Pier 76 Final Report 10-5-07

FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF

MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS AT
PIER 76
OCTOBER 2007
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPAL
FUNCTIONS AT
PIER 76
OCTOBER 2007
Prepared by:
HALCROW
22 Cortlandt Street, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the spirit of the Mayor’s Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), the Coalition
has sought ways to handle Manhattan’s waste within its own borders and improve
sustainability and quality of life for our community and neighbors. In an effort to
evaluate this concept, Friends of Hudson River Park and the Coalition to Protect Our
Parks retained an engineering/design team, led by Halcrow and including Weisz + Yoes
Architecture and Michael Singer Studio, to investigate the feasibility of using Pier 76 on
the Hudson River waterfront (at 36th Street) as a consolidated solid waste transfer
station within Hudson River Park, replacing the proposed Gansevoort recycling facility
and Pier 99 transfer station.
This plan proposed in this feasibility study answers the critical infrastructure and
community question ‘Where in My Back Yard?’ Locating municipal functions on New
York City’s waterfront can result in a win-win for the community, the City and the
environment at Pier 76. In our opinion, the reuse of Pier 76, as described in this report,
is a feasible alternative capable of fully replacing Gansevoort and Pier 99 and
potentially easing the burden on additional waste handling locations. We believe that
the reuse of the pier deserves further and serious consideration as the most viable
option as the City seeks to implement the SWMP and reach self reliance for waste
streams in Manhattan.
According to our analysis, the cost estimates provided by the City for a Pier 76
combined transfer station and tow pound are 20-40% higher than necessary, in large
part because it is not necessary in our opinion to demolish and reconstruct an entirely
new pier foundation. Performing preventative repairs to a the portion of the pier's
substructure that will support non-MTS functions rather than replacing it outright can
save up to $130,000,000 on the City’s original estimate for Pier 76.
1
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS AT
PIER 76
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LIST OF FIGURES ii
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND 2-1

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS 2-3
2.3 PIER 76 PROPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS 2-3
2.3.1 General Facts 2-3
2.3.2 Usable Space 2-4
2.3.3 Access 2-4
2.4 SITE COMPARISON 2-5
3. BASELINE COSTS 3-1
4. THE PROPOSED PLAN 4-1

4.1 PLAN COMPONENTS 4-1
4.1.1 Assumptions 4-1
4.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 4-8
4.2.1 Facility Interior 4-8
4.2.2 Facility Entrance/Exit 4-10
4.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 4-10
4.4 COST ESTIMATES 4-12
4.5 COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANYC2030 (IN 2013) 4-17
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1
APPENDIX A – POTENTIAL INTEGRATED SYSTEMS DIAGRAMS A-1

APPENDIX B – RESPONSES TO JULY 2007 GREELEY AND HANSEN STUDY B-1
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Title Page No.

Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map 1-3
Figure 1-2 Location Map 1-4
Figure 2-1 Pile Plan 2-2
Figure 2-2 Site Comparison 2-6
Figure 3-1 Baseline Cost Comparison 3-2
Figure 4-1 Ground Floor Plan 4-2
Figure 4-2 Tipping Floor Plan 4-3
Figure 4-3 Roof Plan 4-4
Figure 4-4 Section and Rendering 4-5
Figure 4-5 Facility Interior Plan 4-9
Figure 4-6 Facility Entrance / Exit Plan 4-11
Figure 4-7 3D Conceptual Model 4-13
Figure 4-8 Cost Estimates 4-15
ii
1. INTRODUCTION
Manhattan’s West Side communities, The Coalition to Protect Our Parks and
Friends of the Hudson River Park have taken a Where-In-My-Backyard (WIMBY)
approach to the question of how to site marine transfer facilities (MTS’s) in their
neighborhoods / Park. This Feasibility Study for Consolidating Municipal Functions at
Pier 76 is offered as a 30-50 year strategy that can be implemented without delay. In
the spirit of the Mayor’s Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), the Coalition has
sought ways to handle Manhattan’s waste within its own borders and improve
sustainability and quality of life for our community and neighbors. Halcrow believes Pier
76 can deliver on this vision within a reasonable amount of time consistent with the
Mayor’s PLANYC2030.
The City proposes to retrofit existing DOS facilities at Gansevoort Peninsula and
Pier 99 to recycling and commercial MTS activities respectively. This Feasibility Study
suggests that locating these functions at Pier 76 can be less costly and would minimize
impacts of MTS activities in the Hudson River Park. Consistent with the guiding
principle of the SWMP that Manhattan’s West Side handle its own municipal solid
waste, this infrastructure could be in place as early as 2013. Pier 76 is an ideal
opportunity to foster the concept of sustainable infrastructure working in combination
with compatible recreational waterfronts uses. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show a vicinity map
and location map, respectively, of Pier 76.
In an effort to evaluate this concept, Friends of Hudson River Park and the
Coalition to Protect Our Parks retained an engineering/design team, led by Halcrow and
including Weisz + Yoes Architecture and Michael Singer Studio, to investigate the
feasibility of using Pier 76 on the Hudson River waterfront (at 36th Street) as a
consolidated solid waste transfer station within Hudson River Park, replacing the
proposed Gansevoort recycling facility and Pier 99 transfer station. A preliminary
evaluation of the proposed combined transfer station has yielded encouraging results.
1-1
Based on Greeley and Hansen’s July 2007 Study of the Pier 76 Concept prepared for
the Department of Sanitation (DOS) our consultant team has reconsidered aspects of
the plan that were not feasible based on DOS criteria. We have used these criteria to
further refine the concept and cost estimates included in this Feasibility Study. The
Feasibility Study presents those results and examines four case scenarios for Pier 76 to
be easily compared to Gansevoort and Pier 99:
• Base Case 1: Recycling Facility (Gansevoort Program)
• Base Case 2: Commercial and Recycling Facility – Economized Function

