is also encouraging you to attend.

This from RHED -

Please complete the 2-minute survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CJ5TSRY ) to help Red Hook Economic Development (RHED) demonstrate to New York City Transit (NYCT) Red Hook's need for public transportation.

As many of you may be aware, New York City Transit intends to merge the B61 and B77 bus lines among a host of service reductions that would go into effect on June 27^th. RHED’s Transportation Committee is concerned that should the merger go ahead, the expanded line will be subject to

· Overcrowding - essentially fitting the riders of two bus lines onto one

· Slower travel times - to accommodate longer boarding times at each stop for the increased usage

· Schedule delays - less likely to keep on schedule due to traffic conditions miles from Red Hook (ex. A bridge going up over the Gowanus).

Please also join RHED as we voice these concerns at Community Board 6’s Transportation Committee meeting on Thursday May 20th at 6:30 at Long Island College Hospital (339 Hicks Street), where NYCT will hear from the community regarding the service cuts.

Port Authority Statement: Brooklyn Residents, the Ships are Killing You. Health Costs approaching $9 million per Year.

2010-05-17T11:24:00.007-04:00

I've encouraged you before to pay attention to the admittedly mind-numbing and long-winded process that has been taking place at the Public Service Commission (PSC), the outcome of which should set a "tariff" (rate of electricity supply), supplied by Con Edison, that is economically viable for the cruise ships to hook up to "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (BCT). This will allow them to stop "idling" constantly while in port, turning off their extra-dirty diesel burning engines in a practice called "cold ironing". This electricity rate, once set, could also apply to other locations and provide the potential for the establishment of "shore power" throughout the Ports of New York (and possibly beyond) to be used by all different types of ships - like the container and cargo ships that also idle in port, using the same extra-dirty diesel that the cruise ships do - thereby encouraging the wider practice of "cold ironing" and achieving air quality and health improvements on a much broader scale.

The process at the PSC has been hard to follow, from their initial refusal to make any ruling on this case in April 2009, saying it was basically outside of their jurisdiction (making the assertion that it was the New York Power Authority, not Con Edison, that supplied electricity to the Port Authority owned piers on which the Cruise Terminal operates). Then, earlier this year, in an apparent contradiction of this initial statement, they accepted the case, asking for "public comment" etc., (my post here) but with no resolution as yet, as far as I can see.

I happened to bump into a couple of people over this last week who have been following the case closely, and their take on the process was not that reassuring. One person referred to the PSC as being something like "the Kremlin", (archaic, impenetrable and secretive perhaps?), and another with some inside knowledge saying it was "typical Albany" - not very reassuring considering the recent news (here) that another Albany based agency, the State's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), had been aware of the dangerously high levels of PCBs at the Red Hook Ball Fields for nearly a decade, but had neglected to pass that information on to the City of New York and the Parks Department, let alone the Latin American food vendors, soccer players and visitors who have been using that park for many, many years. It seems that the Public Service Commission, like this other Albany based agency, despite the urgent and important statements made by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at that initial hearing where the case was strangely proclaimed to be out of the PSC's jurisdiction, is not exactly viewing this case with the importance and urgency that is required. (The important EPA statements presented at that initial hearing are permanently listed on the side-bar of this blog).

That prompted me to go the the PSC site and check out was was posted about this case - No: 09-E-0428. Link (here). There, among the many documents posted, were public statements in support of the creation of a Con Ed "shore power" stand-by rate from Council-member Brad Lander, Assemblywoman Joan Millman, The Columbia Waterfront Neighborhood Association and from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

All of the statements supported the establishment of the new power rate, noting the harmful effects of ship smokestack pollution and particularly their negative health impacts on the residents of our neighborhoods and the city as a whole, stating, as per Joan Millman's letter, that they "damage lung tissue, increase respiratory illness, suppress immune systems, aggravate breathing problems and asthma" and additionally that they "contribute to premature death for people with respiratory and cardiac disease".

Additionally, they noted that the air quality of the communities surrounding the port constantly "fail to meet national air quality standards" including levels of ozone and particulate matter.

All these statements were well and good and many points were ones we've heard before, but when I read the statement from the Port Authority, (click here), that's when things really got down to the nitty gritty.

The Port Authority, in a letter directly from their Executive Director, Chris Ward, had a whole section titled "Negative Environmental and Human Health Externalities".

