Skip to main content

MTA committee smiles on Vanderbilt Yard plan; new memo discloses longer time frame, less intensive work overall (but 95 caisson piles using drill rigs)

Discussion of Forest City Ratner's proposal to move ahead on building of the platform needed for vertical development over the Vanderbilt Yard, while asking for 15 months' delay in the required completion of a permanent railyard proceeded uneventfully at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Long Island Rail Road Committee yesterday.

Following the receipt of a Staff Summary indicating the work would be helpful while the delay not harmful, LIRR President took a few questions from committee members. The concurrent work, he said, means Forest City doesn't "have to come back after the fact and disrupt the yard and disrupt the foundation."

The delay affects full use of permanent railyard, he said. "It is not delaying the overall project. In fact it helps it."

No raised the potential pitfall, as I suggested, that the agreement might make it more difficult to unwind the deal should Forest City and its joint venture partner, the Chinese government-owned Greenland Group, not meet promised milestones, or give the joint venture leverage to gain future extensions or concessions in renegotiations. 

After all, Forest City twice previously pushed back the start of the permanent railyard.

The deal was also discussed at the Finance Committee yesterday, but I missed that discussion. It will be voted on--likely with no dissent--by the full board tomorrow.

New Tech Memo


The Staff Summary mentioned a Technical Memorandum regarding the impact of the new railyard construction plan. I got a copy of it yesterday (bottom) and excerpt it below.

The summary of the work:
The project sponsors have stated that performing the building and platform foundation work as part of the Vanderbilt Yard reconstruction work would simplify the construction means and methods, avoid complications and time associated with taking sections of what would have been a newly built Vanderbilt Yard and disrupting the operation of the yard during foundation activities, and require significantly less supporting work (i.e., shoring and bracing) for the foundation work within the Vanderbilt Yard. Further, the Vanderbilt Yard is built with layers of utilities and other substructures, including duct banks, piping, and retention basins. If the foundations are constructed as part of the Vanderbilt Yard reconstruction work, the various utilities could be installed at the appropriate elevations along the way, streamlining this work. The current New Yard Construction Completion date is September 1, 2016. With the inclusion of the proposed foundation work, the completion date would be extended by 15 months to December 1, 2017. This would represent an increase of the overall duration to complete the rail yard reconstruction work from approximately 26 months to approximately 41 months. However, there would be an overall reduction in the scope of activities at the rail yard because the proposed pre-placement plan would allow construction activities at the LIRR rail yard to be completed more efficiently. ESD has consulted with LIRR which has advised ESD, based on information the project sponsors have provided to LIRR, that the schedule developed by the project sponsors for the proposed foundation and rail yard work is reasonable, would not adversely affect current and near-term LIRR operations, and would not delay or complicate the commencement of East Side Access operations.
The document goes on to describe potential new environmental impacts.

The timetable

Timetable; click to enlarge
The plan as of 2006

The document describes the platform foundation work disclosed in the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement, including the number of workers, trucks, and 32-month timetable for the entire new railyard:
The 2006 FEIS conservatively assumed that a 15-foot deep mat foundation would be placed within the rail yard area on Blocks 1120 and 1121 to serve as the foundation of the developments above the platforms. The 15-foot deep mat foundation was assumed to cover an area of approximately 6.2 acres over the rail yard and would require a substantial amount of concrete and excavation activities. According to the 2006 FEIS analysis, the construction of the 15-foot deep mat foundation would involve approximately 140 concrete trucks per day (20 concrete trucks during the peak activity hour) and the excavation activities at the rail yard would involve approximately 105 to 210 dump trucks per day (15 to 30 trucks during the peak activity hour). The 2006 FEIS assumed that mat foundation activities would be a part of the rail yard reconstruction work that would also include utilities activities, support of excavation and excavation activities, sub-ballast and track work, and electrical activities (i.e., installation of permanent signals and power). The 2006 FEIS estimated that rail yard reconstruction activities, including the 15-foot deep mat foundation work, would take approximately 32 months to complete.
The 2006 FEIS assumed that the rail yard reconstruction work would typically occur during normal construction hours (e.g., 7AM to 3:30PM on weekdays) but could occur outside of normal construction hours so as not to interfere with the LIRR train schedule. Off-hour work would be scheduled to start after the Yard had been vacated to avoid the evening rush hour and be completed before trains would return from the morning rush hour. 
The proposed plan

The document discloses the use of drill rigs and a 41-month time period:
Unlike the mat foundation approach assumed in the 2006 FEIS, the currently proposed foundation pre- placement plan assumes that excavation and concrete work would only be required in the areas where structural support is needed to accommodate the platform and residential development above. As shown in Figure 1, the foundation under the proposed foundation pre-placement plan would be preplaced on Block 1120 and at the southern portion of the rail yard for Buildings 8 to 10 on Block 1121. The proposed foundation pre-placement plan would also require the installation of approximately 95 caisson piles with the use of drill rigs, an activity that was not anticipated previously in the 2006 FEIS. This period is longer than the 32 months assumed for construction of the yard in the 2006 FEIS.
The project sponsors have stated that performing the building and platform foundation work as part of the Vanderbilt Yard reconstruction work would simplify the construction means and methods, avoid complications and time associated with taking sections of what would have been a newly built Vanderbilt Yard and disrupting the operation of the yard during foundation activities, and require significantly less supporting work (i.e., shoring and bracing) for the foundation work within the Vanderbilt Yard. Therefore, the overall construction duration for activities at the Vanderbilt Yard (Phase I and Phase II Project work) would be reduced, although the short-term construction duration at the Vanderbilt Yard (as part of Phase I) to complete the building and platform foundation work with the Vanderbilt Yard reconstruction work would generally be approximately 9 months longer than the construction duration assumed in the 2006 FEIS. Figure 2 shows the construction schedule for the rail yard reconstruction work with the proposed foundation pre-placement plan, which is anticipated to begin in July 2014 with an approximately 41-month completion timeframe.
Environmental effects of Phase 1 construction activities

Despite the nine-month extension of time, the foundation work would be less extensive, since it would require fewer trucks.