(Gansevoort and Pier 99 programs)
• Containerized and Expanded Commercial and Recycling Facility:

(Containerization added for Commercial MTS)
• All Municipal Functions with Parks and Pier Repairs: full build including
maintaining NYPD facilities and new parkland. By limiting new
construction to aspects of the program that require new load or barge
requirements, over half of the existing structure can be maintained to save
up to $130M on what the City’s consultants estimated the full build
scenario to cost.
1-2
M Bronx
er
iv
R
n
so
New Jersey
ud
Manhattan
H
PROJECT SITE ^
Queens
New York
Harbor Brooklyn
0 1 2 4 Miles
FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1-1
1-3
M
Pier 99
NYC Passenger
Ship Terminal
New Jersey
Intrepid
Air Museum
er
iv
R
n
so
Midtown Ferry
ud
Terminal Manhattan
H
Pier 76
Project Site ^
Jacob
Javits
Heliport
Center
Hudson
Yards
Chelsea Piers
Gansevoort
0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1-2
1-4
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
Pier 76 was constructed in 1961 and is located on the eastern shore of the
Hudson River in Manhattan, opposite the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, and is
currently the site of a New York Police Department Tow Pound and mounted unit
stables. The pier extends approximately 725 feet into the Hudson River from the
adjacent bulkhead and consists of a reinforced concrete deck supported by
approximately 6400 timber piles. The piles are joined to the deck by cylindrical concrete
extensions beneath concrete pile caps. The total deck surface area is approximately
190,000 sq ft on the pier, with an additional 55,000 sq ft on the marginal wharf adjacent
to the bulkhead. The majority of the deck is covered by a corrugated metal shed that
houses current impound and stable operations.
A November 2006 structural inspection of the facility conducted by HPA indicated

minor damage due to marine borers on the majority of the timber piles, and very
isolated incidents of severe damage due to splitting of the piles. Most of the concrete
pile extensions also exhibited only minor damage in the form of corrosion cracking,
though up to 10% of the extensions exhibited more advanced deterioration due to
heave spalling of the concrete or breakage/erosion of concrete at the base of the
extensions. The concrete piles caps generally exhibited minor corrosion cracking and
spalling, though the perimeter edge beams also exhibited some severe damage due to
past vessel impacts. The concrete underdeck likewise exhibited minor damage
throughout, with severe damage present at the extreme western end. Reports on the
condition of the corrugated metal shed atop the deck were not readily available.
Figure 2-1 shows the pile plan for the existing pier. Based on a 2000 Goodkind
and O’Dea report, the general pier structure was designed for a 602 PSF uniform live
load and a 20.5-ton H-truck. Point loads from the metal shed superstructure are
supported by the pile clusters of various configurations. The November 2006 HPA
inspection report does not reduce the uniform live-load rating of the structure, except at
the north edge of Bent 73 at the offshore end of the pier where repairs are needed.
However, continued periodic inspections of the structure will be necessary.
2-1
2-2
PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
PILE PLAN
FIGURE 2-1
2.2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS
The goal is to locate a West Side transfer facility in Manhattan south of 96th
Street in a way that would most effectively meet the needs of the NYC Department of
Sanitation and private haulers and best meet community concerns, all within the context
of the Mayor’s Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). Under the Hudson River Park
Act, the City is obligated to remove the current use of Pier 76 – the Manhattan tow
pound – from the pier. The plan considered here allows a reconfigured tow pound to
remain at the pier, and adds a solid waste marine transfer station with the capacity both
to (1) accept and transfer into barges all of Manhattan’s recyclables and (2) process,
containerize and load into barges most of Manhattan’s commercial waste, consolidating
all MTS impacts on the Hudson River Park in one location.
2.3 PIER 76 PROPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
By virtue of its size, Pier 76 is flexible and well located to add capacity to and
simultaneously expedite the City’s Solid Waste Management Plan. Consolidating waste
transfer functions at Pier 76 will minimize impacts on the Hudson River and Manhattan’s
West Side communities, saving money, time and habitat. By adaptively reusing Pier 76
we see substantial cost benefits not considered to date by the City regarding costs,
ease of construction, time to completion, and minimized habitat disruption. Pier 76 is
available now and can provide space for containerization of the majority of Manhattan’s
putrescible commercial waste, and also provide increased capacity to handle
recyclables planned for Gansevoort by having both a metal, glass, plastic as well as a
paper barge slip for simultaneous loading.
2.3.1 General Facts
Pier provides approximately 250,000 sq/ft of deck space, and is therefore two
times larger than Pier 99 and the planned Gansevoort facility combined. Currently the
Pier 99 and Gansevoort Sites are occupied by DOS facilities. Sometimes trucks are
seen lining the West Side Highway in these locations due to inadequate storage space
on site. Combining the two DOS entrances within the Park to one location and
providing queuing space inside the facility to eliminate the impacts on the Park is a
guiding principle of this proposal.
2-3
The NYPD tow pound and stables are currently on Pier 76 and can be
accommodated in the future plan for the pier as proposed. The recycling MTS will have
one barge for paper and one for Metal, Glass and Plastic. The Commercial Facility is to
be built new unless as at Pier 99 containerization is optional. Even rebuilding almost
half of Pier 76 for MTS functions, the other portions of the Pier can be maintained
through routine repairs and periodic inspection to preserve the life of the remaining
structure for 30-50 years.
Many benefits present themselves with this alternative. A Commercial MTS at