Chris Ward's signature, above. Click HERE for a Google docs version of the full letter.

In the section I mentioned, above, Mr. Ward noted that the implementation of "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (BCT) alone would reduce the "harmful air emissions" that the ships visiting the terminal produce significantly (by 98% in fact) - 100 tons per year of SO2 and NOx each, and a reduction in particulate matter and CO2 by 6 tons and 1,500 tons respectively. He also noted that with an increase in cruise ship calls to the terminal (as is anticipated, according to statements I heard at a Port Authority Public Board Meeting last year), these reductions would obviously be greater.

Mr. Ward's statement went on to list in more detail the heath impacts of these and other ship emissions -

"According to the EPA's Health Effects of Shipping Related Air Pollutants", these pollutants will "damage lung tissue, causing inflammation and resulting in lung damage and reduced lung function, increased respiratory illness, and aggravated breathing problems; cough, chest pain, asthma. Even short term exposure to SO2 has been shown to irritate and restrict airways, increase chest tightness, and reduce mucus clearance. Studies of the health effects of PM (Particulate Matter) also show that particles damage lungs, increase asthma attacks, aggravate bronchitis, reduce lung function growth in children, increase risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease, and contribute to premature death and hospital visits of people with respiratory and cardiac problems."

Then Mr. Ward mentioned Red Hook and our neighbors, specifically -

"Due to close proximity to port pollution, communities near the BCT" (the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook) "face increased health risks, and have been actively calling for a shore power solution."

Continuing, Mr. Ward wrote about the matter of the health benefit/cost to our residents, in terms that everyone seems to take notice of - dollars.

"Using the Yale Air Pollution Emissions Experiments and Policy Analysis Model (APEEP)" Mr. Ward wrote, "we estimate that the annual health benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT, adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million"

In other words, the annual monetized health cost of the cruise ships visiting Brooklyn on our community is estimated to be $9 million. This is the figure for the cruise ships alone, right now - not even taking into account the equally dirty-diesel burning container and cargo ships visiting the adjoining Container Terminal, nor any of the predicted increase in ships visiting the Brooklyn ports in the future.

Wow.

Actually, that doesn't surprise me, considering the recent study in Charleston, N.C., that estimated the monetized annual health cost to the residents of the operation of their soon to be expanded port, the 10th largest in the country (the Ports of NY and NJ are the 3rd largest), to be $81 million (just to be clear, that's per year). You can only imagine what the entire yearly health cost of our much larger ports is on our much larger and more densely populated metropolitan area.

So there it is. They're saying it out loud. Ship pollution - It's dangerous. It's harming our kids. It's killing us. It's costing us and the city a sh*tload of money and there's a solution - a solution for the Brooklyn-based cruise ships at least, that would pay for its own implementation, in health care savings in our neighborhoods alone, in under two years. These statements are coming directly from the head of the Port Authority, the Big Kahuna ..... but what is the Public Service Commission doing or saying?

Cue: crickets

Mr. Ward states that the "status quo ... is not acceptable in the long term" and that the Ports of NY and NJ need to 'get with the program' in regard to greening their ports' operation, as is being done on the West Coast and elsewhere. The setting of the power rate will not only allow this to happen and encourage these money-saving and life-saving practices in all of our city's ports and communities, with all of the different types of ships - container and cargo, too - but will spur the adoption of these practices and spread their resultant benefits even further afield.

And as far as "getting with the program", thankfully the Port Authority is making a start and has committed money to getting this done at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, committing at least $8 million for the required infrastructure, plus receiving an EPA grant around $3 million to assist this plan. Also, the cruise operators, Carnival, have committed to retrofitting their ships at approx. $1-2 million each.

So what's the missing piece? The Con Ed shore power rate to make it happen.

Sure, we could insist the cruise ships hook up to the shore power, regardless of cost (perhaps covering the extra cost by adding an "asthma and morbidity reduction levy" to a glass of Champagne - charging 50c more, perhaps), or maybe Marty Markowitz, the terminal's loudest advocate, could come up with the difference in cost out of his office's budget. What about the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) who, in 2006, brought the $56 million terminal to our neighborhood without "cold ironing" infrastructure, physical or commercial connection to the community, public space, aesthetic sensibility, nor even the ability to use the terminal building as a function venue when the ships aren't in - there's no kitchen, loading dock or even windows to look out at the harbor? Maybe the EDC could pay the difference until the wrinkles were "ironed out" (no pun intended) with Con Ed.

