Research| Heavy Lift/ RoRo: A study of the Manhattan Waterfront by Geslin George

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront Yiren Bai, Geslin George, Zeynep Goksel, Zoe Siegel, Ryosuke Takahashi

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront This report is the final deliverable for an Urban Planning and Urban Design Workshop (CRP 5172) completed in December 2015. This project was conducted as part of Cornell University’s College of Art, Architecture and Planning New York City program (AAPNYC). This component of the program was developed in 2010 by Robert W. Balder, Executive Director of AAPNYC. Each fall semester, groups comprised of 3-5 students take on different client-based projects and over the course of a few months, develop a scope of work and work towards meeting project goals and objectives determined in partnership with the client, usually a city agency or civic organization based in New York City. This program is open to Master’s Candidates in City and Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture. Participating graduate students receive only academic credit for their work. There is no compensation of any type made to or by the participating governmental and/or civic organizations. The students conduct themselves as if they were retained as professional planning consults and conduct the workshop through the use of a scope of work that is mutually agreed upon. The research, findings, and any recommendations from the workshop are not in any way endorsed by Cornell University, and strictly those of the student team defined within this report. All inquires are to be directed to Robert W. Balder at rwb43@cornell.edu and/ or at 212-497-7597.

Team Heavy Lift

Instructor: Robert W. Balder | Executive Director, AAP NYC Clients: Max Taffet, Ryan White, Andrew Genn | NYC EDC

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Max, Ryan and Ray for their commitment to helping further the project and for being energetic and engaged clients. We must of course acknowledge the several individuals we had the pleasure of interviewing, as their contributions to this project have been immense and extremely insightful: Scott Shostak (EDC), Brian Craine (EDC), Trevor Johnson (Waterfront and Open Space Division, NYC Dept of City Planning), Emil Lissauer (Mayor’s Office of Citywide Events), Jason Marchioni (Weeks Marine), Meenakshi Verandani (NYC SBS), Douglas Friend (AKRF), Bill Dunne, James Connolly, Gina Callender, Richard Pastore, (ConEdison), and Jonathan Libutti (Cornell Tech). A special thanks to all of the individuals who took the time out of their busy schedules to attend our final presentation in December: Andrew Genn (EDC), Brain Craine (EDC), Scott Shostak (EDC), Patrick Thrasher (EDC), Sandra Rothbard (OEM), David Hopkins (EDC), Trevor Johnson (DCP), Adam Zaranko (ORR), and Zach Avre (EDC). And finally, an enormous thanks to Bob, our supervisor and lead navigator, without whom such a thorough study would have been truly impossible. Thank you for keeping our team grounded and on track, and for sharing knowledge of the Manhattan waterfront with us which we could not hope to find in any book or website.

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary

II. Introduction

III. Background

IV. Project Methodology

V. From Service Areas to Coastal Strategic Zones

VI. Potential Sites

VII. Design Typologies

VIII. Limitations

IX. Key Findings and Conclusions

X. Recommended Next Steps

XI. References

XII. Appendices

I. Executive Summary

I. Executive Summary New York City’s five boroughs have more waterfront that Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago combined. Historically, the waterfront has played an essential role in facilitating commerce and trade activities for the boroughs. The development of large scale transportation infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and rail technology over the last 50 -100 years has contributed to reducing this demand and with it, the amount of space allotted to the working waterfront. In more recent years, Manhattan has seen increased efforts to “take back” the waterfront for public recreation and park use. The emergence of major citywide initiatives such as the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, a 32-mile route that circumnavigates Manhattan, and related developments as seen in Hudson River Park, Brooklyn Bridge Park and East River Park continue to achieve tremendous success along the City’s waterfront, opening access to the public through walkways and bike paths and other water side programming. Such initiatives to green and open up equal access for all to the Manhattan waterfront have once again put New York City ahead of the curve in discussions about resiliency and urbanism. While the advantages and value of these efforts are undeniable, this approach to reimagining the city’s relationship to the waterfront has separated out concerns that are equally integral to sustaining the city’s social and physical infrastructure. It has not considered the need for access to the waterfront for industrial and commercial purposes at a time when this need is growing, not only for water-dependent use such as for the transport of power generation components (PGCs) by utility companies, which cannot be moved by bridge due to load restrictions, but also as a measure of preparedness in the event of a natural disaster or emergency. Such an oversight is problematic for several reasons. It overlooks the impacts of the trucking sector on the city’s bridges and main roads as well as its contribution to citywide congestion and air pollution levels. Taking trucks off the bridges would increase air quality and yield lower emissions levels. Additionally, the designs of the many miles of new outdoor spaces do not address the need for waterfront access to and from the island either for the reasons above or in the event of an emergency. Waterfront access was imperative for evacuation and recovery efforts during and after events such as Hurricane Sandy and 9/11, helping to reduce response times, get people out of harm’s Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

way, and preventing additional congestion on gridlocked streets (Marchioni, 2015). Finally, this narrowed view of how waterfront spaces can serve the city precludes the possibility for partnerships between utility companies like ConEdison (ConEd), who have a need for operable waterfront staging area and an ability to cover costs, and groups like Hudson River Park Trust, who are in constant need for additional funding to continue to provide the public amenities and services of the park. There are an array of potential social and economic benefits associated with such a partnership that have not been tapped into. The ability for a heavy lift site to be revenue-generating may also include the movement of equipment for art galleries, museums and rental car agencies as well.

related cargo by water through designated waterfront staging areas (OneNYC, 95). At a larger scale, the goal of this study is to broaden the formal conversation of what constitutes a resilient, strong and smart city to include preparedness through designed heavy lift sites, generating an integrated, bold and even stronger infrastructural paradigm for the future of the city.

The disconnect between concerns about public access and water-dependent or water-related marine commercial activity is a problem that requires reframing the general discussion around heavy lift. This requires a clear explanation to community members and other stakeholders not only on how traditional misconceptions and stereotypes about disruptive industrial activity, associated with constant noise and light pollution, would an unlikely reality of this scenario, but also on the potential value of having such a functionality embedded along the island’s waterfront and even near their community. The need to have the infrastructure in place to secure the island if necessary is unquestionable, and the functional capacity of waterfront areas for the movement of large equipment and cargo should be viewed in tandem with growing initiatives to make the city more resilient. This includes introducing the possibility for shared sites which combine both part-time heavy lift and recreational space open to the public. The objectives of this study have been to survey, collect and analyze data for sites along Manhattan’s waterfront and to identify the most suitable sites for providing heavy lift access to all of Manhattan in the event of an emergency or large construction project. Typologies and concepts for design in the vein mentioned above are offered as strategies which address the unique, challenging set of conditions that New York City faces in this realm while also suggesting that such frameworks may be repeated and adopted in other boroughs and beyond. A series of next steps are posited for those agencies and other partners who we hope will take this project further in coming years as part of the citywide objective noted in OneNYC to green the trucking sector, to reduce the impact of trucks by facilitating delivery of construction-

Dec, 2015

Bush Terminal, Brooklyn (1957) North River, New York Sailing

Navy Yard, Brooklyn (1945) North River, New York Sailing

Manhattan (1951) New York Architecture Images

Bethlehem Steel Ship Yard, Staten Island (1942) North River, New York Sailing

Team Heavy Lift

I. Executive Summary

II. Introduction

process enabled identification of key stakeholders and players such as city agencies and utility companies, ideally a thorough, professionally conducted assessment of the demand for regular heavy lift operation is taken on to help understand the market for heavy lift. This analysis has led to the conclusion that there are two key stakeholders in terms of demand. There are utility companies such as ConEd who must bring in large components such as transformers through the waterfront, and then a separate group of developers, contractors, and others in the construction industry who may require more incentive --if trucks are doing the job, why do it any differently?-- to move to this kind of operation. Deeper considerations in this respect may also bring light to opportunities for fiscal collaboration and organizational partnerships. Additionally, the current site selection process does not account for climate projections particularly as they relate to projections in rising flood levels. This assumption had to be made due to the limited period during which the study was undertaken and should without question be part of the process when such a project moves forward. Finally, assumptions had to be made on load sizes -- while we can expect that large equipment such as transformers will be included here, the specific nature of other types of cargo or equipment to be moved has not been clear.

A. Scope of Work

SCOPE OF SERVICES PHASE I: DISCOVERY + RESEARCH Task 1.1: Workplan/Proposal Task 1.2: Data Collection Task 1.3: Heavy Lift Facilities Research: Local + Global PHASE II: SPATIAL ANALYSIS + SITE SELECTION Task 2.1: Continued interview process Task 2.2: Breakdown of service areas Task 2.3: Development of site selection criteria Task 2.4: Identification of potential project sites PHASE III: DESIGN INTERVENTIONS + RECOMMENDATIONS Task 3.1: Produce preliminary site specific design interventions for full time and part time sites that are selected through the site identification process. The final scope of work was approved on September 27, 2015. For the full scope of work, see Appendix A.

B. Assumptions Given limited time and breadth of expertise, some key assumptions were made in order to move the project forward. First, a general lack of publicly available data meant that certain assumptions had to be made regarding the site selection criteria as well as the site ranking process. This includes information on load bearing capacity for waterfront sites, location and borders of the federal navigation channel, detailed information on shoreline and bulkhead condition, up to date height clearances for elevated road structures, as well as accurate ownership and jurisdiction information. Second, while our research and interview Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

Heavy lift operation on Manhattan

III. Background

B. Definition of Heavy Lift

A. Standards

It is generally accepted, that the term â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;heavy liftâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is used to define cargo units which exceed 100 metric tons in weight. While weight is considered one criterion, heavy lift cargoes include cargo units that are voluminous, vulnerable and difficult to handle (Global United Projects and Shipping). In the context of this project, waterfront heavy lift is understood as the activity required to transport large objects via water onto an upland staging area. The focus of this project has been to identify sites along the waterfront that can service such operations, though upland connections and transportation to a final destination on the island are also considered as determining factors for access and feasibility.

These diagrams depict some of the standard equipment used for heavy lift activities. 10 AxleTrailer The heavy

lift loads mainly considered for this project are 10like AxleTrailer substation operations equipment transformers which weigh about 60-335 tons and other materials and infrastructure used for Load 18'-4" construction purposes (ConED Interview, 2015). 18'-4" Load

63'-2"

18'-4"

1" = 20'

10'-9" 63'-2"

1" = 20'

10'-9"

Example of Largest Heavy Lift Floating Crane Barge

10 AxleTrailer

Example of Largest Heavy Lift Floating Crane Barge 300' 300'

90'

75'

Load

18'-4"

75' Cargo Area 90'

75'

Cargo Area

63'-2"

R260'

10'-9"

1" = 20'

R260'

The axle trailer can carry loads of about 95 tons. (ConED Interview, 2015)

113'-8"

Example of Largest Heavy Lift Floating Crane Barge

113'-8" 22'

22' 300'

300'

22'

90'

1" = 100'

22' 240'

300'

1" = 100'

90' 240'

90'

75'

75' Cargo Area R260'

Example of RoRo Deck Barge Example of RoRo Deck Barge 14'

14' 180'

14'

1" = 100' 54'

14' 180'

1" = 100' 113'-8"

54'

This heavy lift crane floating barge is one of the largest used in Manhattan for heavy lift operations (Marchioni, 2015). 22'

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

22' 300'

90' 240'

C. Precedents As part of the preliminary research phase of this project, a number of international and local precedents were reviewed.

PRESENT Local | Pier 86 The southern portion of Pier 86, where the Intrepid museum is located, is currently used as a heavy lift site by Con Edison of New York (ConEd). ConEd has built a relationship with Hudson River Park Trust and is able to use to this site for all of their heavy lift needs.

Local | Cornell Tech Campus As part of Cornell Tech’s sustainability program, demolition waste and construction materials are transferred via Ro-Ro barge to and from the site on Roosevelt Island. For the trucking and barging process, Cornell University committed to reduce the number of construction vehicles along Main Street “by approximately 40% from the numbers included in the EIS for the project” (Task Force Meeting Summary, 2015). The final environmental impact statement projected 34,258 trucks over the course of 4 years. This 40% reduction would result in 20,554 trucks (an average of around 22 trucks per day with a maximum of 40 per day), meaning 13,703 trucks had to be taken off the roads. According to project updates in March 2015, “Cornell Tech is meeting this commitment in a number of ways: traffic mitigation work with the contractors has achieved a reduction of 4,000 trucks; approximately 6,000 trucks will have been eliminated during demolition; a minimum of 3,650 trucks will be eliminated during construction; the goal is to barge approximately 10,000 trucks” (ibid).

Pier 86 Credit: Sidvics licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 / Cropped from orignal

Team Heavy Lift

Berthing Infrastructure for Cornell Tech Campus construction at Roosevelt Island

RoRo operation for Cornell Tech Campus construction at Roosevelt Island Locations of Precedents in Manhattan

III. Background

PASTLocal | Pier 36 & 42

Local | 9/11

Year: Until early 1990’s

In order to deal with the large quantity of debris caused by the catastrophic events of 9/11, Pier 25 and the South Street Seaport at Pier 6 were both rapidly dredged and prepared for debris removal. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was in charge of the operation and worked with The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to get the staging areas set up as quickly as possible. Weeks Marine Inc. created two steel offloading areas at Pier 25 and the South Street Seaport to accelerate the removal of debris, specifically the massive quantities of steel — the majority of which was then recycled and shipped to China (9/11 Research, 2010).

Year: 2001

Historically, merchant ships that brought in cargo of produce and fruits moored at Pier 42. Surrounding waters had adequate depths to accommodate different vessels, as well as ample staging area to accommodate self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs) (See Appendix A) and trailers, thus eliminating the need for road closures. Weeks Marine Inc. has used this site for the delivery of PGCs (See Appendix A) for ConEd. The key limitation of the pier is its limited loading capacity (Marchioni, 2015).

Local | Superstorm Sandy Year: 2012 After Superstorm Sandy, as water levels receded and recovery efforts began, the U.S Army Corps led efforts to remove debris from Manhattan using heavy lift/RORO operations along the waterfront. The debris was temporarily stored at Fresh Kills Park in Staten Island, NY before it was hauled to long term storage sites (US Army Corp of Engineers, 2012).