Pier 76 will help minimize impacts of the far West Side construction planned across the
street during the next quarter century. The Pier is available without delay 2008 – no
parkland acquisition is required and we even open up parkland at critical nodes (59th
Street and Meat Packing District). The options described in this report show cost
comparisons for each element of the program. MTS / DOS trips to one location (rather
than the two currently planned) within the Park will improve safety and save money. We
have not calculated what keeping the tow pound in place (and operational during
construction) could save, but the savings could reach many millions of dollars for this
program element alone.
2.3.2 Usable Space
Pier 76 (244,600 sq/ft) is more than twice the square footage of the proposed
Gansevoort (41,500 sq/ft) and Pier 99 (57,100 sq/ft) footprints combined. This will add
flexibility to the waste transfer operations planned for the West Side. There is capacity
to handle two recycling barges at a time within an enclosed facility on the south side of
the Pier; one for metal, glass and plastic and another for paper. Unlike Pier 99, where
the footprint of which is limited by the Hudson River Park Act, Pier 76 also has ample
space for on-site compaction and containerization of commercial waste. Section 3.1
provides a more detailed examination of the usable space at all three locations.
2.3.3 Access
Currently, one of the worst grade crossings for Hudson River Park is at the
Manhattan Ferry Terminal exit just north of Pier 76. This is due to the narrow width of
the Park at this point, the exiting buses and other vehicles, and the entrance to the tow
pound. At least one fatality and many accidents have occurred at this location.
2-4
Our proposed plan, discussed in Section 3.2, calls for a raised section of the
Hudson River Park on the east side of Pier 76, allowing pedestrians and bicyclists to
rise above grade, while sanitation trucks and all other vehicles (including the buses out
of the Ferry Terminal) will cross below at grade.
2.4 SITE COMPARISON
Figure 2-2 shows a schematic comparison of the surfaces areas at Pier 76,
Gansevoort and Pier 99. As previously indicated, Pier 76 is more than twice the square
footage of the proposed Gansevoort and Pier 99 footprints combined. This additional
surface area provides flexibility in siting the waste transfer operations planned for the
West Side. There is capacity to handle two recycling barges at a time within an
enclosed facility on the south side of Pier 76; one for metal, glass and plastic and
another for paper. Unlike Pier 99, the footprint of which is limited by the Hudson River
Park Act, Pier 76 also has ample space for on-site compaction and containerization of
commercial waste.
Consolidating the facilities at Pier 76 will eliminate the need for a new transfer
station in Hudson River Park at Gansevoort and Pier 99 will be freed up for park use at
the north end of the Park. Our preliminary assessment shows that NYPD tow pound and
stable functions can also be retained at the Pier.
2-5
West 59th Street MTS Gansevoort St. MTS Pier 76
Property
2-6
Facility
11,500 SF
20,100 SF 81,200 SF
Circulation

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
SITE COMPARISON
FIGURE 2-2
3. BASELINE COSTS
The July 2007 Greeley and Hansen Report estimates the cost for construction of
a consolidated, multi-function facility at Pier 76 at $438 million dollars. If the whole pier
needed replacement this might be an accurate estimate, but this is not the case. The
following Cost Comparison was prepared to allow one to one comparisons to be made
between the recycling MTS, the commercial MTS and a legalized containerization
facility as they are planned vs. Pier 76. For this comparison, the costs of the NYPD
functions on site and a roof top park were not taken into consideration, as these would
be independent program and budget decisions.
3-1
Schematic Estimate Summary
Base Case #1: Recycling Facility
$ 72,031,000
Assumptions and Exclusions
Pier at Recycling Facility to be New Construction
Existing Pier and Piles at Facility Access Areas to Remain
Existing Pier and Piles at Facility Access Areas to be Repaired and Protected
Pier / Bulkhead Transition Assumed to be in Usable Condition
Mechanical, Electrical and Utilities Included in Shed Building Costs
Base Case #2: Commercial and Recycling Facility - Economized Function
$ 124,473,000
Pier at Recycling Facility to be New Construction
Existing Pier and Piles at Commercial MTS Facility and Access Areas to Remain
Existing Pier and Piles at Commercial MTS Facility and Access Areas to be Repaired and Protected
Legalized and Expanded Commercial and Recycling Facility
$ 187,474,000
Pier at Recycling and Commercial MTS Facility to be to New Construction
Existing Pier and Piles at Access Areas to Remain
Existing Pier and Piles at Access Areas to be Repaired and Protected
Remaining Piles Under Non-Facility Use Areas not Repaired or Protected

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
BASELINE COST COMPARISON
FIGURE 3-1
3-2
3-3
PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
BASE CASE #1
RECYCLING FACILITY
FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

Base Case #1: Recycling Facility
Demolition and Repairs

-
Demolitions at Barge Access Slips - Recycling MTS Location
Concrete Deck Removal 1,707,000
Concrete Pile Cap Removal 1,649,000
Timber Pile Removal 993,000
4,349,000
Repair, Protection and Maintenance of Timber Piles at Ramps and Access 6,669,000
Repair of Existing Concrete Pier Deck at Ramps and Access 3,144,000
New Facility Construction

-
Vehicular Ramp for Access to Recycling MTS Tipping Stations 12,576,000
Recycling MTS Facility

Recycling MTS Tipping Deck 6,288,000
Recycling Pier Deck Reconstruction 6,917,000
Recycling MTS Personnel and Administration Area 2,096,000
Recycling MTS Operational Support Area 2,096,000
Recycling MTS Shed and Roof Structure 20,960,000
Recycling Facility Operations Equipment 5,240,000
43,597,000
Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures - Recycling Facility 1,696,000
Base Case #1: Recycling Facility $ 72,031,000
Mark-Ups Included
General Conditions 7.0%
Mobilization 6.0%
Overhead 10.0%
Profit 12.0%
Design Contingency 50.0%

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
BASE CASE #1
RECYCLING FACILITY
FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

3-4
3-5
PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
BASE CASE #2 COMMERCIAL AND
RECYCLING FACILITY
ECONOMIZED FUNCTION
FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