But the bottom line is, we're all going to pay for it anyway, in some way, so let's just get this done in the way that it is being pursued now - as frustrating and befuddling as that may be.

This should be an easy task. These entities - Con Ed, the PSC and other interested parties - they should be able to come to an agreement in the name of improving the health of our kids, at the very least.

If they don't sort this out quickly, shame on them, and perhaps the residents of Red Hook, the Columbia Waterfront, Carroll Gardens, etc., should take the advice of a friend and neighbor who, like many of us, is frustrated with this whole process. She suggested that we encourage our neighbors and their children to go to the Cruise Terminal at the end of our street to greet the next port call of the Queen Mary 2 ..... wearing gas masks, carrying banners saying "NO IDLING" or "Your ship's smoke is killing our kids" or "You Cruise - We Lose" ... you get the idea.

I wonder if Marty will turn up.

Help Plan The City's Waterfront - Brooklyn Meeting Tonight - Monday, May 17th. 6pm

2010-05-16T19:43:00.008-04:00

As I mentioned in a previous post, here, today is the day for New York City's Department of City Planning Brooklyn-focused "workshop", convened to gather input from the public to help shape their newly announced initiative, Vision 2020 - New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan.

Click on their flier, below, to enlarge for details.

They held their initial meeting on April 8th (slideshow and summary of presentation here), but during May and June, as promised, the City is holding borough specific meetings - they're calling "workshops" - to concentrate on getting input regarding local issues. There is a list of upcoming meetings here.

This from their web site -

We will be holding public workshops in May and June in each borough to present an overview of each Borough’s waterfront resources and to discuss the future of specific waterfront sites. At these workshops, City Planning will present an overview of the borough’s waterfront resources and existing uses. We’ll then break into small groups to discuss particular segments of the Borough’s waterfront, what we refer to as Reaches. For each reach the groups will discuss opportunities and challenges for the future of specific sites along the waterfront. We’re also holding a sixth public meeting to discuss the Blue Network and other citywide issues.

Red Hook Mercado Opens Tomorrow! Saturday, May 5th.

2010-05-14T19:05:00.006-04:00

As mentioned in the previous post, starting tomorrow you can get your non-toxic tacos, papusas and other Latin American fare from some of the excellent Red Hook Ball Field vendors, plus some German fare from the yet-to-open Van Brunt Street "Grindhaus" and baked goods from Brooklyn's "Fattycakes" and more at the "Red Hook Mercado". Kicking off at noon, at 410 Van Brunt Street, between Coffey and Van Dyke Streets.

Hope to see you there!

.

State DEC has known about the high PCB contamination levels at the Red Hook Ball Fields since "at least May 2001."

2010-05-13T00:10:00.010-04:00

Image from Wall Street Journal

Put this one in the "company pollutes and puts people's health at risk while authorities say nothing" category.

The local papers have been covering the revelation that Red Hook Ball Fields, where the Latin Food vendors and soccer matches take place on the weekends, is contaminated with PCBs that have been found in the soil at levels over 100 times more than is deemed safe. The PCBs are a result of chemical spills from a property, previously occupied by the now bankrupt Chemtura plastic additive company, that abuts the Red Hook Ball Fields. The latest revelation, via this Wall Street Journal article (here), is that the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) first found hazardous-waste violations at the site during the 1990s and has known about the dangerous levels of cancer causing PCBs since "at least May 2001", and, despite the fact it has been taking legal action to try to force Chemtura to clean up the contamination, the DEC has not kept the City, the Parks Department, nor the people using the field informed.

What action is the City now taking? This from the WSJ article -

The city, newly aware of the fight, said Wednesday that the Parks Department would measure pollutants in the park. The 58.5-acre space is home to scores of youth soccer tournaments, adult softball leagues, playgrounds and the popular Latin American food vendors, who operate during soccer games. The Health Department said it plans to analyze soil samples from the area closest to the shuttered plant.

"We will rely on the Health Department's evaluation of test results to determine whether further action is warranted," said Parks Department spokeswoman Vickie Karp.

What are the DEC saying about their lack of communication?

Yancey Roy, a DEC spokesman, said, "The agency followed the necessary outreach protocols, but in retrospect we could have done more." (my emphasis)

Ya think so, Mr. Roy?

