Monday, September 26, 2005


Correcting the Times: the railyard would move east, not west

In coverage of the Atlantic Yards project, the New York Times has twice recently reported that the railyard sold by the MTA would be moved to the west, rather than east, which doesn't make sense--that would theoretically put it in the middle of Brooklyn's busiest intersection (Flatbush and Atlantic avenues). On September 7, the article stated: The agency would also get a new, upgraded train yard on land to the west of the existing 8.3-acre yard, which is at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues.

On September 15, the article said: Mr. Ratner, whose company is the development partner for the new Midtown headquarters of The New York Times Company, will be building a new and larger railyard to the west at an estimated cost of $182 million, Mr. Pally said... (It's not clear whether Pally actually used the term "west" or whether he simply mentioned a new railyard. There are some parentheticals packed into that paraphrased sentence--I'm certain Pally didn't mention the Ratner-Times connection.)

However, the official scoping document from the Empire State Development Corporation, ATLANTIC YARDS ARENA AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAFT SCOPE OF ANALYSIS FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, makes the layout clear: A reconfigured and upgraded yard... would be built below street grade on the eastern end of the existing Rail Yards footprint...

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?