Base Case #2: Commercial and Recycling Facility - Economized Function
Demolitions at Barge Access Slips - Commercial MTS Location 520,000
Demolitions at Barge Access Slips - Recycling MTS Location 4,349,000
Repair, Protection and Maintenance of Existing Timber Pier Piles 16,267,000
Repair of Existing Concrete Pier Deck 4,926,000
Vehicular Ramp for Access to MTS Tipping Stations 15,720,000
Commercial MTS Facility

Commercial MTS Tipping Deck 6,288,000
Commercial MTS Personnel and Administration Area 2,096,000
Commercial MTS Operational Support Area 2,096,000
Commercial MTS Shed and Roof Structure 20,960,000
Commercial Facility Operations Equipment 5,240,000
36,680,000

43,597,000
Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures - Commercial Facility 718,000

Base Case #2: Commercial and Recycling Facility - Economized Function $ 124,473,000
Mark-Ups Included
Mobilization 6.0%
Overhead 10.0%
Profit 12.0%

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
BASE CASE #2 COMMERCIAL AND
RECYCLING FACILITY
ECONOMIZED FUNCTION
FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

3-6
3-7
PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
CONTAINERIZED AND EXPANDED
COMMERCIAL AND RECYCLING
FACILITY
FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

Containerized and Expanded Commercial and Recycling Facility
Demolitions at All Locations 11,300,000
Vehicular Ramp for Access to MTS Tipping Stations 18,340,000
Commercial MTS Facility

Commercial MTS Pier Deck Reconstruction 21,065,000
Commercial MTS Loading Floor 13,205,000
Container Lidding System 419,000
97,569,000
43,597,000
Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures

Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures - Commercial Facility 1,696,000
4,098,000
Containerized and Expanded Commercial and Recycling Facility $ 187,474,000
Mark-Ups Included
Mobilization 6.0%
Overhead 10.0%
Profit 12.0%

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
CONTAINERIZED AND EXPANDED
COMMERCIAL AND RECYCLING
FACILITY
FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

3-8
4. THE PROPOSED PLAN
4.1 PLAN COMPONENTS
Figures 4-1 through 4-3 present conceptual plans for a three-level consolidated
facility at Pier 76. Figure 4-4 presents a proposed section and rendering of the same
facility.
4.1.1 Assumptions
(A) WASTE TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS
The model for a waste containerization facility developed by the City - which we have
copied for the Pier 76 commercial waste facility – allows for a normal maximum
throughput of 4,290 tons per day - with a peak maximum capacity of 5,280 tons per day.
The City's own estimates for total commercial putrescible waste that will be generated in
the borough of Manhattan in 2010 is 3,781 tons - 780 of which the city has estimated
could be processed in the municipal East 91st containerization facility. Given that the
maximum normal capacity of a facility similar to what we have proposed is 43% higher
than this - we are confident that most if not all of Manhattan's commercial putrescible
waste could be processed at the Pier 76 facility – a location very convenient to the
Midtown and the new Hudson Yards office district. This should hold true through at least
2024, when DSNY projects that the generation of commercial putrescible waste will rise
to 3,962 tons per day. In addition, we have provided interior, ventilated queuing for 35+
trucks and the loading floor allows storage of extra waste during peak delivery periods.
Details of our assumptions and calculations, based on existing DSNY studies, are as
follows:
1. The Mayor's September 2006 long-term Solid Waste Management Plan calls
for the construction of a municipal waste containerization facility at East 91st
Street to handle Districts 5, 6, 8 and 11 with Manhattan's remaining Municipal
Waste being exported to the Essex County Resource Recovery Facility (i.e "the
Incinerator"). It is estimated that the East 91st Facility will also be able to accept
780 tons per day of Commercial Waste. So the proposed Pier 76 transfer station
does not need to process ALL of Manhattan's Commercial waste, just the
remainder.
4-1
PIER DECK
BARGE STAGING
AREA +0
H
HUUD
DSSO
ONN R
R II V
VEER
R
SLIP 1
SLIP 2
+0
TOW POUND
STABLES
4-2
+0 MIDTOWN
MIDTOWN
MTS
FERRY
FERRY
HUDSON RIVER PARK ENTRY
TERMINAL
TERMINAL
+0
+0
BIKE / PEDESTRIAN PATH
HUDSON
HUDSON YARDS
YARDS JACOB
JACOB JAVITS
JAVITS CENTER
CENTER

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
FIGURE 4-1
LOADING COMMERCIAL
+0’ FLOOR TIPPING
BARGE STAGING FLOOR
AREA +16’
H
HUUD
DSSO
ONN R
R II V
VEER
R
+28’
RECYCLING
TIPPING FLOOR
+20’
MTS
ADDITIONAL
SPACE
4-3
MIDTOWN
MIDTOWN
FERRY
FERRY
HUDSON RIVER PARK TERMINAL
TERMINAL
BIKE / PEDESTRIAN PATH +20’
HUDSON
HUDSON YARDS
YARDS JACOB
JACOB JAVITS
JAVITS CENTER
CENTER

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
TIPPING FLOOR PLAN
FIGURE 4-2
+58’
GANTRY CRANE
H
HUUD
DSSO
ONN R
R II V
VEER
R
PARK
4-4
MIDTOWN
MIDTOWN
+20’ FERRY
FERRY
HUDSON RIVER PARK TERMINAL
TERMINAL
+0’ BIKE / PEDESTRIAN PATH +20’ +0’
CONNECTION TO HUDSON YARDS CONNECTION TO JAVITS CENTER
HUDSON
HUDSON YARDS
YARDS JACOB
JACOB JAVITS
JAVITS CENTER
CENTER

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
ROOF PLAN
FIGURE 4-3
LEGEND
PARK
MTS – ENTRANCE
MTS – EXIT
MTS – COMMERCIAL
MTS – RECYCLING
OTHER
4-5
CONCEPTUAL RENDERING FROM WEST STREET
COMMERCIAL TIPPING FLOOR