FEMA’s debris removal operation after 9/11 at Pier 25 Credit: Larry Lerner/ FEMA News Photo (https://www.nysm.nysed.gov)

RoRo operation at Pier 36 (1982)

Pier 36/42

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Debris removal operation after Super Stom Sandy Credit: US Army Corps of Engineering (http://www.nad.usace.army.mil)

Dec, 2015

Local | “Miracle on the Hudson”

International | London

FUTUREFuture- Local | 2nd Ave Subway

Year: 2009

Year: 2010-2012

After experiencing engine failure from multiple bird strikes, the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549 successfully landed on the Hudson River after departing from La Guardia airport on January 15, 2009. While some people were injured, none of 155 passengers and crew died because of this well-managed landing, which also did not cause any upland destruction or damage. Two nights after the incident, the aircraft (Airbus 320) was removed from the icy water via crane barge on the shore of Nelson A. Rockefeller Park. After investigation of the aircraft, it was eventually transported from New Jersey to the Carolinas Aviation Museum (Hudson Services, 2010).

During the construction phase of the London 2012 Olympic Games, over eight kilometers of waterways in and around the Olympic Park were used to transport materials by barge and take trucks off the roads. The waterways project was part of the Olympic Delivery Authority’s 2007 Sustainable Development Strategy, which aimed to transport 50 percent of materials used during the Olympic construction phase by rail or water. To make this possible, a multi-million pound dredging programme was completed to clear the water freight route on the Prescott Channel (Brass, 2009). Transportation of cargo by water was also used during the construction of London’s Blackfriars Station. Over the construction period from 2010 to 2012, barges were used on a daily basis to deliver and remove materials from the station along the River Thames. In addition to barges having greater capacity for transporting materials to the site, the process was also more efficient, having the added value of complementing the carbon reduction agenda by helping to reduce the impact of bridge construction work (Quigley, 2010).

Year: TBD As part of the construction of the Second Avenue subway, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is planning to construct barge sites at East 129th Street and at the South Street Seaport at Pier 6 in Lower Manhattan. The barge sites would be in use for up to ten years, and would be removed following construction, after which the sites would be restored to their former conditions or developed for water-related activities. The waterfront esplanade that runs along the East River at Pier 6 will be closed and water-related recreation activities will not be permitted during the construction process at either site. There are already plans under way to dredge the Harlem River at the 129th Street site to accommodate the barge activities (Second Avenue Subway SDEIS).

Heavy Lift crane barges and the aircraft Credit: Engineering News Record (http://www.enr.com)

Loaded aircraft on a barge Credit: NJ (http:///www.nj.com)

Team Heavy Lift

RoRo Operation at Roosevelt Island Credit: Port of London Authority (https://www.pla.co.uk)

2nd Ave Subway Plan Credit:

III. Background

IV. Project Methodology

listed and described in Section VI.

A. Phases Phase I / Discovery and Research In the initial phase of the project, the team built a scope of work (see page 6) to assess and frame the client’s needs. The first steps were to get moving on scheduling interviews with maritime and policy experts that would inform and strengthen our research development and to familiarize ourselves with the discourse, vocabulary and news surrounding heavy lift and RoRo activity in Manhattan. This phase also included exploration of various precedents, both locally throughout New York City boroughs and across the world, as well as an extensive process of spatial data collection and analysis through GIS and other publicly available sources. This also included a boat tour of the entirety of the Manhattan waterfront, which enabled both video and photographic documentation of the shoreline and offered an on-the-ground opportunity to identify potential sites and assess waterfront conditions and upland relationships.

The end of this phase included the development of a ranking methodology by which the list of preliminary sites could be viewed in order of feasibility. While limited in some areas due to the lack of available data, this process enabled a scoring of each individual site based on particular attributes as well as a narrowing down of sites from the first round. Certain factors such as whether built development is being planned for site were in most cases prohibitive and thus had greater weights associated with them, moving sites to lower sections of the rankings. The descriptions of each category as well as their point assignments are discussed in Section VI. The ranking categories are: • Ownership and Jurisdiction • Current Use (Land Use, Intensity/Frequency) • Planned Development on Site • Geometry, Area/Square Footage • Linkages/Elevated Structures • Linkages/Access to Nearest Truck Route

Phase II / Spatial Analysis and Site Selection

• Linkages/Potential Disruption to Surrounding Activity

The second phase of the project drew from insights gathered in Phase I to determine area boundary designations for strategic, accessible waterfront zones on the island and to develop an extensive list of site selection criteria. To begin determining what factors and conditions were most important for service areas in Manhattan, we layered and analyzed various sets of spatial data, charts and maps that might guide these boundaries and ultimately our site selection. We were also able to conduct a bike tour of the Manhattan waterfront which offered the opportunity for a more detailed exploration of conditions on specific sites and along sections of the shoreline. Based on these combined findings the group decided to reframe the concept of service areas by instead designating Coastal Strategic Zones, a move explained in further detail in Section V. After thorough research and analysis of spatial conditions and factors, it was determined that each criterion for site selection fell under one of three categories: the site itself, surrounding areas, and physical land and water attributes. The full set of criteria is Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

• Potentially Problematic Facilities/Issues/Surrounding Areas within 500 ft Radius • Anticipated Cost

Phase III / Design Interventions and Recommendations The final phase of the study involved generating analysis based on our ranking findings and final list of opportunity sites. This guided the decision to provide a more cohesive, strategic design concept and approach rather than a site-specific design specific to conditions in Manhattan. In this phase, a number of typologies are offered based on recurring challenges seen throughout the project. Using this approach had the additional objective of serving broader contexts where similar challenges may call for the deployment of such efforts or infrastructure. Each typology includes a description of the selected scenario, a design and operational strategy, and an example site drawn from our list of potential sites.

Dec, 2015

TIME LINE

PHASE 1

SEPTEMBER

PHASE 2

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

PHASE 3

DECEMBER

Develop scope of work and internal workplan Terminologies, Research, Precedents Data Collection - Maps, Charts, GIS data Fieldwork, including boat and bike tours Interviews and Site Visits Formulation of Strategic Zone Criteria Designation of Strategic Zone Boundaries Identify and Build Site Selection Criteria Identification of Opportunity Sites Build Site Profiles Generate Report Structure Conceptualize design approach Generate a list of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;finalistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sites Develop ranking mechanism to sort sites Ranking analysis and determine next steps Finalize design concept Drawing, classification and description of each design intervention Draft Report Content and Analysis

Team Heavy Lift

IV. Project Methodology

V. From Service Areas to Coastal Strategic Zones

V. From Service Areas to Coastal Strategic Zones The original scope of work of this project involved a process of defining and delineating certain areas in Manhattan that might aid in framing decisions on site selection: Would the most strategic option be to have one heavy lift or RoRo site in each service area? The team examined whether existing service area models exist and which boundaries of other municipal service areas would be relevant to heavy lift or RoRo activity. Initially, the team looked at a range of designated boundaries such as community board districts, police precincts, and fire districts, and Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) zones, alongside other essential components such as truck routes; elevated structures such as the FDR that might obstruct access for large cargo and trucks and/or require road closures; areas anticipated to see an increase in demand for heavy lift in coming years like the Hudson Yards project; coastline areas with poor or inaccessible conditions for heavy lift activity; and more. These concepts set the tone for moving into more detailed discussion about the most appropriate and relevant criteria and boundaries for service areas.

A.What/Why Strategic Zones? Upon further analysis, it became clear that the concept of serv Upon further analysis, it became clear that the concept of service areas, defined as areas to be serviced by a specific waterfront site, was slightly problematic. It was determined to be impractical at this stage to determine the areas serviced by a site prior to having a more detailed understanding of the sites themselves in terms of position along the waterfront, proximity to roads and elevated structures, surrounding neighborhoods and so on. The team reworked this framework to develop Coastal Strategic Zones. The purpose of Coastal Strategic Zones is to manageably break up the island based on shared characteristics which may share certain needs for a heavy lift operation both on land and on water. This was not a simple process, given the complex, dense geography of Manhattan. But after much discussion, the team was able to designate six strategic zones which address specific area needs and conditions. While the issue persisted that in some ways, such a preliminary setting of boundaries would not adequately frame the question of where such sites are to be located, this was a productive first step for Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

thinking about need and access as factors for site selection. Each strategic zone shares physical upland and waterfront characteristics and have been determined through careful analysis of the Manhattan waterfront using the criteria described below.

B. Strategic Zone Criteria

Elevated Structures Elevated structures refer to any elevated road or rail line along or near the coastline. These areas are potentially problematic due to limited height clearances.

Water Depths

Anticipated Development Anticipated development refers to built development that is either currently under construction or already planned. Such developments provide general knowledge of where and how much construction material and equipment will be needed citywide over the next five to ten years. The strategic zones consider anticipated development, such as the Hudson Yards or the upcoming ‘Big U’, in order to gauge demand and strategies for evenly distributing the burden for future heavy lift service.

Truck Routes Designated truck routes are essential to consider in terms of movement to and from the waterfront to an upland destination. These routes have the appropriate road width and load bearing capacity to accommodate trucks with heavy loads. The existing network of truck routes is considered to the extent that it offers a basic dividing boundary for balancing those areas with abundant truck routes and those with more sparse access.

Building Density - Building Height Building density adds another additional layer to characterizing strategic zones. Building heights are examined with the assumption that denser areas may have greater future service needs while also offering a picture of where lower buildings may present construction opportunities through transferable air rights.

Sensitive Areas - Hospitals, no boating zones, underground utilities etc. These are defined as areas where heavy lift services along the waterfront may be strictly constrained, either due to legal issues or safety concerns, such as the location of the United Nations, proximity to hospitals, bridges and tunnels, and

Dec, 2015

underground cable areas.

Bulkheads or areas near deeper waters are ideal for heavy lift operations so as to accommodate the barge. Shallow waters will have to be dredged to accommodate such operations.

Priority Marine Activity Zones (PMAZ) The PMAZ are areas with concentrations of waterborne transportation uses and are important nodes that support the city’s waterborne transportation and maritime activities. These areas are characterized by shorelines used for vessel docking, berthing, or tie-up and where the maritime infrastructure—such as bulkheads, docks, piers, and fendering is designed to support such uses.

Topography Topography along the coastline is a significant consideration and determinant for upland access via the waterfront. Coastal areas with higher elevation will be exponentially more difficult for a heavy lift or roll on roll off barge to operate due to increased challenges of physical access.

Truck Routes and Elevated Structures

Open Space and Vacant Lots Open space, parks and vacant lots offer an idea about available, relatively underbuilt space along the waterfront.

Truck routes are important for transportation from the site into the city. Elevated structures support this network but pose a major challenge along the waterfront due to limited height clearances.

Team Heavy Lift

V. From Service Areas to Coastal Strategic Zones

5,000

10,000 ft

Topography

Water Depths

The northern area has significant topography which inhibits access and may cause difficulties for shoreline access.

Water depths are crucial for large vessels. Shallow areas will not permit such operations until dredged.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

Administrative Boundaries The island is divided into multiple zones for different purposes. Though each is specialized for its own purposes, they are good examples for considering road access and administrative structure.

Community District

Team Heavy Lift

Fire Battalion

Police Precinct

V. From Service Areas to Coastal Strategic Zones

C. Costal Strategic Zones Zone 1: Southern Tip of Manhattan This area is characterized by dense, tall buildings and a nonlinear street grid. Historically, this zone has benefitted immensely from access to the waterfront for both heavy lift and emergency recovery purposes, though with park and resiliency initiatives moving forward, it has the growing challenge of increased waterfront development. The western section of this zone has ideal water depths which range from approximately 1517 feet. The east side varies from a depths as shallow as 2 feet to 5 feet. The only elevated road structure in this zone is the FDR on the eastern side starting at South Street Seaport heliport at Pier 6. Due to the dense and nonlinear nature of the roads in this area, the east-west span of this zone does not have many truck routes, through the north-south span has multiple. Given this area’s experience evacuating after 9/11 as well as its recent coastal resiliency efforts, this is an ideal opportunity area for heavy lift/ disaster recovery operations.

Zone 2: East River South This zone is characterized by complex conditions of elevated road structures that run parallel to the shoreline. Access to the grid in terms of vertical clearance for trucks may be a challenge in several points in this zone. The bridges have enough clearance to allow a barge to pass underneath and water depths are adequate enough to avoid the need for dredging. This zone also contains Pier 36 and 42 which have been used for heavy lift activity in the past.

Zone 3: East River North This zone is characterized by a unique elevated road structure typology where many buildings are cantilevered above the FDR. These buildings are primarily hospitals or otherwise dedicated to scientific research and laboratory work which may work both in favor and against any heavy lift barge activity. In case of an emergency, such positioning and direct connection to hospitals may be ideal (ability to connect to to energy sources, deliver necessary recovery items, or move people) though a heavy lift situation which requires regular activity may be both a nuisance and potentially hazardous with hospitals in such close Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

proximity. While the location of this zone on the east side, just south of where the channel narrows, has ideal access to the outer boroughs and could benefit from having a site for such purposes, this combination of infrastructural and access conditions provide a unique set of challenges.

Zone 4: Northern Tip of Manhattan The defining characteristic of this zone is its unique topography. On the west side, preserved parkland and steep changes in topography limit upland access from the water. The proposed rezoning of Inwood may make a heavy lift site useful in the near future and is a factor to consider. The eastern section of Zone 5 has numerous bridges, some of which have low clearance limits. This area could prove difficult for a heavy lift operation. The water depths at the shore are the most shallow of all the zones at approximately 5 feet across the majority of the area.

There are no elevated road structures along the waterfront in this zone, but the areas around the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels are designated no boating areas and will require careful consideration when identifying barge routes. While strong community pushback is anticipated in this area, this stretch of the island was hard-hit by Hurricane Sandy and members of the community may find it in their long-term interests to have either a part-time heavy lift area or a shared space that is open to the public that can be used to move cargo or people in case of an emergency.