It would require installation of 95 caisson piles, each taking two days to install, using two drill rigs. There's no discussion of the concentrated noise impact of such drilling, but the document says the net noise generated would be less than that estimated in 2006:
As discussed above, the construction duration for the rail yard reconfiguration work under the proposed foundation pre-placement plan is generally expected to be approximately 9 months longer than the construction duration assumed in the 2006 FEIS. However, the foundation work under the proposed foundation pre-placement plan would be less intensive overall than the foundation work anticipated in the 2006 FEIS because excavation and concrete work would only be required in the areas where support is needed under the proposed foundation pre-placement plan (rather than a 15-foot deep mat foundation that would be required throughout the rail yard area). The proposed foundation pre-placement plan would therefore require substantially fewer concrete trucks and dump trucks than the number of trucks estimated in the 2006 FEIS. Although the proposed foundation pre-placement plan would require the installation of approximately 95 caisson piles with the use of drill rigs, an activity that was not anticipated previously in the 2006 FEIS, the installation of the piles would be spread out over an 41-month construction period such that the pile installation activities would not persist on a daily basis for an extended period of time. It is anticipated that 2 drill rigs would be on-site when needed to install the caisson piles and that each caisson pile would take approximately two days to install. Caisson installation activities would include pile drilling, rebar installation, and concrete pour (a much smaller amount of concrete is required for the 95 caisson piles compared to the 15-foot deep mat foundation assumed in the 2006 FEIS). Therefore, the net result (substantially less excavation and construction work but additional caisson piles to be installed) is that the traffic, air pollutant emissions, and noise generated under the proposed foundation pre- placement plan would be less than those estimated in the 2006 FEIS.
Also, there would be less overlap of work, meaning less intensive peak periods an thus no new significant adverse impacts:
Further, the 2006 FEIS conservatively assumed an intense level of overlapping construction activities to complete both Phase I and Phase II of the Project over a 10-year construction period, including the Arena construction, Vanderbilt Yard reconstruction work, Urban Room construction, transit connection activities, foundation activities for the platform, as well as activities for Buildings 1 through 4 and Site 5. Fewer project elements are expected to be constructed simultaneously with the foundation work for the platforms and Vanderbilt Yard reconstruction work under the proposed pre-foundation plan than the work contemplated in the 2006 FEIS, especially considering that the most intense Phase I construction activity—Arena and transit connection construction—has already been constructed, thereby lessening overall construction impacts. Additionally, rail yard reconfiguration construction work, including foundation pre-placement, occurring simultaneously with construction of other Phase I and Phase II Project elements, would constitute only a portion of the over-all construction activity on the Project site, and consequently the change in completion date for the permanent rail yard would not extend the total duration of construction activity, nor would it extend the total duration of traffic, air pollutant emissions, and noise associated with construction activity. Therefore, the change in the completion date for the permanent rail yard would not result in additional peak periods of construction activities not previously identified in the 2006 FEIS.
Environmental effects of Phase 2 construction activities

Given that the Final Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement "conservatively assumed that building and platform foundation work would occur as part of the Project’s Phase II activities," the shift to Phase 1 would mean less of an overall impact:
If the building and platform foundation work were to move from Phase II to Phase I and coincide with the Vanderbilt Yard reconstruction work as currently proposed, there would be fewer Phase II construction activities associated with platform construction and therefore the scope of work for platform/building foundations during Phase II of the Project would not exceed the scope of work analyzed in the SEIS. In addition, the supporting work (i.e., shoring and bracing) for the foundation work within Vanderbilt Yard that was assumed to be a part of Phase II platform construction in the SEIS would be significantly reduced. Extension of the completion date would avoid disruption of LIRR operations that would occur in order to place building and platform foundations as part of Phase II construction and eliminate the risk of disruption to electrical and track elements put in place during the yard’s reconstruction. Therefore, Phase II activities involving platform/foundation construction under the proposed foundation pre-placement plan would be substantially less than the platform/foundation construction work assumed in the SEIS and consequently would not result in any new significant adverse impacts, including in the areas of transportation, air quality, and noise, not already identified in the SEIS.
This of course is a bit of a dodge. Phase 2 is the project east of Sixth Avenue, and it will proceed even while Phase 1 is being completed.

The conclusion

The Tech Memo concludes:
Overall, the proposed foundation pre-placement plan would involve less construction activities than those assumed in the 2006 FEIS and would not result in any new significant adverse impacts, including in the areas of transportation, air quality, and noise, not previously identified in the 2006 FEIS or SEIS. Additionally, mitigation measures to address significant adverse construction noise impacts and other measures to minimize diesel-related air emissions were developed assuming the more conservative 2006 FEIS Phase I foundation approach, and assuming the conservative 2014 SEIS Phase II foundation approach. These measures have been and will be implemented in connection with this work throughout the study area as part of Project construction. For these reasons, the proposed foundation pre-placement and associated change to the completion date for the permanent rail yard would not result in new significant adverse impacts warranting further study.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.