In the Wall Street Journal article, John McGettrick, co-chair of the Red Hook Civic Association is quoted -

"It's frustrating," he said. "Why didn't they (the DEC) say anything? If this was property adjacent to Central Park, would people be dealing with this in such a cavalier fashion?"

In Gary Buiso's Brookyn Courier article, (here), Community Board 6 District Manager Craig Hammerman is quoted -

“If the state is not sharing information with their city counterparts, then it seems they are not acting in the best interests of the public,” he said.

Hopefully, despite the DECs poor communication, the testing will take place, the uncertainty will be soon cleared up (or chemicals cleaned up), and the "Soccer Tacos" will be able to continue their raging weekend trade without fear of what is in the the ground under their feet and those of their customers.

Anyone wanting a guaranteed non-toxic location to eat their tacos and papusas should head to the new "Red Hook Mercado" on Van Brunt Street, opening this Saturday, where some of the Ball Field vendors will be dishing up their delicious food in a more traditional (and PCB free) environment.

.

Red Hook Welcomes Phoenix Beverages.... er, Long Feng Trucking?

2010-05-06T12:48:00.028-04:00

This week, a resident of the Columbia Street Waterfront sent me an email noting a recent uptick in beer delivery trucks on their residential streets.

"What's the scoop with Phoenix in your neighborhood? They are rolling right through our neighborhood on Columbia Street - cited 7 in 20 minutes today!

They were supposed to be using the inside of the pier only.

I was under the impression that they had a uniform fleet with their logo - but no they use various beer trucks with the branding of the actual beer company."

Is that right? It seems as though the trucks don't necessarily have "Phoenix Beverages" on the side. They have the decals, etc., of the various beer companies covering them, and nothing in particular to say that they're Phoenix Beverages trucks. (They certainly don't resemble the clean, glossy brown, newly painted trucks that Phoenix and the EDC proudly displayed in their PowerPoint presentations at their "community outreach" meetings.)

So, this week, late one afternoon, I attempted to confirm these observations and took a look at the new line-up of trucks parked in front of Pier 7, on Columbia Street at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue. (Right next to the soon to be opened Brooklyn Bridge Park's children's playground at Pier 6).

And there they were - parked all in a row after completing their day's deliveries, I assume, with some more trucks coming back through the gates to park for the night. Before me was yet another parking lot with amazing Brooklyn Waterfront views to add to Red Hook's collection (Cruise Terminal, Fairway, Ikea, the ATF Building next to Valentino Pier, etc.).

But on the side of the trucks, there was no indication they were from Phoenix Beverages. What was written on the side was "Long Feng Trucking", with a Laight Street address. Who is Long Feng Trucking?

Googling "Long Feng" at the Laight Street address showed no results, but on further searching I found this - an ad for a job opening at Long Feng at this Long Island City address in Queens - 37-88 Review Avenue.

A quick Google Maps search of this LIC address showed - aha, "Phoenix Beverages".

Here are a couple of screen shots of their old LIC location. I'm not sure if they're still operating from there during their relocation to the Red Hook Piers. You can see the truck with actual Phoenix Beverages markings with the same address as "Long Feng" painted underneath entering the compound.

Mystery solved - it seems as though Long Feng Trucking licenses their trucks to Phoenix Beverages. Whatever the situation, it's pretty clear that "Long Feng Trucking" trucks are "Phoenix Beverages" trucks.

So, look out for those trucks in our neighborhood. As the resident who emailed me noted, these trucks are supposed to be using the internal roadways within the Container Terminal site as much as possible, only entering via Bowne Street (Cruise Ship Terminal entrance) and the bottom of Atlantic Avenue - next to the Pier 6 BBP kiddie's playground. If you see the trucks regularly straying from those routes, it may be an idea to give Phoenix a call on 718-609-7200. Greg Brayman is the owner / VP of Operations who guaranteed at community meetings that these measures would be adhered to. Alternately, you could always email the NYCEDC, who pushed for the deal to bring Phoenix to Brooklyn's waterfront at both Piers 7 and 11, as they have the contract with Phoenix, and it was their contractual requirement - included as a response to objections from the community about the additional 200+ truck trips a day that Phoenix would be bringing - that Phoenix ensured that that their trucks use these internal roadways as much as possible. The EDC's general email is - info@nycedc.com - you should write to the attention of Seth Pinsky (Pesident), Venetia Lannon (VP Maritime), or Andrew Genn (also at the Maritime unit).