Zone 5: West Side, Riverside Park This zone is characterized by minimal road access from the waterfront and water depths of 5-7 feet at the shoreline. Riverside park could provide similar problems as those seen in Zone 2 (Hudson River Greenway), though due to accessibility challenges posed by elevated structures and existing activities, it is anticipated that there will be far fewer potential sites in this area.

Zone 6: Hudson River Greenway This section of the Hudson River Greenway presents unique physical and social challenges. As the majority of this area has either recently been developed or has plans for future development, the opportunities to renovate an existing site or add new infrastructure for heavy lift are scarce. Water depths are ideal in most parts of this zone, being relatively deeper at the bulkhead than on other parts of the island. In terms of physical characteristics, this zone is also particularly accommodating as it includes clusters of piers already identified as PMAZ, special area designations made in New York’s Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) that assist WRP consistency review and encourage marine commercial activity. They are characterized by “shorelines used for vessel docking, berthing, or tie-up and where the maritime infrastructure—such as bulkheads, docks, piers, and fendering—is designed to support such uses (Waterfront Revitalization, 2012).

Dec, 2015

5,000

10,000 ft

Coastal Strategic Zones

VI. Potential Sites

designated and prioritized for marine infrastructure and activity by the City.

A. Site Selection Criteria and Preliminary Sites

It is crucial to be aware of ownership and jurisdictional authority over each property. In most cases, it can be assumed that a city-owned property will expedite the permitting and approval processes for carrying out heavy lift operations in comparison to the challenges of a property that is privately owned.

THE SITE • Current Use • Priority Marine Activity Zones (PMAZ) • Ownership • Linkage/Access • Loading capacities • Geometry, Area Planned development SURROUNDING AREAS – LAND • Anticipated use/development • Elevated structures • Road structures - Clearance, Bridges and Tunnels • Zoning and Lands Use • Sensitive Areas SURROUNDING AREAS – WATER • Waterfront typology and Shoreline condition • Water depths

Site Selection Criteria Analysis The following is a discussion and explanation of our site selection criteria. Current use on-site is of direct and critical importance in determining feasibility for heavy lift/RoRo conversion. The site should have a staging area large enough to accommodate large components temporarily before loading onto trucks or trailers. Additionally, any built structures which currently exist on-site must be considered and assessed to determine whether they might aid or hinder heavy lift/RoRo operations. The size of the structure and its position and proximity to the shoreline are significant factors to consider. In terms of waterfront access, the site should have ample water frontage to ensure that the vessel is in the loading zone and does not encroach on the Federal Navigation Channel when stationed for heavy lift operation. In addition, sites that are in currently in a PMAZ area should be considered as ideal locations for heavy lift as they are already Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

When determining the need for a heavy lift site, the condition and current zoning of the surrounding area are also important factors to consider. Aside from water-dependent uses such as the need to move indivisible components like transformers, heavy lift sites will be of greater value in areas that anticipate future development. These areas and/or those currently undergoing upzoning are considered in the site selection criteria. Elevated road structures like highways, bridges and rail lines near the site must be considered to ensure appropriate clearance for the transportation of loads by truck. While sites that are close to an elevated structure could be a possibility depending on the size of the load, sites that are at grade and do not have the added challenge of an elevated structure are more preferable and take priority. Many of the bridges and tunnels which connect to Manhattan have load restrictions and need to be carefully examined when determining routes from a site to a final destination. There are a number of sensitive areas where waterfront operations are restricted, such as near the United Nations, in coast guard security zones, and around subsurface cable and utility areas. We included the areas around hospitals in the criteria, and consider that these areas could be reason for (delivery of equipment or personnel in case of an emergency or recovery) and against (noise complaints, vibration, hazards of heavy infrastructure) proximity to a heavy lift site. The typology and condition of the shoreline are important for understanding challenges faced along the waterfront such as the need for shoreline upgrades and potentially for dredging. Sites with an existing bulkhead that have a high load-bearing capacity are ideal. The majority of sites included in this study already have bulkhead infrastructure in place, though a more thorough assessment of their condition is required. Sites with other shoreline typologies could be considered if the site ranks well in other categories. Sites with existing marine infrastructure such as a pier, dock or bulkhead may have the advantage of lower anticipated costs as there may not be a need to construct entirely new infrastructure. Particularly when considering sites close to fast

Dec, 2015

tidal currents, close attention needs to paid in order to make sure that the site has adequate frontage and space to accommodate spud barges or barges with big ballast tanks that would be stable and able to withstand shifting aquatic conditions.

Preliminary Sites (see map on next page) #

NAME

LOCATION

RIVER

South Street Heliport (Pier 6)

Broad St

East

Pier 9

Old Slip

East

Pier 15

Fletcher St

East

Pier 42

Montgomery St

East

East River Park

E Houston St

East

ConEd Plant @ 14th St

E 14th St

East

Stuyvesant Cove

E 23rd St

East

East 34th St Heliport

E 34th St

East

Former Marine Transfer Station @ 61st St

E 61st St

East

Former ConEd Plant @ 74th St

E 74th St

East

Marine Transfer Station @ 91st St

E 91st St

East

E 91st - 103rd St

E 96th St

East

107th St Fishing Pier

E 107th St

East

E 110-111th St

E 110th St

East

W 128th - 132nd St

E 132nd St

East

Sherman Creek

E 204th St

East

MTA Yard @ 207th St

E 207th St

East

W 219th St

East

Inwood Park @ Dyckman St

Dyckman St

Hudson

Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St

W 135th St

Hudson

Marine Transfer Station @ 59th St

W 59th St

Hudson

Pier 98

W 58th St

Hudson

Pier 97

W 56th St

Hudson

Pier 86

W 46th St

Hudson

Pier 76

W 38th St

Hudson

West 30th St Heliport

W 30th St

Hudson

Pier 57

W 15th St

Hudson

Pier 54

W 13th St

Hudson

Marine Transfer Station @ Gansevoort St

Gansevoort St

Hudson

Pier 40

Houston St

Hudson

Pier 26

N Moore St

Hudson

Team Heavy Lift 25 VI. Potential Sites

27 28 29

21 22 23

Preliminaryl Sites

ston

rd S

Hou

nal

5,000

am be rS

2,500

3 2 1

10,000 ft

6th

5th

17 8th

14 13

B. Ranking Methodology

• High Conflict (-10)

The team developed a ranking mechanism for scoring the sites and differentiating them based on their attributes. In this ranking system, there are nine main categories derived from the criteria presented above which were assessed to be the most influential for determining feasibility. Each ranking category is assigned sub-categories, each of which is paired with a different score to reflect priority and weigh the factor’s importance. The lower the score, the more difficult the operation of heavy lift activities is determined to be. (See Appendix D for the full ranking table)

Ownership and Jurisdiction In many cases, ownership and jurisdiction over waterfront properties align but do not belong to the same entity. Ownership refers to the individual or agency with ownership rights and duties over the property, and jurisdiction describes the the practical authority to interpret and apply the law, or to govern and legislate. The four categories are defined as:

No conflict is the physical activity on site going to be no problematic for a heavy lift site. Some conflict could be a site with temporary uses or where the facility does not occupy the majority of the space. High conflict could entail a highly trafficked recreational space or facility that is in operation for most hours of the day, particularly at night.

Planned Development on Site This category accounts for built development that has been approved for the site in coming months or years. Examining existing plans allows us to think about the possibility of congruent use between any planned programming/activities and heavy lift, and the difficulty of conducting heavy lift activities on recently developed sites. Achieving congruent use is the goal for all planned development on site, though more often than not any planned development prohibits use for heavy lift purposes. • No - No Problem (3)

• City Owned and City Organization Management (ex. EDC) (3) • City Owned and Private Management (ex. Hudson River Park Trust) (2) • State/ Federally Owned and City Management (1) A scenario where the city owns and manages the property is the most desirable and ideal for going through legal processes and making heavy lift activities happen. In contrast, sites which are controlled privately may present added legal and logistical challenges.

Understanding current use(s) on site may significantly impact the possibility for heavy lift operations. The more sophisticated and complex the type, intensity and frequency of current use, the less likely a smooth heavy lift scenario will be. Three sub-categories were developed to describe the intensity of conflicts between current use and future heavy lift use. • Some Conflict (2) Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

This category accounts for elevated roads, rail lines, and/or physical infrastructure along or near the coastline that may impede the ability for trucks to move into the city from a waterfront site if they do not have adequate vertical clearance and/or load-bearing capacity. Areas with limited clearance pose an added challenge and require more detailed consideration. • No elevated structures (3) • Elevated structures w/ 12’5’’ clearance (2) • Elevated structures w/ limited clearance (1)

Linkages/Access to Nearest Truck Route Truck routes are essential for streamlining the transportation of heavy loads from a site to its destination. It is crucial that truck routes be accessible from waterfront sites and into the grid. • Low (3)

• Yes - Major Problem (-25)

• Medium (2) • High (1)

This category takes into account the property shape, area, and spatial upland-waterfront relationship. Based on interviews and research, it is assumed that heavy lift requires certain baseline standards for land area as well as water frontage. Based on this, the subcategories are divided as such:

Potential disruption refers to the extent to which heavy lift activities would interrupt the status quo through disruptions of regular movement or activity. The degree of disruption is divided into three sub-categories. • Low (3)

• Suitable Land Area (Square Footage of Site) (2)

• High (1)

Adequate water frontage means a barge will have enough space to dock in order to transfer material. This ranges from 60’-120’, based on the size of standard crane barges (Heartland Barge, 2015). Suitable land area refers to an area of 20,000 square feet or more (Weeks Marine, 2015). Suitable land Area and Adequate Water Frontage refers to a site that fulfills both the above standards. It is important to clarify that in terms of the site geometry, consideration is not given to extra room for storage facilities and staging areas but only the minimum working area for

Dec, 2015

Linkages/Potential Disruption to Surrounding Activity

• Suitable Land Area and Adequate Water Frontage (60’ or more) (3) • Adequate Water Frontage (60’ or more) (1)

Current Use - Type, Intensity & Frequency

Linkages/Elevated Structures

• Maybe/Unclear - Potential Problem (2)

Geometry, Area/Square Footage

• Privately Owned or Other (1)

• No Conflict (3)

heavy lift to operate.

• Medium (2) Low potential disruption means while heavy lift activities happen, roads do not need to be shut down and minimizing general activity does not require NYPD or other agency operation. Medium disruption may include proximity to space that is currently open to the public such as a park, and/or the need to shut down bikeways and/or sidewalks for heavy lift to occur. High disruption includes the need for highway or road closures, the deployment of NYPD or other supervising agencies, and/or bikeway/sidewalk closures.

Potentially Problematic Facilities/Issues/Surrounding Areas within a 500 ft Radius This category accounts for elements which severely constrain the possibility for heavy lift activity for legal, security or other reasons. These include areas such as the United Nations, certain hospital locations, temporary no-boating areas, and subsurface cable areas. In this ranking system, we deduct one point for each constrained factor. • (-1) per factor: underground utilities, no boating areas, hospitals

Anticipated Cost

Ownership

Anticipated cost is the cost that is calculated based on the current waterfront site condition, mainly focusing on site construction or renovation. Since the team had limited knowledge of the required engineering and construction, broad estimates are separated into three categories:

Most properties along the waterfront are owned by the city.

• Low (5) • Unclear (3) • High (0) Low anticipated cost is assigned to situations that will not require additional infrastructure or construction. Unclear is attributed to sites which will require additional infrastructure/work but determining the cost is outside the scope of this project. High anticipated cost is defined as anticipated demolition, renovation and new construction.

Team Heavy Lift

VI. Potential Sites

Sensitive Areas

Areas of Interest

Sensitive areas such as hospitals and medical facilities, temporary no boating zones and underground utility areas inhibit heavy and/or prolonged use of waterfront areas.

Areas of interest including utility companies and facilities which may require large deliveries by water and anticipated development. Upcoming construction may require or benefit from waterfront heavy lift opportunities, particularly large-scale development projects such as the Hudson Yards on the west side of Manhattan.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

C. Rankings Using the ranking system that we developed, here is the top 15 opportunity sites among the entire site list.

RANKING

NAME

South St Seaport (Pier 6)

West 30th St Heliport

East 34th St Heliport

E 110th -111th Streets

Marine Transfer Station @ Gansevoort

Pier 86

Pier 97

Marine Transfer Station @ 59th St

Pier 42

W 219th St

107th Street Fishing Pier

E 91st - 103rd St

Pier 76

Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St

Marine Transfer Station @ 61 St

Old ConEd Station @ 74th St

D. Written Ranking Analysis To the extent possible, the team sought ensure the even distribution of potential sites across the island. The top opportunity sites determined in the rankings are dispersed throughout across five of the six strategic zones and many sites share certain built typologies which make them potentially desirable heavy lift sites, such as marine transfer stations and heliports. Many of the sites that have been used for heavy lift in the past, such as the 34th Street Heliport, the South St Seaport, Pier 42 and Pier 86, also made it to this top tier list, indicating reassuringly that with concentrated effort it could be possible to designate these as future heavy lift sites. Overlaying the strategic zone map with our top opportunity sites, it is possible to see the geographic variety and distribution of the sites in relationship to each zone. Ideally each strategic zone would include at least one heavy lift site to guarantee access and service capacities. Additionally, Team Heavy Lift

distributing heavy lift sites throughout Manhattan would create a constellation of possible sites that could be activated given the needs of a particular scenario. In this way, embedding a network of sites that could be used for heavy lift, becomes part of the working infrastructure of the city while, for the most part, allowing programming and activities to continue uninterrupted.

Site Ranking and Coastal Strategic Zones

A Note on Air Rights Many of the potential sites require extensive renovation to maximize access and increase load bearing capacity around the bulkhead. In an effort to offset anticipated costs, Transferable Development Rights may be considered as a potential funding mechanism for future site development. Transferable Development Rights refers to â&#x20AC;&#x153;any mechanism that enables the transfer of floor area across preexisting zoning lot lines, whether to contiguous lots or across distances that might span several blocksâ&#x20AC;? (NYC DCP Research). The possibility of this type of transfer depends on the available air rights that are left on lots. Using data provided by the Municipal Arts Society, we were able to determine which of our potential sites could potentially use air rights transfer to fund the retrofit to accommodate a heavy lift. However, this analysis is not the final determinant in identifying which sites could be funded through air rights transfers: the transfer is contingent upon whether adjacent lots are interested in purchasing the FAR and whether it would be allowed. The inclusion of air rights transfers and FAR in this project is a preliminary suggestion; a detailed analysis would need to be conducted to determine whether this is a feasible funding mechanism for the site.

