Tuesday, November 06, 2007

The Carlton Avenue bridge closure: my errors, ESDC's error

So yesterday I posted a brief article about the planned Carlton Avenue bridge closure, expressing surprise that it would take two years rather than nine months, as stated in the Proposed Construction Schedule attached to the Atlantic Yards Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) produced by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC).

The source of the information was a document sent by a community board member that I erroneously believed to be an ESDC document; rather, it appears to be the summary of a meeting held at the ESDC.

Two years, old news?

And what was the most surprising piece of information to me, that the bridge would be closed two years, wasn't exactly new--and the reference to it in the community board document wasn't incorrect. Late in the day the ESDC pointed me to the Construction Impacts chapter, where changes are noted from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS):
The closure and reconstruction of the Carlton Avenue Bridge would occur from late 2006 through late 2008, over about a 24-month period. The reconstruction of the 6th Avenue Bridge would commence following the opening of the Carlton Avenue Bridge, and would be completed in late 2009.

It also states:
The Carlton Avenue Bridge effort, which was scheduled to be completed within the first 12 months of construction in the DEIS, would likely take two years to facilitate LIRR Vanderbilt Yard reconstruction.

So, between the DEIS and the FEIS, the construction timetable changed. However, those changes were not marked on the Construction Schedule that remained attached to the FEIS. Those of us who relied on the schedule rather than the text of the chapter were misled.

Corrections needed

So I erred in not checking the Construction Schedule against the text of the chapter. And the ESDC erred by not updating the Construction Schedule.

I've corrected my errors. Let's see if the ESDC corrects its error. After all, the agency's board approved the FEIS without anyone pointing out that the Proposed Construction Schedule was already out of date (various activities were supposed to have started 11/1/06, more than a month earlier) and had not been updated to reflect changes made since the DEIS was issued.

No comments:

Post a Comment