There is still no sight of any of those flashy, new, cleaner, CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) burning, brown trucks that Phoenix has also promised, the introduction of which is part of their contractual obligations. As part of their contract with the EDC they have 7 years to convert their entire fleet to this cleaner fuel.

Also, I have seen nothing of Phoenix's operations at Pier 11 at the Atlantic Basin yet. Remember, Phoenix's deal (insisted on by the EDC) meant their taking of both Pier 7 and most of Pier 11 in a 20-year lease - despite only ever asking for either one or the other.

Pier 11 shed and Imlay St. buildings behind.

Pier 11, on right, and Atlantic Basin.

Well, these new trucks and their resultant pollution and congestion will join the other new additions to our neighborhood - the cement trucks at the new and quietly opened cement plant next to IKEA and across the street from Added Value's Organic Farm. (Click here for a slideshow courtesy of Vivian Doskow)

They make lovely bookends to our neighborhood, don't you think?

Anyone want to attend a "Vision 2020 Waterfront Planning" workshop? - see my previous post, below.

Have your Say on Waterfront Planning - Come to the Brooklyn "Vision 2020" Workshop, May 17th, 2010.

2010-04-30T11:47:00.017-04:00

What do you hope to see on our waterfront in the future? Big box stores? Luxury condos? Cement plants? More trucks? More pollution?

Do you have some ideas of what would be appropriate for the Red Hook waterfront? Do you like the idea of having more open space, public access (both physical and visual) and people-friendly activities and amenities? Do you hope for better waterborne transportation options? Are you interested in how planning for Red Hook's waterfront can be better connected to the future plans for Governors Island? Are you interested in the push for the "greening" of the various activities along the waterfront? Are you hoping for the City and its agencies to take a more balanced, resident-friendly approach to future planning along our waterfront and in our neighborhood? Does your small business hope to benefit from planning that better connects it to the broader neighborhood and beyond through the waterfront?

Would you like any development to conform to the EPA supported guidelines called "Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities"? (See them here)

We'll here's your chance to have a say -

As I mentioned in a previous post (here), New York City's Department of City Planning is holding meetings to gather input from the public to help shape their newly announced initiative, Vision 2020 - New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan.

They held their initial meeting on April 8th (slideshow and summary of presentation here), but during May and June, as promised, the City is holding borough specific meetings - they're calling "workshops" - to concentrate on getting input regarding local issues. There is a list of upcoming meetings here.

This from their web site -

We will be holding public workshops in May and June in each borough to present an overview of each Borough’s waterfront resources and to discuss the future of specific waterfront sites. At these workshops, City Planning will present an overview of the borough’s waterfront resources and existing uses. We’ll then break into small groups to discuss particular segments of the Borough’s waterfront, what we refer to as Reaches. For each reach the groups will discuss opportunities and challenges for the future of specific sites along the waterfront. We’re also holding a sixth public meeting to discuss the Blue Network and other citywide issues.

Brooklyn's workshop will be held, as follows -

May 17, 2010, 6-8:30 pm
Brooklyn Technical High School
Dekalb Ave. & S. Elliot Pl, Brooklyn.

View Brooklyn Technical High School in a larger map

Here's the flier. Click on it to enlarge, get transportation information and more.

All this talk of Waterfront Planning reminds me, again, of the words of Bert Hooijer, professor of applied science at Rotterdam University in the Netherlands, who was in New York in September last year as part of the "H209 conference, a Trans-National Look at Modern Urban Water Challenges", a part of the larger Henry Hudson NY400 celebration. Professor Hooijer was on Brian Lehrer's show on WNYC (hear the interview here) and spoke of developing the waterfront in the "right way", with "multiple functions". He said the goal was to "get people to it" and to "combine several disciplines" to "develop the waterfront in a new way."

Professor Hooijer went on to say, "the most beautiful thing to do is to bring the people to the water ... bring the local people to the water ... give people activities to do on the waterfront side" and "on the water" and to "use the quality of the people who are living next to the waterfront."

Good ideas from the Dutch professor ... and surely good ideas for "Roode Hoeke".

See you at the meeting. (And if you can't come you can submit comments on-line, here)

.