VI. Potential Sites

South St Seaport (Pier 6)

West 30th St Heliport LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Inside the site Turning Radius of 45â&#x20AC;&#x2122; to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

South Street Heliport City NYC DSBS Y Heliport N/A (Connection to FDR only) C4-6 Commercial N N N Park, C6-9 Commercial, Park N (located where FDR starts to rise) Y Y Y N/A Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 11' - 33'

Located near the tip of Manhattan in an area that lacks access to adequate dock and berthing sites, this could be an ideal site and has been used for heavy lift activity in the past. South St Seaport (Pier 6) is presently an active heliport (the South Street Heliport) and therefore could be a part-time heavy lift site without interrupting daily use or public access.There is enough upland, however the location is close to where the FDR begins and the elevation could provide challenges. While location is ideal, it has the disadvantages of having a history of accidents during heavy lift operations due to road closures and of being a point of contention in the surrounding residential community who want it shut down because of the noise it brings.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

E 34th Street City NYC EDC Y Heliport N/A M2-3 Manufacturing N

Y R8, C1-9, C4-6, C6-2 Commerical, Residential Y Y Y Y FDR Bulkhead Bulkhead No visible damage 10' - 18'

The West 30th St Heliport functions as an active heliport and could also function as a parttime heavy lift site. The proximity of the site to the Hudson Yards development bolsters the case for this site as it could be used to move large cargo and infrastructure from the water for the next several years. The site is in the heart of Hudson River Park and is surrounded by recreational spaces.

East 34th St Heliport

E 110th -111th Streets LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

E 34th Street

City NYC EDC Y Heliport N/A M2-3 Manufacturing N

Y R8, C1-9, C4-6, C6-2 Commerical, Residential Y Y Y Y FDR Bulkhead Bulkhead No visible damage 10' - 18'

The East 34th Street Heliport is located on the East River Greenway between the East River and the FDR Drive viaduct. It is a public heliport owned by New York City and run by NYCEDC. The existing heliport infrastructure could present an ideal scenario for combined, dual use with a heavy lift site. While heavy lift activity has taken place here recently, this case would likely entail making additional physical adjustments to the site to increase its load-bearing capacity.

Team Heavy Lift

E 110th-111th St City NYC DSBS N N Empty Land R7-2 Residential N N Park, R7-2 Park, Residential N N N Y N Bulkhead No visible damage 9' - 12'

Starting at 110th Street, this small plot of land could be an ideal location if there is a need for heavy lift in this area. The access could be a problem and would require significant renovation to increase the load bearing capacity, though the scarcity of locations in this area make it worth considering.

VI. Potential Sites

Marine Transfer Station @ Gansevoort

Pier 97 LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

Gansevoort

City DSNY N Marine Transfer Station N/A M2-3 Manufacturing Y Y Y C6-2A, C1-7A, M1-5, R6 Manufacturing, Commerical, Residential N Y Y Y Bulkhead Bulkhead No visible damage 7' - 26'

As a functioning marine transfer station located in the heart of the Hudson River Park, this site poses both advantages and challenges. There are plans to renovate the site using a shared space model between a park and a stateof-the-art marine transfer station. The plans are not finalized, and with a few minor considerations could be a great opportunity to incorporate the necessary infrastructure for heavy lift activity when necessary. Even with the proposed park and new infrastructure there would still be adequate space for a heavy lift operation.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

W 57th City NYC DSBS N Seasonal concert venue, parking Walking and Biking Path M2-3 Manufacturing N Y Y M3-2, C4-7, M1-5 Manufacturing, Commerical N Y Y Y Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 13' - 17'

Located on the northern portion of of Hudson River Park at West 57th Street, Pier 97 is currently used seasonally as a live music venue. Hudson River Park Trust has future plans to renovate as a public pier with active recreation courts, a playground and a lawn. As the plans are not yet finalized, this could also be an opportunity to propose part-time heavy lift during different seasons and/or during the nighttime when the space is closed off for public use.

Pier 86

Pier 42 LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

44th Street

City NYC DSBS Y Museum Museum M2-3 Manufacturing N N Y M2-4, M1-6, R8 Manufacturing, Residential N Y N Y 46th Street Bulkhead Bulkhead No visible damage 7' - 13'

Home to the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum and controlled by Hudson River Park Trust, Pier 86 is currently the only regularly used heavy lift site in Manhattan. ConEd has been using this site for heavy lift for PGCs for many years. Located at West 45th Street, this location has high potential due to the ease of access to truck routes and major development in nearby areas that may need or prefer to transport constructional materials by water, particularly as the infrastructure required for heavy lift is already in place. A challenge to this site could be getting Hudson River Park Trust to agree to increased heavy lift activity at this site, though a clearly planned strategic effort could alleviate these concerns.

Team Heavy Lift

E Montogomery Street City NYC Parks No N Open Space M1-4 Manufacturing Y N Big U Park, R7-2 Park, Residential N N Y Y FDR touches the ground Part of the pier Bulkhead No visible damage 23' - 35'

Located between the Williamsburg Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge on Manhattan’s east side, Pier 42 was the last working cargo pier on the Manhattan shore of the East River. The pier sat vacant for many years and was used only for small storage and parking until Superstorm Sandy when it was flooded and further damaged. Local residents subsequently demanded this site be turned into a waterfront park with soft barriers to storm surges. The current designs call for a retrofit of the bulkhead and existing infrastructure which would be compatible infrastructure for occasional heavy lift activity (Paths to Pier, 2015), though plans for the ‘Big U’ may hinder this possibility (Friend and Hopkins).

VI. Potential Sites

W 219th St

Marine Transfer Station @ 59th St LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction:

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water:

219th street

PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

Multiple - City and Other Department of General Services (C), New York City Transit (C), Time Warner Cable N

Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

Parking Lot M3-1 Manufacturing Y

Y M2-1 Manufacturing N N Y Y

Bulkhead No visible damage 2' - 21'

Located along the north eastern tip of Manhattan, this site is largely in use as a parking lot and is situated adjacent to a salt shed at 219th street. The key advantage of this site is its substantial size, though access to this site is constrained by multiple rail networks and other elevated structures. This could be an ideal location if heavy lift activity is required to serve areas in the immediately vicinity. If the destination is further away another site may be a more efficient option given issues of access for trucks with heavy loads.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

W 58th City Hudson River Park Trust, Lease to ConED N Delivery by barge and storage of fuel oil, Con Edison employee car parking, and a training facility Walking and Biking Path M2-3 Manufacturing N Y Y M3-2, C4-7, M1-5 Manufacturing, Commerical, Residential N Y Y Y Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 8' - 13'

Located the middle west tip of Manhattan, this site is under the jurisdiction of Hudson River Park Trust. The site is already in use as a barging facility so the infrastructure is largely in place. It is also operated by ConED. An advantage for this site is that it is close to truck routes and has existing infrastructure in place so that the future renovation will cost less than other sites.

E 91st and 103rd St

107th Street Fishing Pier LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

E 91st-103rd

City NYC DSBS N Pedestrian & bike way R7-2 Residential Y N N Park, R7-2 Commercial, Park, Residence Y N N N N Bulkhead No visible damage 1' - 16'

Located on the east side of Manhattan, this site currently includes a stretch of continuous pedestrian and bike paths. While this site could provide access to an area that lacks other adequate potential heavy lift sites, it is included as part of the East River Esplanade Plan and it remains unclear what the final development will be. The site has ideal access to truck routes and upcoming renovations plans could be viewed as an opportunity to join the conversation as soon as possible.

Team Heavy Lift

E 107th St City NYC Parks N Open Space / Outdoor Recreation Open Space / Outdoor Recreation Park Park Y N N R7-2 Residential N Y N Y N Bulkhead No visible damage 2' - 5'

As one of the few remaining fishing piers in Manhattan, this site is also a part of the East River Esplanade Plan though final plans and design have not been finalized. This presents opportunities and challenges similar to those seen at the site along 91st-103rd Streets.

VI. Potential Sites

Pier 76

Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

Cross at W 34th St City NYPD N Tow Pound Parking/Staging area M2-3 Manufacturing N N C6-4, M1-5 Commerical, Manufacturing N N Y Y

Dec, 2015

City DSNY Y N/A N/A M1-1 Industrial Y N N Park, M1-2, C6-2, R8 Park, Residential, Commercial Y Y N Y

West Side Highway, 12th Ave overpass, AMTRAK Existing Marine Infrastructure: Small dock leading to facility Shoreline Type: Bulkhead Shoreline Condition: No visible damage Water Depths: 12' - 14'

N N Bulkhead No visible damage 7 '- 13'

Pier 76 currently functions as a tow pound and is operated by the New York City Police Department. There have been talks over the course of the past several years to move the tow pound to an alternate location. If this were to happen, this site could be renovated to accommodate a heavy lift and also operate as a park in partnership with Hudson River Park Trust. The extensive renovation that would be required of this site would be expensive, though the access to truck routes and the central location on the western side of Manhattan may outweigh these costs, particularly if a revenue-generating strategy could be determined through the nearby Hudson Yards project.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

W 135th St

While final decisions remain unclear, future use of the site is on the table for discussion. The infrastructure was designed for trucks and the site has good access to the main 125th Street corridor, through truck access could be problematic given the rail line and elevated road structures upland which line the islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perimeter. Significant renovations may also be required, though the piles are in good condition.

Marine Transfer Station @ 61 St

Old ConEd Station @ 74th St LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction:

E 61st St City NYC DOT N

Transportation/Utility M3-2 Manufacturing Y Ferry Terminal Y Park, C8-4, R10 Commercial, Park, Residence Y Y Y Y but not sure Pedestrian Bridge N Bulkhead No visible damage 25' - 30'

Located just north of the Ed Koch Bridge, this former marine transfer station is now part of Andrew Haswell Park. There are plans for the redevelopment of this site in conjunction with plans to add a new ferry stop but the adjacent elevated FDR and the tramway tower make this site particularly difficult in terms of upland access from the waterfront, especially for heavy loads. Historically, there have been conflicts between crane barges and the tramway. If adequate access were to be cleared for this site, heavy lift activity would need to take place out of reach of the tramway.

Team Heavy Lift

E 74th St City Lease to ConED (subject to futher evaluation) N N ConEd Building M3-2 Manufacturing N N Park, C1-9, R10 Park, Commercial, Residential N N N N Bridge Connector Across FDR N Bulkhead No visible damage 18'

Located in the middle east of Manhattan, this site is under jurisdiction of New York City but it is leased to ConED for privately use. Since ConEd relies heavily on heavy lift transportation via access to the water, they can be considered an important stakeholder and will likely be more willing to participate and contribute to such a project. If this site is selected, it can be used to serve mid Manhattan greatly. One disadvantage of this site is that the future renovation fee might be costly.

VI. Potential Sites

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

38 31

27 28 29

21 22 23

Rnaked Sites

nal

ston

Hou

rd S

Poorly Ranked (15)

Top Ranked (16)

5,000

am be rS

2,500

3 2 1

10,000 ft

6th

5th

17 8th

14 13

VII. Design Typologies

VII. Design Typologies The design phase took on a scenario-based approach. This allowed the team to draw on some of the recurring challenges and factors presented in prior stages. This way of working towards a set of typologies rather than a site-specific approach was determined to be the most strategic option, emphasizing redundancy as a tool and enabling transferability to other boroughs or cities.

Locations of Scenario Sites

SCENARIO 1 : Marine Transfer Station SCENARIO 2 : Heliport SCENARIO 3 : Site currently in use/possibility for congruent use SCENARIO 4 : Vacant or not in use SCENARIO 5 : Limited access

Assumptions: Due to the varied types of heavy lift activity, the team made a select number of assumptions which remain consistent across each design scenario: • Heavy lift operations are not occurring full-time but parttime, and take place between 10pm and 5:30am. • Heavy lift operations take place at slack tide. • Concerns about dredging have already been addressed. • Each site is adequately strengthened for heavy loads. • The barge shown in the drawings is one of the largest crane barges used in Manhattan for such operations (Weeks 533). It is 300 feet long and 90 feet wide with a depth of hull of 20 feet. Though this barge is used infrequently and smaller barges can be used for heavy lift operations, for design purposes the largest possible barge is showcased to show how much maximum space and maximum arm reach it will require.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

SCENARIO 1 : Marine Transfer Station

SCENARIO 2 : Heliport

Strategy: Renovation of existing infrastructure

Strategy: Shared commercial use

Example: Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St

Example: East 34th St Heliport

This Marine Transfer Station (MTS) is located on the west side of Manhattan on the Hudson River. This site is under the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Sanitation and is currently not in use. The proposal for this site is to strengthen the tipping floor of the current structure to carry the loads of trucks, trailers and equipment that comes on a barge. A crane way that can carry adequate load would be a new addition to the structure. This crane will serve the smaller barges that would be docked inside the Marine Transfer Station as well as a large barge that would be docked along the facade of the structure.

The East 34th Street Heliport is located near the FDR Drive viaduct. This public heliport run by Economic Development Corporation can be combined with a heavy lift scenario to provide an ideal dual use site. The majority of the time this site could still function as is, however if heavy lift activity is needed it would be well equipped to transform into a temporary heavy lift site. This would entail making sure no helicopters land during heavy lift activity, removing the the stacked parking structure and making additional physical adjustments to the site to increase the load bearing capacity.