RECYCLING TIPPING FLOOR
ADDITIONAL SPACE
HUDSON RIVER TOW POUND
WEST STREET JAVITS CENTER

SLIP 1 SLIP 2
SECTION

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
SECTION AND RENDERING
FIGURE 4-4
2. DSNY's March 2004 Commercial Waste Management Study by HDR
Architecture and Engineering provides current (2003) and projected estimates
(through 2024) of Commercial Waste generated in New York City. Table 3.7-2 in
Volume II gives 1,306,000 tons per year/3,578 tons per day as 2003 numbers
rising to 1,380,000 tons per year/3,781 tons per day in 2010 and 1,446,000 tons
per year/3,962 tons per day in 2024. These numbers are produced from
employment generation factors (tons/day/employed person) as opposed to a
survey of commercial carters.
3. Using projected 2010 numbers, 3,781 tons per day will be generated in
Manhattan. Subtract 780 tons per day that can go to the East 91st Facility and
we have 3,001 tons per day.
4. We looked both at the East 91st Street and North Shore Final Engineering
Reports/Permit Application from January 2007 and the model for the
containerization facilities outlined in the 2004 Commercial Waste Management
Study. We used the same basic assumptions for the Pier 76 commercial waster
containerization facility:
Tipping Floor at +28' (+12' above Loading Floor) is 80' wide x 200' long
and can accommodate six trucks tipping at the same time.
Loading Floor at +16' is 100' wide and 200' long. This space also allows
for storage of 634 tons of waste - allowing trucks to dump faster than the
loaders can load if need be.
Model includes 4 Container Loading Slots (20' long by 7.5' wide) – with
normal operation only using 3. The Container Loading floor at Pier level is
20' x 200'.
Model assumes that the facility can fill 10 containers an hour. At 22 tons
each that means containerizing 220 tons of waste an hour. Commercial
trucks are assumed to hold 11 tons each - so basically 2 trucks/container.
Another way of looking at the numbers would be that the facility can
containerize the waste from 20 trucks an hour. This container loading
process seems to be the limiting factor for the operation - the trucks can
4-6
dump much more quickly (and because of excess loading floor storage the
facility can handle it) and the barges can be loaded much more quickly
(and because of storage space for containers the facility can handle it).
The fourth "spare" loading slot is not addressed in the model - but
presumably in some circumstances it could be used to increase
throughput.
Container lidding floor is 24' wide by 200' long at pier level. Filled
containers are pushed into the lidding floor, lidded and then pushed out
onto the pier where they can be stored or picked up and put on a barge.
The barges can hold 48 containers (1056 tons of waste) and can be
loaded fast enough that the model assumes there is no loss of operation
from barges switching out.
Since the limiting factor is the loading of the containers - the model
assumes that 220 tons per hour is the maximum normal throughput
(assumes 19.5 hours of operations a day to allow for shift swaps, lunch
and breaks) is 4,290 tons per day. The emergency throughput assumes
that the facility operates 24 hours (no breaks/no shift change shutdown)
and can process 5,280 tons per day.
5. If the model containerization facility which we based our design on is designed

to handle 4,290 tons per day - it should easily be able to handle the 2010
numbers: 3,001 tons per day of Commercial Waste assuming East 91st Street
MTS is operational or even all of the 3,781 tons per day of Commercial Waste
generated in Manhattan. This is 2.8 to 3.5 barges a day. The facility even has a
little extra capacity and the ability to handle emergency or unprecedented surges
in waste.
6. Using the model's assumption that commercial trucks deliver 11 tons each,
Pier 76 Commercial Waste Container MTS will receive 273 Commercial trucks
per day (this assumes East 91st Street is operational). We were not able to find
any information on the average and peak flow of Commercial trucks - although
according to DSNY the majority is between 8PM and 8AM. Using this 12 hour
window for Commercial waste, this means an average of 23 trucks an hour
4-7
(again the latter assumes East 91 takes some commercial putrescible waste).
We have provided queuing for 35+ trucks and the loading floor allows storage of
extra waste. The facility should therefore have enough space to handle delivery
of the waste without creating traffic problems on the West Side Highway.
7. However, there are almost certainly peak periods in which the number of
trucks arriving exceed the average - if DSNY operations are any guide then these
peak rates could be significantly higher. We need to study the peak rates for
Commercial truck traffic in order to demonstrate show that the facility can handle
the truck traffic that would allow it to process ALL of Manhattan's Commercial
Putrescible Waste.
8. The good news is that the Municipal Recycling trucks deliver mostly during the
daytime - so the two operations will be compatible. From the 59th Street RFP, we
see that daily paper delivery to the pier in 2005 was between 42 and 95 truck
loads (depending on the day). If we double that we get an estimate for the
Municipal Paper and Metal-Glass-Plastic of 84 to 190 trucks a day or spread
across the two 8 hour shifts: 5 to 12 trucks an hour. Again there will be peaks, but
the Recycling Truck traffic will certainly be lighter than the Commercial Waste.
4.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
4.2.1 Facility Interior
Inside the facility, this same level of caution and simplicity are maintained with
the separation of incoming and out going sanitation truck traffic. The inbound ramps are
designed in a way to accommodate queuing room for 30 - 40 trucks at any given time.
There are two entry lanes and one exit lane devoted to inbound and outbound MTS
traffic. At the weight station trucks are sent to the commercial or recycling tipping floors.
See Figure 4-5.
The facility has separate areas for commercial trash and recyclables. The
commercial waste is managed on the west side and the recyclables are managed on
the south side of the facility. The trucks bringing in commercial waste are routed onto
the tipping floor at +28 feet, where the waste is tipped to a loading floor at +16 feet. On
the loading floor commercial waste is containerized and gantry cranes loads the barge
4-8
4-9
PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
FACILITY INTERIOR PLAN
FIGURE 4-5
at the southwest corner of the Pier. Recycling trucks stay at +20 feet and tip into open
barges below. All trucks then exit the northern end of the site.
4.2.2 Facility Entrance/Exit
Based on a preliminary study of the traffic movement in the area, as well as using
simulation software to analyze the possible conflicts, the following changes are
proposed to the immediate intersections to allow a smooth movement of traffic. The
analysis for the facility is based on the standard NYC Sanitation truck, and standard bus
and car vehicle dimensions. The paths and turning radii are analyzed in Figure 4-6.
Separating modes of transportation in this location is the strategy for safety and
mobility. The Hudson River Highline concept lifts pedestrians and bicycles out of the at-
grade traffic. Ferry Terminal traffic exits unimpeded, and a full intersection (two entrance
lanes and two exit lanes) facilitates MTS trucks and DOS traffic only between the Ferry
Terminal exit and the tow pound access. Demands are spread out through the day and
there is enough queuing inside the facility to keep trucks off of 9A and from disrupting
peak periods.
There is an existing pedestrian connection along the Hudson River Park. This
connection is preserved and separated from the traffic by separation of grade. It can be
seen that this proposed Pedestrian trail/pathway; elevated at 20 feet is continuous and
unbroken based on the design of the facility. Adequate slope and access to a rooftop
park, proposed on the top of the facility, forms an integral part of the traffic design.
There would therefore be no conflicts between pedestrians/bicyclists and vehicles at
ground level.
4.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
Hudson River Park is elevated into a new High Line to eliminate conflicts with
Ferry Terminal Buses, Tow Pound and Waste Transfer traffic.
As Olmsted originally proved in Central Park, grade separation is effective in