The key advantage of this scenario is that the foundational infrastructure of the marine transfer station serves as a valuable foundation for the design and structure of a heavy life site. Another advantage is that the retrofit does not compromise an infrastructure currently committed to public use (though with nearby restaurants and an active community board in this part of Manhattan, pushback and questioning to such a project should be anticipated), making it potentially less controversial than some of the other sites. The key advantage of this specific site is that it would service Zone 4 on the northern side of the island, an area currently underserved in terms of industrial waterfront access. The main limitation of this site is that it has inadequate access to the existing transportation network. Once trucks are loaded onto the site, they have to pass beneath the elevated West Side Highway and then turn right onto 12th Avenue to get on the designated truck route. Additionally, the turning radius of the ramp to the site is constricted.

This scenario presents a strong case for dual use of a site which would both realize the full potential of the site and allow it to serve a higher functional use for the surrounding community and the City overall. This scenario would require little or no renovation in order to be operational. The location of this site would address the underserved needs of Zone 2 on the east side. Heavy lift activity has occurred here recently to move construction materials to the construction site near NYU Medical center. The major limitation of the site is that the elevated FDR runs parallel to the shoreline, though the 12â&#x20AC;&#x2122;5â&#x20AC;? access would allow the majority of vehicles to pass through, and its location on the 34th Street corridor is ideal for east-west access.

Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St

East 34th St Heliport

Team Heavy Lift

VII. Design Typologies

SCENARIO 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Condition Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St 0

100

200 ft

21 18 0'

Site 135th St Marine Transfer Station

59,000 sqft (1.4 ac)

18'< deep

Riverside Dr

12th Ave

136th St

Henry Hudson Pkwy / 9A

135th St

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

SCENARIO 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Condition Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St 0

100

200 ft

Barge

Crane way

Heavy Lift Site

Crane way Barge

12th Ave

Team Heavy Lift

VII. Design Typologies

SCENARIO 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Condition East 34th St Heliport

33rd St

34th St

East River Esplanade

18'< deep

160

39,000 sqft (0.9 ac)

34th Heliport 1st Ave

280 '

FDR 0

100

200 ft

Site Truck Route Main Bike/Pedestrian Way

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

SCENARIO 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Condition East 34th St Heliport

34th St

Parking

R100' 1st Ave

Heavy Lift Site

R200'

Barge

Team Heavy Lift

100

200 ft

VII. Design Typologies

SCENARIO 3 : Currently in use, with possibility for congruent use Strategy: Develop multifunctional space Example: Pier 76

by bringing other players and interested stakeholders into the conversation. The potential demand of this project in the way of movement of construction materials could manifest in a solid pitch to Hudson Yards—as well as to Hudson River Park Trust, a nonprofit organization which would benefit greatly from added revenue.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

Strategy: Multipurpose park with deployable heavy lift infrastructure Example: Pier 97 Pier 97 is owned by the City of New York and is under the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Small Business Services. It was reconstructed a few years ago and is currently a seasonal venue for live music events. Hudson River Park Trust plans to rebuild it as a public pier with active recreation courts, a playground and a lawn. The Trust is also considering using this pier as a berth for historic ships, and the heavy lift site can be used for this purpose as well. (Pier 97, Hudson River Park 2015).

Pier 76 is currently in use as a tow pound and is operated by the New York City Police Department. A new building is proposed to replace the existing tow pound, which currently spans the entirety of the pier. The new structure has a smaller footprint and is given an additional height to accommodate for this reduction in available space. The northeast portion of the site will remain open and will be where heavy lift operations take place. Over 50% of the site will be converted into public space with recreational and sports amenities to include a climbing wall, workout area and playground, perch area, and more. The rooftop of the new building will also be accessible to the public via a pedestrian ramp and will be in use as an urban farm maintained by the community and ideally, in partnership with Hudson River Park Trust. Access to the West Side Highway is good from this site, making it easily accessible for trucks and trailers. The key successes of this typology are that the addition of heavy lift functionality does not compromise the existing on-site operation (aside from a reduction in tow pound space, which is assumed as sites are being scouted for its relocation), and that this can be achieved while also creating a new recreational space with public waterfront access—which will occupy over 50% of the site. (For context, this also preemptively fulfills conditions set for the future of this site at the moment; namely, that if the city is able to find an appropriate relocation site for the tow pound, that at least 50% of the pier will be dedicated to park use (Pier 76, 2015).) The location of the site on the west side of the island is also ideal given the volume of built development anticipated in coming years at and around Hudson Yards. This option would require an extensive overhaul including building demolition and new construction, landscape design and additional permitting. This unique context presents an opportunity to serve as a new model. This could be a very dynamic site used to move large equipment and cargo for the Hudson Yards project and other developments in the area in the coming ten years or so. Considered from this perspective, a strategy for this site could potentially transcend the vision for the tow pound and use a revenue-generating framework

SCENARIO 4 : Vacant or not in use

The North side of the pier is deep enough for the heavy lift operations as Pier 98 which is a ConEd property (and located to the north of this site) is currently accessed by large barges. Heavy lift barges would use this side of Pier 97 for heavy lift operations. As this pier is part of the Hudson River Park, the design proposal is to allocate half of the pier as a park. The space between the park and roads needs to be cleared to secure enough area for heavy lift operations. When the operations are not occurring, this part would be part of the park. The chief advantage of this scenario is that it can serve as a shared space with public access for the majority of the time while also meeting the needs of heavy lift, part-time and during the night. This is both the preferred scenario and the most vital to consider as we look to the future of the waterfront: a heavy lift activity zone that does not compromise pedestrian access and is open to the public while its functionality is embedded in the physical structure of the site. In this typology, park furniture that is movable or easily deployable creates a flexible landscape that at the same time becomes a foundational part of the City’s infrastructure.

Pier 76

It also has direct access to 57th Street and 12th Avenue which are designated truck routes and key street corridors. There is a buffer between car lanes, which needs to be opened up for making direct connection for trucks to 57th Street. The site itself has some limitations. Hudson River Park Trust has announced general upcoming plans for the site to include integration of the pier with Clinton Cove (Pier 97, Hudson River Park 2015). As with other sites in Hudson River Park, it connects to

the Hudson River Greenway, which accommodates heavy flows of pedestrians and cyclists every day and should not be frequently disrupted. The new residential development currently under construction across the highway could be an opponent for heavy lift operations.

SCENARIO 5 : Limited access Strategy: Strengthening of existing and addition of new infrastructure Example: Former Marine Transfer Station @ 61st St This site is under the jurisdiction of New York City Department of Transportation and is currently being renovated to include benches, a seating area, improvements to the pavilion as well as reconstruction of the piles supporting the park (Zimmer, 2012). The area in front of the Andrew Haswell Green Dog Park is planned to be a launch site for ferries as part of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Citywide Ferry Service proposal (Citywide Ferry 2015). The proposal for the structure to facilitate the Ferry service is a gangway landing leading to a barge where the ferries will be docked. Any structure on the land to support the ferry service can be combined with the structure that might be required for a temporary heavy lift operation. For accessibility to this site, the John Finley Walk needs to be adequately strengthened to support any heavy load. The Roosevelt Island Tramway tower spans over the John Finley Walk and the lower beams of the tower cuts off the necessary vertical clearance over the Walk. Hence, this beam has to be removed in order to gain the required vertical clearance and accordingly, the tower has to be strengthened. The nearest truck routes to the site is E 60th Street, E 59th Street and 1st Avenue. Because of the anticipated Citywide Ferry Service facility in this site, investing in the strengthening of infrastructure will be an advantage to this site. On the other hand, the various elevations of road infrastructure near the site as well as a restricted turning radius hinders truck accessibility to the site. This site would have to be used for operations involving specific sized loads rather than the usual heavy lift loads.

Pier 97

Team Heavy Lift

Former Marine Transfer Station @ 61st St

VII. Design Typologies

SCENARIO 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Condition Pier 76

Pier 79

Hudson River Greenway Pier 78

Pier 76 / Tow Pound

12th Ave / 9A

18'< deep

290,000 sqft (6.7 ac)

Site Truck Route Main Bike/Pedestrian Way

100

200 ft

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

SCENARIO 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Condition Pier 76 R200'

R100'

Barge

Park 12th Ave / 9A Heavy Lift Site Temporary Heavy Lift Site

Tow Pound w/Recreational Roof

100

Team Heavy Lift

200 ft

VII. Design Typologies

SCENARIO 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Condition Pier 97

Pier 99

Pier 98

12th Ave / 9A

0' 21' deep

Pier 97

93,000 sqft (2.1 ac)

Joe DiMaggio Highway Site Truck Route

Pier 96

Main Bike/Pedestrian Way

57th St

Hudson River Greenway

100

Clinton Cove

200 ft

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

SCENARIO 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Condition Pier 97

12th Ave / 9A

Park

Barge

R100'

Temporary Heavy Lift Site

Heavy Lift Site open up the buffer

Joe DiMaggio Highway

100

Team Heavy Lift

57th St

200 ft

VII. Design Typologies

SCENARIO 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Condition Former Marine Transfer Station @ 61st St Andrew Haswell Park

62nd St

York Ave

FDR

61st St

John Finley Walk

Twenty-Four Sycamores Park 60th St Sculpture/Former MTS

25' deep

Site Truck Route Main Bike/Pedestrian Way Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge 0

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

100

200 ft

SCENARIO 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Condition Former Marine Transfer Station @ 61st St 62nd St Temporary Heavy Lift Site York Ave

Citywide Ferry Facility

61st St

FDR strengthen the Walk strengthen the tramway tower

Park

60th St Barge

R100'

Team Heavy Lift

100

200 ft

VII. Design Typologies

VIII. Limitations

VIII. Limitations It should be noted that this is a preliminary study of the Manhattan waterfront and there are limitations that should be duly considered before moving the project forward at a professional level. One major limitation is related to data: both the lack of publicly available data and the need to have the most current data through fieldwork and site assessments on a recurring basis. As stated above, certain factors were considered but could not be thoroughly assessed. These include:

be considered in a professional capacity when the project moves forward.

• Load bearing capacities (upland and maritime infrastructure such as piers) • Federal Navigation Channel routes and perimeter • Vertical clearances of elevated structures • Bulkhead and shoreline condition • Ownership and jurisdiction of waterfront sites (several directories are publicly available, but do not match up to one another) • Comprehensive knowledge of upcoming built development Another limitation is the engineering and logistical expertise required to conduct such a project in necessary detail. ConEd conducts geometric surveys for each substation route—sometimes just days before a lift operation is set to take place— which is then packaged and sent to DOT for review by engineers. Such surveys account for street measurements, turning radius, impact of existing and new streetscape infrastructure, assessment of ground conditions and so on. Thorough site analysis needs to be conducted in detail and on a regular basis, a crucial element beyond the scope of this project. Lack of consultation with DOT and the Army Corps of Engineers is another limitation in this regard. Given that the nature of the cargo and equipment to be moved has not yet been determined, where necessary barge sizes, types and load weights were assumed by the group according to standards drawn from previous research. The implications of these limitations, such as the inability to comprehensively determine technical aspects of truck access from the site, build a cost analysis, and so on, are reflected in the ranking process and results presented above and should Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

IX. Key Findings and Conclusions

interference with park activity. As more and more waterfront park space is planned throughout the island, there is a need to open up the conversation for water-dependent needs in this capacity (ConEd Interview, 2015).

1. Manhattan is a unique situation and every site along the waterfront has challenges. The scarcity of available land and a growing desire for waterfront residential and park space are compounded by a dense network of elevated road structures and other waterfront activities which do not rely on waterfront access and complicate the possibility for commercial use.

6. A points-based ranking system is a necessary first step for determining viable heavy lift sites, but such an analysis can not be conclusive. There is a need for a more extensive environmental assessment and feasibility analysis to determine the prospective needs and impact of each site.

2. The challenges presented by a lack of upland connections and adequate upland conditions for truck delivery (such as vertical obstructions, inadequate vertical clearance, and insufficient turning radius) are more severe and far less flexible than challenges faced during the phase of moving the load from water to an upland staging area. 3. Permanent physical obstructions on land pose a more prohibitive challenge (particularly in emergency scenarios) than systematic political difficulties to do with jurisdiction and permitting. Heavy lift activity can occur in spite of bureaucratic setbacks if the need is great enough—this is not the case with complicated physical infrastructure that cannot be easily moved. According to ConED, the most severe upland challenges for moving trucks are often due to small scale, permanent (not movable) street improvement infrastructure such as medians, bump outs, and separated bike lanes. 4. Piers are not required for heavy lift operations, and in some cases may even inhibit possibilities for such activity. Identifying upland staging areas that fulfill the appropriate criteria is a preferred siting strategy and should consider factors of load-bearing capacity, water frontage, size and crane arm reach.

7. All waterfront development should consider issues of sea level rise and flooding. There is a particular need for industrial waterfront projects to address this concern as rising tides may have direct infrastructural and operational implications. While these are not issues that this project addresses specifically, the incorporation of heavy lift sites into the city’s existing infrastructure is also essential as such sites may serve the dual function of assisting in the event of an emergency. Building in emergency infrastructure and capability—whether the installation of a floodwall, or ability to transport humans if necessary—must be accommodated when installing heavy lift sites. The criteria and recommendations produced in this report are meant as a launching point for further investigation of this issue. The desire to create open park space on the waterfront is a wonderful plan to promote health, equity and social awareness. However, the need to maintain and expand the working waterfront of Manhattan is only going to become a more pressing issue as concerns about development and resiliency increase. These concerns can and should be viewed in tandem with one another— as opportunities to work towards a more integrated infrastructure as opposed to concepts which work against each other.

5. The prospect of a shared park and heavy lift site would be an excellent opportunity that could be beneficial to both the park operators and the stakeholder companies with heavy lift needs. Heavy lifts happen infrequently and at night and would be conducted carefully so as to have minimal Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

X. Recommended Next Steps

X. Recommended Next Steps:

trucks off the streets. Such a study will corroborate the need for heavy lift sites and help to set up a platform for a more formal dialogue for such a need in New York City.

Based on the key findings and conclusions, the team recommends the following next steps: 1. Invite representatives from stakeholder groups across different city agencies, public private organizations, marine operators, building contractors, property owners and regulators, U.S Army Corps, and other engineers to set up a working group/steering committee to set a formal agenda for facilitating the discourse and action on heavy lift activity in Manhattan. This working group should: 2. Perform a detailed needs assessment to identify key stakeholders and to more empirically determine the demand for heavy lift and whether there is a need for regular, full-time operation or just part-time use. 3. Review relevant work to date on heavy lift and RoRo operations in Manhattan, including materials and studies affiliated with EDC, Weeks Marine, ConED, and more. 4. Using the findings presented above, work with appropriate experts to determine final site selection criteria.

7. Conduct an extensive review of historical resources and landmarks with restrictions; this should include historic forts, bulkheads and other objects that will prevent the development process. 8. Establish partnerships with community organizations like Hudson River Park Trust, East River Park and community boards in order to start a dialogue with residents and community members on the need to maintain a working waterfront for heavy lift operations and more specifically on how such operations doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to be disruptive to the community. 9. Explore potential funding mechanisms for heavy lift infrastructure and revenue-generating strategies such as transferable air rights, potential alternative uses of the heavy lift site such as event space, a floating market, a concert venue, an amusement park, etc. which may incentivize collaboration and partnerships across sectors. 10. Launch a call for ideas for innovative park technologies and designs to support a simultaneous park and heavy lift scenario. As almost the entire waterfront along the island is being converted for public access currently, there are more prospects for a simultaneous park-heavy lift site.

i) Work with necessary experts to conduct detailed surveys and site analysis to develop an exhaustive assessment of each site. II) Develop a new scoring system to develop a shortlist of sites. 5. Conduct a detailed cost analysis based on the renovation to existing piers, bulkheads or existing structures, new construction and/or demolition required on site. 6. Conduct an in-depth traffic study of the potential for congestion reduction in Manhattan and the surrounding boroughs if increases in maritime activity are to incorporate heavy lift operations which are able to take Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

XI. References

XI. References “Pier 76 | Hudson River Park.” Hudson River Park. N.p., 2015. Web. 21 Dec. 2015. Barge Weight Capacities Chart.” Heartland Barge, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2015. <http://www.heartlandbarge.com/barge-weightcapacities-chart/?doing_wp_cron=1447949313.815859079360961 9140625>

Marchioni, Jason. “The Importance of Maintaining Access Berths Within Long Island, Manhattan and Its Surrounding Boroughs.” Thesis. California Maritime Academy, 2015. The City of New York. One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City. New York, NY: City of New York, Mayor’s Office of LongTerm Planning and Sustainability, 2015. Paths to Pier. “The Future of Pier 42.” 10 Dec 2015 <http:// pathstopier42.com/future-of-pier-42/>

Brass, Elaine. “Olympics move waste by water” 30 June 2009. <http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/olympics-move-wasteby-water-538.aspx#.VmiVZYSNSDJ>

Second Avenue Subway SDEIS Coastal Zone Consistency report, M1-M24. Excerpt. n.d.

NYCEDC. “Citywide Ferry Service” 01 Dec 2015 <http://www. nycedc.com/project/citywide-ferry-service>

Quigley, Nathan.“Thames takes strain from London streets.”Network Rail Media. 28 April 2010. <https://www.pla. co.uk/Thames-takes-strain-from-London-streets>

Cornell Tech. Task force Meeting Summary. Roosevelt Island Campus Project. Cornell University, 02 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Ward, Justin. Corps awards $92 million in task orders for Hurricane Sandy debris removal in NY. 15 Nov 2012.

Doswell, John. “Maritime Definitions by Capt Doswell” 2003. Accessed 16 Sep 2015. <http://workingharbor.com/pdf%20files/ New%20York%20Boats%20and%20Ships%20-%20Glossary.pdf> FEMA. “Region II Coastal Analysis and Mapping: Glossary. 10 Nov 2015 <http://www.region2coastal.com/resources/ glossary/#TOC-Z> Friend, Douglas and Hopkins, Margaret. Personal Interview. 12 November 2015. Hudson Services “J Supor & Son Trucking & Rigging Provides Catastrophic Recovery For Miracle On The Hudson Plane” 10 Dec 2010. Accessed 16 Sep 2015. <http://www.jsupor.com/miracleonthe-hudson.aspx> Marchioni, Jason. Weeks Marine Interview. Weeks Marine Headquarters. 29 Oct 2015.

<http://www.nad.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsReleases/tabid/4870/ Article/483834/corps-awards-92-million-in-task-orders-forhurricane-sandy-debris-removal-in-ny.aspx> “Who Oversaw the Ground Zero Cleanup Operation.” <Http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html>. 9/11 Research, Web. Zimmer, Amy. “15M Fix Needed to Keep Andrew H. Green Park From Falling into East River.” DNAinfo 29 June 2012: n. 2012 Waterfront Revitalization Program FAQ. 2012 <http://www. nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/wrp/wrp_faq.shtml> ConEd Interview. Con Ed Service Center. 3 Dec 2015. “A Survey of Transferable Development Rights Mechanisms in New York City” <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/tdr/research.pdf>. NYC DCP Research, 26 Feb 2015

Pier 97, Hudson River Park <https://www.hudsonriverpark.org/explore-the-park/locations/pier97>

Team Heavy Lift

XI. References

XII. Appendix

XII. Appendices Appendix A. Scope of Work THE GOAL

In Manhattan, there are currently heavy lift sites on the East Side at Pier 36 and 42, and on the West Side through Hudson River Park, but these are not enough to to serve the entire island similarly. The goal of this project is to survey, collect and analyze data for sites along Manhattan’s waterfront and identify the most suitable sites for providing heavy lift access to all of Manhattan in the event of an emergency or large construction project and offer designs for varied uses of this type. SCOPE OF SERVICES PHASE I: DISCOVERY + RESEARCH Task 1.1: Workplan/Proposal ● Review assignment and background materials and provide to NYCEDC an updated scope of

CLIENT: NEW YORK CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (EDC) New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) is a notforprofit corporation tasked with leveraging the City of New York’s assets to fuel economic development, create and promote quality jobs, and cultivate resilient communities and improve quality of life across the City’s five boroughs. As the City’s primary engine for economic growth, NYCEDC is committed to stimulating inclusive growth and implementing public policy initiatives in New York City’s neighborhoods as well as along its waterfront, driving plans and policy for NYC’s marine, aviation and rail freight terminals and guiding waterfront strategy, planning and permitting.

services proposal

CONSULTANT: CORNELL GRADUATE TEAM

The team consists of five graduate students enrolled in the Master of Regional Planning and/or Master of Landscape Architecture program at Cornell University and participating in the 2015 AAP NYC fall semester. These include:

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

THE ISSUE New York City faces major issues such as bridge, road and tunnel congestion, growing environmental risks, and increasing demands on available real estate. With more waterfront than Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago combined, it is imperative that the city reassess its relationship to the waterfront in order to address these issues and to ensure the optimal use of this rich natural and communal resource. The working waterfront is shrinking, yet there is an increasing demand for waterfront parcels that can accommodate large infrastructure projects and aid in the event of a disaster.

Deliverable: Scope of services and workplan Anticipated date of completion: Friday, September 18th, 2015 Task 1.2: Data Collection ● Collect GIS data, nautical charts, land use maps ● Conduct boat tour of the Manhattan waterfront to identify potential sites ● Gather metrics on lot sizes, load capacity, intermodal containers and truck trailer sizes, water depths, air drafts of roadways and bridges ● Gather data on existing facilities such as marine transfer stations and determine whether they can be repurposed ● Gather maps and information on current truck routes in NYC ● Map land use and ownership along Manhattan’s waterfront ● Review WRP regulatory framework and policies Deliverable: Writeup of preliminary findings, maps Anticipated date of completion: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 Task 1.3: Heavy Lift Facilities Research: Local + Global ● Research on prior or existing daytoday operations and emergencies such as Post 9/11 debris, Hurricane Sandy, the Miracle on the Hudson, human evacuation and construction equipment ● Identify the limitations of the existing Manhattan lift sites at Piers 36 & 42 and Hudson River Park Deliverable: Summary of findings and analysis on h eavy lift facilities in NYC and precedent facilities in other domestic and international contexts Anticipated date of completion: Thursday, September 24th, 2015

PHASE II: SPATIAL ANALYSIS + SITE SELECTION Task 2.1: Continued interview process Interview the following individuals: Background + General ● Brian Craine, NYCEDC Asset Management ● Jason Marchioni, Weeks Marine ● Michael Loughran, Related Regulatory ● Scott Shostak, NYCEDC Counsel ● Trevor Johnson, NYC Waterfront Revitalization Program (within DCP) ● Meenakshi Varandani, Department of Small Business Services

Map 01. Delineation of study boundary (Manhattan)

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

● Emil Lissauer, NYC Office of Citywide Event Coordination & Management ● Office of Emergency Management Physical Infrastructure ● Army Corp of Engineers ● Malcolm Mclaren, Mclaren Engineering ● Jonathan Goldstick, Halcrow ● Don Jon Marine Co. (tentative) Deliverable: Summary and analysis of interviews Anticipated date of completion: Thursday, October 22, 2015 Task 2.2: Breakdown of service areas ● Map anticipated built development in New York City ● Determine factors for viable service areas across Manhattan ● Identify locations/zones that can (and cannot or should not) function as service areas ● Determine specific needs and limitations of each identified service area ● Conduct bike tour of the Manhattan waterfront to identify potential sites (Tentative Date: October 15) Deliverable: Map delineating service areas Anticipated date of completion: Thursday, October 22, 2015 [Feedback period: October 22 28] Task 2.3: Development of site selection criteria ● Conduct second boat tour of Manhattan waterfront (date TBD) Deliverable: Written analysis and maps Anticipated date of completion: Monday, November 2, 2015 [Feedback period: November 2 6] Task 2.4: Identification of potential project sites ● Identify all potential sites ● Determine and rank sites based upon feasibility Deliverable: Visual and written description and analysis of each potential site Anticipated date of completion: Thursday, November 12, 2015 [Feedback period: November 12 19] PHASE III: DESIGN INTERVENTIONS + RECOMMENDATIONS Task 3.1: Produce preliminary site specific design interventions for full time and part time sites that are selected through the site identification process. Deliverable: Drawing, classification and description of each design intervention Anticipated date of completion: Thursday, December 3, 2015 [Feedback period: December 3 8] Final Deliverable: Graphics and maps of selected locations in the form of a Presentation and report to be delivered to NYCEDC, Office of Emergency Management, Department of City Planning and the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. Anticipated date of completion: December 2015, date TBD

Team Heavy Lift

XII. Appendix

Appendix B. Terminology

structure. 10. Gangway: A sloping ramp to provide access from a dock

1. Barge - A non-powered vessel with a flat bottom, typically used for transport or a work platform, moved by a tugboat.

structure to a vessel or floating dock from the shore. 11. Higher High Water (HHW): The higher of two high tides in

2. Bathymetric Survey: The measurement of water depths, usually with sufficient detail to map the underwater terrain

3. Berth: The water area along the edge of a wharf or pier for

(two per day for diurnal tides), observed over a 19 year tidal

4. Bulkhead: A structure or partition built to retain or prevent sliding of the land (FEMA, 2015). 5. Datum:

7. Draft: Maximum depth of a vesselâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hull below the waterline.

motors and other objects that are too big or heavy for

tidal epoch (Metonic cycle).

trucks.

epoch (Metonic cycle).

increasing the water depth to allow passage of deeper draft

(Metonic cycle). 16. PGC: This refers to power generation components used by

vessels (Doswell, 2012).

utility companies.

9. Fender: A device placed between a dock structure and a vessel, used to absorb berthing impact energy and provide

17. Pier: A deck supported on piles, extending into the water, more or less perpendicular from the shoreline.

a wearing surface for the vessel while moored to the

Dec, 2015

21. Slack Water: The state of a tidal current when its speed is near zero, as when reversing direction Data Source: Waterfront Terminology, Tighe & Bond

water levels (one per day), over a 19 year tidal epoch

mechanism to lift mud off the bottom for the purpose of

20. Self propelled modular transporter: A platform vehicle with

high water levels (one per day), observed over a 19 year

15. Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW): The mean of lowest low

8. Dredge - A barge with a crane, suction device or other

surface of a prepared shoreline slope.

such as large bridge sections,[1]oil refining equipment,

(two per day for diurnal tides), observed over a 19 year tidal

day.

19. Riprap: Slope erosion protection formed from stone or

13. Mean Higher Water (MHHW): The mean of the highest daily

14. Mean Low Water (MLW): The mean of all low water levels

6. Diurnal Tide: A tide with one high and one low water in a

resist applied vertical and/or horizontal loads.

multiple axle lines are used for transporting massive objects

epoch (Metonic cycle).

vessel mooring.

concrete, driven or otherwise set into the soil or rock to

concrete rubble, typically dumped and graded over the

any given tidal day. 12. Mean High Water (MHW): The mean of all high water levels

contours.

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

18. Pile: A pole, typically of timber, reinforced plastic, steel or

(from http://www.tighebond.com/includes/upload/assets/ waterfront%20terminology.pdf)

Appendix C. Site Profiles for Preliminary Sites (next page)

Team Heavy Lift

XII. Appendix

1. South Street Heliport (Pier 6)

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Inside the site Turning Radius Access the Site of 45â&#x20AC;&#x2122; to

Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

NOTES:

2. Pier 9

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the site Turning radius of 45' to access the site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

3. Pier 15

South Street Heliport City NYC DSBS Water Building/Facility Y Heliport N/A (Connection to FDR only) C4-6 Commercial N N N Park, C6-9 Commercial, Park N (located where FDR starts to rise) Y Y Y N/A Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 11' - 33'

Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

The site is currently active as a commercial and private heliport. While location is ideal, it has the disadvantages of having a history of accidents during heavy lift operations due to road closures and of being a point of contention in the surrounding residential community who want it shut down because of the noise it brings. Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

NOTES:

4. Pier 42

Old Slip City NYC EDC Water N N DOES NOT EXIST C4-6

N Y Park, C6-9 Y N/A N/A

N Bulkhead No visible damage 16' - 21' The site is relatively small, faces the elevated FDR and does not have main road access. Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

Dec, 2015

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current use on water: Current upland use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to truck routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

E Fletcher St City NYC DSBS Water 2 storeyed observation deck, landscaped area and seats Yes Part of the East River Esplanade East River Parkway C4-6 Commercial N N Big U C4-6, C6-9 Commerical Y Y N Y

Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 26' The site is run by Hudson River Park and is currently in use for recreational purposes Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

E Montogomery Street City NYC Parks Both Facility/ Shed No N Open Space M1-4 Manufacturing Y N Big U Park, R7-2 Park, Residential N N Y Y FDR touches the ground Part of the pier Bulkhead No visible damage 23' - 35' The site is partially in use as a park. The site currently lies within an industrial facility. This reduces the operations exposure to traffic and pedestrians. It is owned by the City of New York and managed and operated by NYCDOT, which is more experienced with City's infrastructural needs

5. East River Park

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures:

E Houston Street

No N Open Space / Outdoor Recreation Park Park N N

Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

12' - 30'

NOTES:

6. ConEd Plant @ 14th St

Team Heavy Lift

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

7. Stuyvesant Cove

City NYC Parks Land Esplanade structures- lighting, amphitheater,playgrounds etc benches,

Big U R7-2, M3-2 Residential, Manufacturing N N Y Y

N Bulkhead No visible damage

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

This large site is currently heavily in use and programmed for recreational purposes. Large open space is available, and this may be an ideal site to consider for emergency or disaster recovery purposes.