dense urban parks for pedestrian safety. As with other State Parks trails, a 20 foot rise
and descent will bring variety to the Hudson River Park and can provide a link above the
4-10
4-11
PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
FACILITY ENTRANCE / EXIT PLAN
FIGURE 4-6
West Side highway to the Highline connecting the new west side ferry terminal to
the future west side yards.
Connecting to the West Side Yards, a public space on the roof can serve as a
destination for the High Line and Terrace to the Jacob Javits Convention Center.
As shown in Section 4.1 and Figure 4-7, our proposed plan calls for a raised
section of the Hudson River Park on the east side of Pier 76, allowing pedestrians and
bicyclists to rise above grade, while sanitation trucks and all other vehicles (including
the buses out of the Ferry Terminal) will cross below at grade.
Below the elevated walkway and bikeway, traffic remains at grade. The sanitation
trucks rise inside the Pier to the tipping floor on the second level. All queuing for peak
activities is accommodated indoors and off the street – another major advantage over
Pier 99.
The gentle slope lifting the bike path and walkway will also bring people halfway
up to a rooftop park to be built above the consolidated transfer station. Crossing into the
rooftop, pedestrians would then continue up a gently sloped roof to the main expanse of
park. Views will be focused to the north on the Palisades and the boat traffic at the
Passenger Ship Terminal. There could be a terrace connection to the Javits Center and
the park will serve as a destination on the Hudson for the High Line and Hudson Yards,
connecting Midtown to the West Side Ferry Terminal.
4.4 COST ESTIMATES
According to our analysis, the cost estimates provided by the City for a Pier 76
combined transfer station and tow pound are 20-40% higher than necessary, in large
part because it is not necessary in our opinion to demolish and reconstruct an entirely
new pier foundation. Performing preventative repairs to a the portion of the pier's
substructure that will support non-MTS functions rather than replacing it outright can
save up to $130,000,000 on the City’s original estimate for Pier 76. This is based on
relevant structural information contained in Halcrow HPA’s 2006 Inspection report of
Pier 76.
4-12
4-13
PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
3D CONCEPTUAL MODEL
FIGURE 4-7
In line with the above, we have assumed the existing pier structure, which has an
assumed live load capacity of 602 PSF, can be utilized as the foundation for the new
facility. The existing pier 76 deck can be literally used as a working platform from which
a new highly cost effective load spreading reinforced foundation can be constructed in
lieu of demolishing and rebuilding the existing pier structure, resulting in substantial cost
savings.
There will still be a need for continued inspection and maintenance of the pier,
however, It is assumed that the initial cost savings will greatly offset the long term
maintenance costs. This has been accounted for in the Cost Analysis below; It is
assumed that for an adaptive reuse of the pier, $20M timber maintenance strategy be
included in the estimate. Reusing Pier 76 may also save up to $130M in costs originally
associated with its demolition.
Our cost estimates are also based on the use of an epoxy encapsulation system
for piles showing only minor signs of deterioration. Such a system is currently being
implemented at the Passenger Ship Terminal, and, properly installed, is expected
protect the piles from marine borer infestation for up to 30 years. Note that other
technologies exist to extend the life of timber piles, but epoxy encapsulation is currently
a preferred option in the area.
Figure 4-8 presents cost estimates for developing the plan outlined in Section 4.1
above with both full reconstruction of the Pier 76 substructure and partial replacement
only to accommodate waste containerization operations.
As mentioned above, assigning credits for keeping the Pier (bearing in mind
preventive maintenance), using the existing deck as formwork for a new foundation and
accounting for structural redundancies, we estimate that approximately $130 million can
be saved as compared to the City’s original estimate. If the green roof park is also not
considered in the Pier 76 estimate (there is no green roof planned for Gansevoort), the
total cost (including the tow pound and commercial containerization and transfer) can be
estimated at approximately $307 million as opposed to the City’s original $438 million
estimate.
Reviewing the DSNY order of magnitude construction cost estimate labeled