NOTES:

8. East 34th St Heliport

E 14th St ConEd ConEd Land Buildings, Storage? N PGC delivery Transportation/Utility M3-2 Manufacturing N Y Park, R7-2 Park, Residential N Y N N

Power plant related infrastructure Bulkhead No visible damage 28' - 29' The site is in use which may conflict with heavy lift operations. Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

E 23rd St City NYC DSBS Both Ferry Building N Parking and Ferry Gas Station M1-1 Manufacturing N Y Park, C2-7, R8 Park, Commercial, Residential Y N Y Y

N Bulkhead No visible damage 5' - 11' This site is close to elevated structures and has environmental concerns which would pose significant additional challenges to the process. The site is close to Stuyvesant Town so that it is likley that neighbors would like it to be turned into something else and even if they do not, they might oppose the site development.

E 34th Street City NYC EDC Water NO Y Heliport N/A M2-3 Manufacturing N

Y R8, C1-9, C4-6, C6-2 Commerical, Residential Y Y Y Y FDR Bulkhead Bulkhead No visible damage 10' - 18' The community is opposed to the existing heliport use and may be sensitive to additional industrial use. The site could potentially serve as a shared space model with existing heliport.

XII. Appendix

9. Former Marine Transfer Station @ 61st St

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

NOTES:

11. Marine Transfer Station @ 91st St

E 61st St City NYC DOT Land Building N Transportation/Utility M3-2 Manufacturing Y Ferry Terminal Y Park, C8-4, R10 Commercial, Park, Residence Y Y Y Y but not sure Pedestrian Bridge N Bulkhead No visible damage 25' - 30'

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

Tidal currents are very fast, and the water area is in a cable area. This site is included in the East River Esplanade Plan though it remains unclear what the final development will be. Cable Area

NOTES:

10. Former ConEd Plant @ 74th St

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

NOTES:

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

12. E 91st - 103rd St

E 74th St City Lease to ConED (subject to futher evaluation) Land Building N N ConEd Building M3-2 Manufacturing N N Park, C1-9, R10 Park, Commercial, Residential N N N N Bridge Connector Across FDR N Bulkhead No visible damage 18' The site is currently occupied by ConEd, and it is unclear whether there would be a conflict of uses. In addition, the cost of future renovation is huge. Since ConEd relies heavily on heavy lift transportation via access to the water, they can be considered an important stakeholder and will likely be more willing to participate and contribute to such a project.

Dec, 2015

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

NOTES:

E 91st Street City DSNY Water Defunct marine transfer station N N/A N/A M1-4 Industrial Y Marine Transfer Station Y Park, C2-5, R8-B Residential, Industrial, Park N Y N N Bridge connector across FDR Old Dockmarine transfer station infrastructure, nearby E 90th St Ferry Bulkhead No visible damage 17' - 28' This is already a highly controversial site for the residential community, and the site is going to be renovated and funcitoning as a marine transfer station in the coming years. Construction is planned to be completed by 2017. Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

E 91st-103rd City NYC DSBS Land N Pedestrian & bike way R7-2 Residential Y N N Park, R7-2 Commercial, Park, Residence Y N N N

N Bulkhead No visible damage 1' - 16' Water depth is shallow, and the water area is in a cable area. This site is included in the East River Esplanade Plan though it remains unclear what the final development will be. Cable Area

13. 107th St Fishing Pier

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

NOTES:

14. E 110-111th St

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

Team Heavy Lift

15. E 128th - 132nd St

E 107th St City NYC Parks Both Shed N Open Space / Outdoor Recreation Open Space / Outdoor Recreation Park Park Y N N R7-2 Residential N Y N Y

N Bulkhead No visible damage 2' - 5'

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

Currently this site serves as a public accessible recreation area. The water area is in a cable and pipeline area.This site is included in the East River Esplanade Plan though it remains unclear what the final development will be. Cable and Pipeline Areahttp://ny.curbed.com/ archives/2015/02/06/the_east_side_waterfronts_radical_green_ makeover_revealed.php

NOTES:

16. Sherman Creek

E 110th-111th St City NYC DSBS Water Empty Land N N Empty Land R7-2 Residential N N Park, R7-2 Park, Residential N N N Y

N Bulkhead No visible damage 9' - 12' The size of the site is relatively small so there may be concerns about whether the working space is adequate. Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

NOTES:

E 132nd St City NYC DOT Land Parking Space and Several Buildings N N Parking/Staging area M2-2 Manufacturing Conversion to park Bridges Park Park N N Y Y RFK bridge; Willis Bridge; 3rd Ave Bridge N Bulkhead No visible damage 9' - 12' While current DOT use of this site as a staging ground for bridge construction is ideal, future plans as a park restrain the possibility for a long term heavy lift site. The site has potential to be a precedent for combined uses of heavy lift and park/public access areas.

W 204th Street City NYC Parks Both No No Open space/ recreation Open Space / Outdoor Recreation Park Park Y Sherman Creek waterfront esplanade

C3, M3-1 Commercial, Manufacturing N N N Y Pedestrian Bridge N Riprap No visible damage 2'- 18' The site has extremely shallow waters and a ConED facility immediately adjacent. Plans are underway for an extension of the esplanade here as well. Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

XII. Appendix

17. MTA Yard @ 207th St

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

18. W 219th St

City MTA New York City Transit Authority Land Shed/ Shop No N Maintenance facility/ Overhaul shop M1-1 Manufacturing Y Conversion to tech/industrial hub

C8-3, M3-1 Commercial, Manufacturing Y Y Y Y Elevated Subway Line N Bulkhead No visible damage 8' -15'

219th street

On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

Land Y N

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

NOTES:

20. Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St

Multiple - City and Other Department General Services (C), New York City Transit (C), Time Warnerof Cable

Parking Lot M3-1 Manufacturing Y

Y M2-1 Manufacturing N N Y Y

Bulkhead No visible damage 2' - 21' Access could be a problem with elevated structures and lack of truck routes. The use of space on site is currently low and majority parking.

Dec, 2015

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

The site is currently in use for industrial purposes and has plans to be converted. Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction:

NOTES:

19. Inwood Park @ Dyckman St

W 207th Street

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

Inwood Park @ Dyckman Street City NYC Parks and Trustees of Columbia University (Partial) Water NO N Pier & Restaurant N/A Park Park N N Y R7-2 Park, Residential Y N N N Train overpass Small Dock Riprap No visible damage 10' - 24' This site would be difficult for a variety of reasons but if there is a need for a site in this area this is one of the only options. While conditions are not ideal, this is one of the only sites on this northern part of the island.

W 135th St City DSNY Water Defunct marine transfer station Y N/A N/A M1-1 Industrial Y N N Park, M1-2, C6-2, R8 Park, Residential, Commercial Y Y N Y West Side Highway, 12th Ave overpass, AMTRAK Small dock leading to facility Bulkhead No visible damage 12' - 14' While final decisions remain unclear, the site is being discussed as being planned for development. The infrastructure was designed for trucks and the site has good access to the 125th St corridor. Piles are in good shape.

21. Marine Transfer Station @ 59th St

22. Pier 98

Team Heavy Lift

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water:

W 58th

Walking and Biking Path M2-3 Manufacturing N Y

Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

8' - 13'

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water:

W 58th

Walking and Biking Path M2-3 Manufacturing N Y

23. Pier 97

City Hudson River Park Trust, Lease to ConED Water Y N Delivery by barge storage of fuel oil, Con Edison employee car parking, and a and training facility

Y M3-2, C4-7, M1-5 Manufacturing, Commerical, Residential N Y Y Y

Pier Bulkhead No visible damage

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

The site is already in use as a barging facility so the infrastructure is largely in place. It is also operated by ConED.

24. Pier 86

City Hudson River Park Trust, Lease to ConED Water Y N Delivery by barge storage of fuel oil, Con Edison employee car parking, and a and training facility

Y M3-2, C4-7, M1-5 Manufacturing, Commerical, Residential N Y N Y

Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 8' - 13'

The site is already in use as a barging facility so the infrastructure is largely in place. It is also operated by ConED.

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

W 57th City NYC DSBS Water Y N Seasonal concert venue, parking Walking and Biking Path M2-3 Manufacturing N Y Y M3-2, C4-7, M1-5 Manufacturing, Commerical N Y Y Y

Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 13' - 17' The site is currently used for concerts and other seasonal events. This could be an ideal opportunity to propose part-time heavy lift or strategic heavy lift during different seasons.

44th Street City NYC DSBS Water Intrepid Museum Y Museum Museum M2-3 Manufacturing N N Y M2-4, M1-6, R8 Manufacturing, Residential N Y N Y 46th Street Bulkhead Bulkhead No visible damage 7' - 13'

The site has already been used for heavy liftt in the past therefore infrastrucure exists there already.

XII. Appendix

25. Pier 76

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

26. West 30th St Heliport

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

27. Pier 57

Cross at W 34th St City NYPD Both Tow Pound N Tow Pound Parking/Staging area M2-3 Manufacturing N N C6-4, M1-5 Commerical, Manufacturing N N Y Y N N Bulkhead No visible damage 7 '- 13'

Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

The city already has requirements about future development. At least 50% of pier will need to be dedicated to park use. The site has good waterfront access and land access.

NOTES:

28. Pier 54

W 30th Street City Hudson River Park Trust Water N Heliport Heliport M2-3 Manufacturing N N Y M1-5, C6-3, C6-4, R8A Manufacturing, Commerical, Residential N Y N Y The High Line Bulkhead Bulkhead No visible damage 8' - 21' The site is in the heart of Hudson River Park and is surrounded by recreational spaces. The proximity of the site to the Hudson Yards development bolsters the case for this site as it could be used to move large cargo and infrastructure from the water.

Dec, 2015

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths:

W 15th St City Hudson River Park Trust Water Building N Transportation/Utility M1-5 Manufacturing N Y Y M2-3, C6-4 Manufacturing N N N N

Marine Aviation Bulkhead No visible damage 8' The site is being planned for development of innovative hub of cultural, recreational and public market activities. Hard to convince Hudson River Park Trusthttp://ny.curbed.com/ archives/2015/09/11/new_plans_revealed_for_pier_57s_rooftop_ park.php

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water:

W 13th St

Hudson River Park event space, public access M2-3 Industrial N N

State Hudson River Park Trust Water N N Part of Chelsea Piers (Chelsea Piers Sports & Entertainment Complex)

Y C6-2A, R6, M1-5 Industrial, Commercial, Residential N Y Y Y N/A Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 7' - 38' Will likely need to be dredged, high line Road access to the west side highway and 14th Street is good.

29. Marine Transfer Station @ Gansevoort St LOCATION THE SITE:

Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

30. Pier 40

Team Heavy Lift

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS: NOTES:

31. Pier 26

Gansevoort City DSNY Water YES, functioning marine transfer station N Marine Transfer Station N/A M2-3 Manufacturing Y Y Y C6-2A, C1-7A, M1-5, R6 Manufacturing, Commerical, Residential N Y Y Y

Bulkhead Bulkhead No visible damage 7' - 26'

LOCATION THE SITE: Owner: Jurisdiction: On Land, Water or Both: Structures: PMAZ: Current Use on Water: Current Upland Use: Zoning: Land Use: Subsurface Challenges: Planned Development: SURROUNDING AREAS: Planned Development: Zoning: Land Use: Elevated Road Infrastructure: Access to Truck Routes: Turning Radius of 45' Inside the Site Turning Radius of 45' to Access the Site Other Elevated Structures: Existing Marine Infrastructure: Shoreline Type: Shoreline Condition: Water Depths: Loading Capacities: LIMITATIONS:

The site is currently in use. The site is large and could potentially work with current occupants in a shared space model.

NOTES:

N Moore St State Hudson River Park Trust Water Facility/ Shed Y N/A (about to undergo development) Hudson River Park M2-3 Industrial Y Estuarium Facility Y C6-4 Commercial N Y Y Y N/A Pier Bulkhead No visible damage 5' - 14' The site is being planned for development and its use as an educational facility will not be compatible with heavy lift. This is an ideal location with good access to Lower Manhattan and other parts of the city.

Houston St and West Street City Hudson River Park Trust Both YES Y Waterside recreation area N/A M2-3 Manufacturing Y Y

M2-4, M1-6, C1-6A, R6, C2-6A Manufacturing, Commerical, Residential N Y Y Y Building N Bulkhead No visible damage 10' - 22' Current use as recreational park area is prohibitive. Its position near where the elevated FDR starts is ideal and offers alternatives for transport direction up the east and west sides of the island as well as into the Lower Manhattan network, if necessary. Its water frontage and distance from surrounding waterfront and upland uses also makes it ideal for marine equpiment set up.

XII. Appendix

Appendix D. Ranking Table Criterion

Current Use (Land Use,

Ownership + Juridsdiction

Planned development on site

Intensity/Frequency)

Geometry, Area/Square Footage

Linkages/Access -

Linkages/Access - Access to nearest

Linkages/Access - Potential disruption

Potentially problematic

Elevated Structures

truck route

to surrounding activity

facilities/issues/surrounding areas within

Anticipated Cost

Adequate water frontage means the barge has enough space to dock in order to transfer material. Adequate Low potential disruptions means roads do not need to be shut down and

water frontage ranges from 60'-120', based on the size of standard crane Is the physical activity on site going to be problematic for a heavy lift site.

Low anticipated cost is assigned to

situations that will not require additional Elements which severely constrain the Is there planned development for this infrastructure or construction. Unclear is possibility for heavy lift activity for legal, Hight conflict could entail a highly site and if so will the planned attributed to sites which will require operation. Medium disruption can Good land area refers to having both security or other reasons. These include Lacking data/Data to be secured/need trafficked recreational facilty that is in development be beneficial or Elevated structures as obstacles and the include proximity to space that is additional infrastructure/work but water frontage and an adequate site areas such as the United Nations, DOT at the table. Requires eval by civil use whole year. Some conflict could be problematic for a heavy lift site? Is there area. Note: A turning radius of 45' for determining the cost is outside the clearance. currently open to the public such as a certain hospital locations, temporary noengineer. a site with temporary uses or where the a possibliity for congruent uses? A scope of this project. High anticipated park, and/or the need to shut down the trucks to access the site and to boating areas, and subsurface cable facility does not occupy the majority of potential problem would be bikeways and/or sidewalks for heavy lift cost is defined as anticipated navigate within the site, should be areas. the space. demolition, rennovation and new to occur. High disruptions include the considered for the heavy lift operations. need for highway or road closures construction. For the purpose of this project, we and/or bikeway/sidewalk closure. haven't taken this into consideration as

Definition

minimizing general activity does not require NYPD or other agency

barges. Adequate site area refers to an area of 20,000 sq.ft. (Weeks Marine)

ideally a consultation with NYC DOT on truck naviagtion would be required for

3 City owned + city management (EDC) 2 City owned + other management

Rank Category

(Hudson River Park Trust) 11 State/ Federally owned + city

3 No - No problem

2 Some Conflict

1 Maybe/Unclear - Potential problem

2 Suitable land area (sq footage of site) 2 Elevated structures w/ 12'5" clearance 2 Medium

2 Medium

3 Unclear

-25 Yes - Major problem

1 Elevated structures w/ limited 1 Adequate water frontage (60' or more) clearance

1 High

0 High

-10 High Conflict

management Privately Owned OR

Name # Point Rank 24 1 South Street Heliport (Pier 6) 1 24 1 West 30th St Heliport 26 22 3 East 34th St Heliport 8 21 4 E 110-111th St 14 20 5 Marine Transfer Station @ Gansevoort St 29 20 5 Pier 86 24 20 5 Pier 97 23

each site. 3 Suitable land area (sq footage) and

3 No Conflict

3 No elevated structures

adequate water frontage (60' or more)

3 Low

1 High

-1 per site

5 Low

-1

Marine Transfer Station @ 59th St

Pier 42 W 219th St 107th St Fishing Pier E 91st - 103rd St Pier 76 Marine Transfer Station @ 135th St Former ConEd Plant @ 74th St Former Marine Transfer Station @ 61st St Pier 54 East River Park Pier 40 Inwood Park @ Dyckman St Pier 9 Pier 15 Pier 98 Marine Transfer Station @ 91st St E 128th - 132nd St Sherman Creek ConEd Plant @ 14th St Stuyvesant Cove Pier 57 Pier 26 MTA Yard @ 207th St

4 18 13 12 25 20 10 9 28 5 30 19 2 3 22 11 15 16 6 7 27 31 17

-1

-2

-1

-10

-1

-10

-1

-10

-2

-6

-25

-1

3 3

-8

-25

-1

-10

-25

-1

-14

-25

-1

-16

-25

-22

-10

-25

-24

-10

-25

-10

-25

-28

-10

-25

-3

Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

Dec, 2015

Appendix E. Interview Summaries Brian Craine NYCEDC Consulting with Craine was an extremely helpful exercise, as we talked through every potential site we were considering and he was able to give us direct and realistic feedback on challenges and opportunities associated with them. For example, he mentioned that although Pier 42 is currently a heavy lift site, both this location and East River Park are red flags due to the water depths in these locations. The nearby ConED site which was on our list seemed like a less feasible option since it is still in use. The fishing pier on 107th Street might be a viable option depending on water depths and the type of barge proposed. Craine was reluctant about a joint ferry and heavy lift site which we floated as an option due to ADA accessibility issues, nothing it wouldn’t be impossible but would present greater challenges. He also suggested new sites, such as the waterfront area on the east side around 110/111th Streets and the toe pound on the west side, and noted that while doing any kind of heavy lift operation on the west side at Hudson River Park would be challenging, physically these sites have the capacity required. He also encouraged us to identify red flag sites, such as those along the elevated sections of the FDR, and said it would be a safe assumption for us to make that any existing structure we take on a site will need to be demolished and rebuilt.

Scott Shostak NYCEDC Scott Shostak offered us a historical overview of waterfront ownership in the US. He reinforced the idea that the ideal site we are looking at would be one that is already set up for maritime use and encouraged us to think about the difference between permits for use and permits for work (right to control) which are important determinants for legal processes undertaken on specific sites. Scott’s expertise was valuable and well-received, and his input and guidance should definitely be sought out at the later phases of this project when legal concerns become a higher priority.

Jason Marchioni Team Heavy Lift

Weeks Marine

NYC Department of City Planning

Our interview with Jason Marchioni was essential to our understanding of the needs of heavy lift activity in Manhattan and for New York City at large. Building off his thesis, which was a central resource for this project, he elaborated on the use of Pier 86 as the only regular heavy lift site, currently in use by ConED for the delivery of major components such as transformers. Weeks Marine handles these deliveries and had about 9-10 deliveries for ConEd this year. The number varies as their transformers are on 20-30 year cycles. They are prepped at Luyster Creek in Queens which has good access along its bulkhead and then transported to Pier 86. Marchioni explained that street light and signs as well as ground pressure loadings are crucial factors to take into consideration when determining the feasibility of a heavy lift truck route. In addition to transformers, Weeks Marine moves all kinds of things and occasionally moves equipment for concerts and private events. They never keep any cargo on site where they are unloading, and most storage is kept in different yards in New Jersey.

Trevor Johnson explained the Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) to us. The WRP is a regulatory review tool with the overarching purpose of the program being to promote the use of the waterfront to achieve multiple goals—ranging from economic development to ecological restoration and public recreation. It lays out a set of ten policies that projects must be consistent with. The WRP is authorized through city, state and federal legislation as part of the 1972 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and covers ten policy areas: Residential and Commercial Redevelopment, Maritime and Industrial Development, the Use of the Waterways, Ecological Resources, Water Quality, Flooding and Erosion, Solid and Hazardous Waste, Public Access, Visual Quality, and Historic Resources. Not all projects within the city’s coastal zone are reviewed for consistency with the WRP—only projects which require city, state, or federal discretionary action are reviewed. Additionally, the WRP does not set strict requirements for projects, instead it asks projects to be consistent with a policy and there are often many ways that a project can do this. The NYC Department of City Planning has recently proposed a number of revisions to the WRP based on Vision 2020, the City’s Comprehensive Waterfront Plan.

Marchioni highlighted the opportunity for recreational or easily retrofitted heavy lift site. As an expert in the field, this was a reassuring conversation, as he emphasized that it does not take much to create a heavy lift site as long as basic criteria are met. Moving equipment across basketball or tennis courts or even temporary barriers are relatively smooth operations; it is, as our interview with ConED later confirmed, the permanent street items like bump-outs and medians that can become problematic. When asked about community pushback to heavy lift activity, Marchioni mentioned that Weeks Marine has not received noise complaints in Manhattan, likely because the lifts happen so fast (around an hour) and at night. Depending on the cargo’s final destination, transportation via truck once the cargo is lifted upland could take much longer than the travel time on water. This was a new finding to the group as previous research had led us to believe the most difficult complications were in the move of cargo from water to land. Marchioni mentioned that the South Street Heliport (Pier 6) is an ideal for heavy lift activity. The site has been used several times in the past but activity has stopped here due to a number of accidents while moving equipment.

Trevor Johnson

Bill Dunne & Team ConEdison Our interview with ConEd provided a wealth of important information related to their heavy lift activity, starting with the company’s need for access and moving into the process of heavy lift and experience with Hudson River Park Trust at Pier 86.Most of their heavy lift needs are related to substation operations equipment. Of these, the smallest pieces being moved via waterfront heavy lift are transformers which range from 60335 tons. These are indivisible components and must be built elsewhere as there is not enough space on the island to construct them, meaning they need to be brought to the substation already having been assembled. In terms of process, most transformers used by ConEd are built in Europe, with Siemens and ABB are the main companies. They arrive in Port Newark or Port Elizabeth—this is the manufacturer’s responsibility. Upon arrival, either Don Jon or Weeks Marine make the move from there to Luyster Creek in Queens, NY. From there, it is moved to a spare transformer yard XII. Appendix

for storage or if it needs prep work before being moved. It is then put on a multi-axle trailer, and then taken to Pier 86. For these operations they use a mobile hydraulic crane or Jack & Slide. Pier 86 is the only heavy lift site ConED uses in Manhattan and is used to service all the Manhattan substations with transformers as necessary. When a transformer has reached the end of its life, it is disassembled into its base parts (apparently, a profitable industry given all the copper!). ConEd has 21 substations in Manhattan. Once the equipment has been lifted onto Manhattan via Pier 86, the challenge of moving it from the site to its destination begins. They determine the dimensions and then take these to engineers who determine specifics related to axle load and spreading load. The major concerns regarding land transportation are the height of overhead obstructions like traffic and street lights and the size of the road, namely to do with whether the truck can make the turn. It is also necessary to remove cars parked along the route. To deal with this, a geometric survey is conducted to determine with routes, turn by turn, and to account for new street upgrades, etc. After the survey, they submit this package to DOT who have their engineers conduct a formal assessment. They then get in touch with NYPD, who send between 2-12 trucks for a normal operation. ConED also needs to coordinate with parking vendors to book parking spots and other logistics. Once trucks hit the ground the goal is to have a seamless operation; they prefer not to stop given the intensity of loads and weight distribution for the ground. ConED has prior surveys and plans for routes from Pier 86 to all necessary substations, though with all the city’s new modifications like crosswalks, widened medians and other inflexible public space interventions surveys must be taken sometimes even one or two days beforehand. Heavy lifts usually take place between 10pm-12am, can take from a few hours to two days, but cannot run operations past 530am. ConEd has three operations planned for the next month or two, and usually between four and five a year. There are exceptions, such as between 2003-2010 when several new substations were built and each demanded four new transformers. According to ConEd, Pier 86 is a comfortable and ideal site because it has great draft, much more than the required 14 feet. Also, ConED has a good relationship with Hudson River Park Trust, and it was a site well positioned not to interrupt traffic. After they bring the object onto land at Pier 86, they normally stage at 42nd Street until they are ready, then NYPD shuts down north and Heavy Lift/RoRo: A Study of the Manhattan Waterfront

southbound traffic. Trucks can move a maximum of 5 miles per hour so this process can take a long time. In the past, ConEd has used Pier 5 for heavy lift activity when access to the South Street substation has been required. They have used the Weeks Marine 533 to reach over to north side of the FDR to put the equipment on trailers on south side. They also considered Pier 42 for a while a number of years ago but faced issues to do with load bearing capacity and inadequate lift distance between the water’s edge and the staging area (for these operations, 55 feet is good approximate crane reach from the bulkhead to the center of the lay down space). When this number is higher and landing spots are further out, say 65 or 75 feet out, it gets more difficult and loads need to be smaller and lighter. Road closures must be completed in fifteen minutes or less, making the West Side Highway a more feasible route than the FDR with better access and less problems to do with elevated structures and load bearing capacities. ConED is able to temporarily remove planters and infrastructure and would support a scenario where this was possible, such as in the case of a park with deployable or movable park furniture, especially if it suited their interests and was ideally located for their purposes. Pier 40 was once a consideration for such a site, but Hudson River Park Trust moved too quickly with their designs and this became a missed opportunity. Sherman Creek would be a great location for off loading and getting things into other parts of the city, however the the major problem with this site is constrained access given the elevated subway structure (1 train).

Emil Lissauer Mayor’s Office of Citywide Events Emil Lissauer provided an overview of the Office of Citywide Events’ responsibilities and their involvement in organizing and carrying out large-scale public events and programming across New York City. He offered an insider’s look into the extensive logistics, planning and coordination with other city agencies and offices that goes into planning such events —from NYPD to DOT and DSBS— as well as the protocol for major private events such as the recent visit of the Pope to New York and the road closures, sidewalk closures and heightened security required to plan for it.

Dec, 2015

Douglas Friend and Margaret Hopkins AKRF Given the selection of AKRF to serve as the environmental consulting firm for the ‘Big U’, Douglas (a marine engineer) and Margaret (an environmental engineer) have both been extensively involved in the structural and engineering details of the program as it unfolds. Learning more about ‘Big U’ developments was insightful, though we were also informed that given the extensive, detailed plans for development along the waterfront site, that any sort of part time heavy lift scenario would be highly unlikely. This was a discouraging surprise, and it reasserts the need for discussions about waterfront access and commercial activity — particularly for heavy lift, for which there is a growing need, and for which the necessary infrastructure can be built into resilient park space such as the types planned for the ‘Big U’.

Meenakshi Varandani NYC Department of Small Business Services Meenakshi Varandani as the Director of Waterfront permits gave an overview of the unit’s tasks in issuance of permits for all construction related to improvement or maintenance of marine and marine structures such as piers, docks, bulkheads and seawalls. In learning about this process the team understood that this Department needs to be consulted on obtaining permits in the later stages of this project especially when a site has been identified for heavy lift activity and any extensions, improvements or strengthening the bulkhead needs to be made.