“Estimated Cost of Friends of Hudson River Park Proposal for Pier 76”, it is noted that
4-14
All Municipal Functions with parks and Pier Repairs
Vehicular Ramp for Access to Commercial MTS Tipping Stations 18,340,000
Commercial MTS Pier Deck Reconstruction 21,065,000

Container Lading System 419,000
97,569,000

43,597,000
Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures 4,598,000
Open Space Green Roof And Park 93,534,000

Hudson River Park Pathway 2,515,000
Planted Wall and Tree Nursery 4,402,000
Tree Canopy Along Hudson River Park Pathway 4,402,000
104,853,000
All Municipal Functions with parks and Pier Repairs $ 307,876,000

Mark-Ups Included
Mobilization 6.0%
Overhead 10.0%
Profit 12.0%

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
ALL MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS
WITH PARKS AND PIER REPAIRS
FIGURE 4-8
4-15
PIER 76 - Commercial and Recycling Marine Transfer Station
All Municipal Functions with Parks and New Pier
Pier Deck Reconstruction 77,092,000
Vehicular Ramp for Access to Commercial MTS Tipping Stations 18,340,000

Container Lading System 419,000
76,504,000

39,195,000
Tow Pound and Stables Shed and Roof Structure 52,400,000
Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures 5,170,000
Open Space Green Roof And Park 93,534,000

Hudson River Park Pathway 2,515,000
Planted Wall and Tree Nursery 4,402,000
Tree Canopy Along Hudson River Park Pathway 4,402,000
104,853,000
All Municipal Functions with Parks and New Pier $ 422,975,000
Mark-Ups Included
Mobilization 6.0%
Overhead 10.0%
Profit 12.0%

PIER 76
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
ALL MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS
WITH PARKS AND NEW PIER
FIGURE 4-8 (CONT.)

4-16
the pricing assumes the demolition of the existing pier facility and construction of an all
new facility as the first cost heading is “Pier 76 Demolition.”
COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANYC2030 (IN 2013)
Developing Pier 76 as proposed in this report can address the following key
issues presented in PLANYC2030, and is therefore highly compatible with the goals of
that plan.
Land Use:
Reclaim a large area of under utilized waterfront;
Make better use of under-utilized space by turning a single use

impoundment lot into a multi-use facility.
Create additional open space adjacent to areas of future housing

development.
Expand upon the initiative to "Green the Cityscape" by using the MTS
infrastructure to create new opportunities for open space, urban
agriculture, a street tree nursery, composting, and habitat creation.
Transportation Issues:
Reduce truck trips, associated congestion and air pollution through use of
barges to transport waste.
Make use of existing roadway infrastructure capacity.
Enable future bio diesel conversion for City DOS trucks, with the MTS as a
processing and fueling facility.
Create an elevated pathway that is safer for users along the West Side
Highway.
Water and Air Quality:
Greatly reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff from all of Pier 76 through a

layered stormwater and grey water capture and re-use system.
4-17
Combine several existing and new water BMPs to including subsurface
water retention and storage, cisterns, and green walls.
Greatly reduce impermeable surfaces, cool ambient air temperatures, and

capture water for reuse by way of the large green roof design.
Allow for oyster bed habitat demonstration areas and artificial oyster beds
that could be established along the pier to filter water and help to
regenerate the Hudson River
Use captured stormwater and re-used grey water for cleaning trucks,
tipping floors, equipment, and stables, as well as for toilets and park
irrigation, greatly reducing the facility's potable water consumption.
Reduce air pollution through the aforementioned reduction of truck trips

and associated congestion.
Create an opportunity to further reduce truck emissions through the

aforementioned potential to convert to bio diesel, with the MTS as a
processing and fueling facility.
Implement bio-filters combined with open space for tertiary odor control
and air quality management.
Increase open green space, further improving air quality.
Energy Consumption:
Reduce energy demands through daylighting interiors, more efficient

ventilation systems, and reclamation of waste heat.
Implement cleaner energy sources through use of vertical axis wind

turbines and building-integrated PV panels.
Create a source of distributed energy generation and a back-up energy

supply to keep operations active during blackouts.
Appendix A provides potential concepts for the integrated systems that could be
implemented at the Pier 76 facility to meet the goals for environmental quality, land use,
and reduction of energy consumption discuss above.
4-18
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The plan proposed in this report answers the critical infrastructure and
community question ‘Where in My Back Yard?’ Locating municipal functions on New
York City’s waterfront can result in a win-win for the community, the City and the
environment at Pier 76. In our opinion, the reuse of Pier 76, as described in this report,
is a feasible alternative capable of fully replacing Gansevoort and Pier 99 and
potentially easing the burden on additional waste handling locations. We believe that
the reuse of the pier deserves further and serious consideration as the most viable
option as the City seeks to implement the SWMP and reach self reliance for waste
streams in Manhattan.
In this investigation we have found that repairing timber piles at Pier 76 can save
$130,000,000 in capital costs based on original estimates. Maintaining existing
municipal functions in place at Pier 76 will also save the NYPD costs and logistics
associated with relocating facilities. Bringing all trucks off the street and enclosing them
immediately with adequate queuing indoors improves upon both Gansevoort and 59th
Street plans and building a pedestrian bridge instead of a truck ramp eliminates all
vehicular park conflicts for Pier 76 and the Ferry Terminal Exit (historically a safety
concern). Maintaining space for the NYPD tow pound operation and stables are a
function of the size of Pier 76 and an example of how shared use of the pier will save
time and money from legal issues to relocation of existing municipal functions in the
coming months and years.
Pier 76 is within the same affected community as Gansevoort and Pier 99, so this
is not a question of pushing responsibility off to other communities, but rather one of
gaining consensus on where in the community’s backyard these functions are most
effectively accommodated.
5-1
APPENDIX A
POTENTIAL INTEGRATED SYSTEMS DIAGRAMS
A-1
A-2
A-3
APPENDIX B
RESPONSES TO JULY 2007 GREELEY AND HANSEN STUDY
B-1
Greeley and Hansen’s July 2007 Study of the Friends of the Hudson River Park’s
proposal for a combined Municipal Recycling MTS and Commercial Waste MTS
concludes that the existing substructure and concrete deck structure cannot support the
proposed loads and points out a number of operational and technical issues with the
proposal. In addition to showing that the existing pier can support the combined MTS
and rooftop park - thus refuting Greeley and Hansen’s main conclusion – Halcrow’s
revised addresses all of Greeley and Hansen’s operational and technical issues with its
revised design. From an conceptual engineering and operational perspective the
combined MTS on Pier 76 is achievable.
To review the program for the Friends of Hudson River Park’s Pier 76 proposal.
It envisions three levels of program:
Ground Floor/Pier Deck
• Modified NYPD Tow Pound
• Modified NYPD Stables
• Access to containerization operations on both the pier-level and loading

floor for service and emergency vehicles
• Entrance and exit for access ramps to both Commercial Waste MTS and
Municipal Recycling MTS
Operations Floor/2nd Floor
• New Municipal Recycling MTS with direct transfer to barge
• New Commercial Waste MTS with containerization of waste prior to

transfer to barge
• Additional unprogrammed space – available for use.
Park Level/Roof Deck
• New Park including a raised plateau overlooking the river and with views
to Midtown and the Palisades and a large, gently sloping promenade that
B-2
connects to the linear greenway of Hudson River Park – overall a green front
porch for the Jacob Javits Convention Center.
• A raised greenway that allows pedestrian and bicycle traffic to bypass the
heavily-trafficked multiple entrance and exit lanes for the new MTS, the Tow
Pound and the New York Waterway busses.
Halcrow’s revised design addresses each of Greeley & Hansen’s specific

concerns as indicated below. Greeley & Hansen’s issues are provided in italics and
Halcrow’s response follows.
GROUND LEVEL/PIER DECK
ISSUE 1 – PIER STRUCTURE (CONTAINERIZATION)
Page 1: "Neither Pier 76 itself or the pile clusters have sufficient load bearing capacity to
support a DSNY containerization facility."
Page 1: “The existing pile cannot accommodate the additional lateral forces a
containerization facility would impose.”
Page 2: “The column grid needed for a containerization facility is significantly different
from the beam and pile spacing of Pier 76.”
Page 2: “The Pier 76 pier deck cannot support the loads that would be imposed by full
containers stacked two high.”
Page 2: “The existing pier deck cannot accommodate the shuttle care system needed to
move empty and full containers into and out of the building or the gantry cranes that
would move containers on to and off of barges.”
RESPONSE - In order to address these four objections to the Pier 76 proposal, Halcrow
is has proposed to upgrade/replace the portion of the pier substructure below the
containerization facility to fully accommodate all planned vertical live loads and lateral
loads. Upgrade and replacement costs are included in our cost estimates.
ISSUE 2 – PIER STRUCTURE (ROOFTOP PARK)
B-3
Page 2: “The weight of the proposed rooftop park will considerably reduce the load
bearing capacity of the existing Pier 76 pier deck.”
RESPONSE – At this conceptual stage, only preliminary structural calculations can be

performed. However, as with Issue 1, the upgrades necessary to accommodate all
planned loads have been included in our cost estimates, and represent a significantly
lower cost than necessary for the establishments of three separate facilities.
ISSUE 3 – PIER LEVEL ACCESS
Page 3: “The proposed facility does not include a means to access the loading floor or
the pier deck by operating equipment, service vehicles and emergency vehicles. Such
access is critical to the safe operation of a DSNY facility of this kind.”
RESPONSE - Halcrow has reconfigured the pier level conceptual design to allow
access to the loading flooor and pier deck as suggested by Greeley & Hansen.
OPERATIONS LEVEL/2ND FLOOR
ISSUE 4 – MTS RAMPS
Page 2: "The proposed facility appears to provide only one single-lane exit ramp. This
is an unacceptable feature as it would prevent access and halt operations in the event
of a breakdown."
Page 2: “The access ramps to the proposed facility are too steep to safely operate
DSNY equipment. To meet DSNY design criteria, the ramp would need to be
approximately 413 feet, not the 130 feet shown on the Pier 76 proposal. It is not clear
how or if the pier can accommodate such an access ramp.”
RESPONSE - Halcrow has reconfigured the conceptual design for the entrance and exit
ramps for the MTS facilities to allow for multiple lane exit and entrance ramps as
required by DSNY. In addition, by locating the exit and entrance ramps immediately
adjacent to each other, Halcrow has provided a total of 4 lanes for - even with multiple
breakdowns across several lanes, the facility would be able to continue operations. The
new 400’ ramp design also easily provides a 5% grade for DSNY and commercial
hauler vehicles – more gradual than the 6-8% suggested by Greeley & Hansen. Also
B-4
the new design provides 17’ lanes and a 35’ turning radius – again meeting Greeley &
Hansen’s suggested dimensions.
PARK LEVEL/ROOF DECK
ISSUE 5 – HVAC EQUIPMENT
Page 3: “The proposed design does not appear to provide any space for HVAC
equipment above the floors. To address this, the roofs will have to be raised higher than
the Pier 76 proposal indicates or this equipment would need to be housed below the
tipping floors. Given the size of the existing pier and the amount of HVAC equipment
required for the proposed facility, it is not clear how the design could be modified to
address this issue.”
RESPONSE – Halcrow has estimated that it can house HVAC it in the roof structure
above the Operations Level. Halcrow has reconfigured the conceptual design of the
facility to allow adequate space for the necessary HVAC equipment. This does mean
that the park level is raised by up to 8’ but as noted above, the park can be designed to
accommodate this increase in height.
ISSUE 6 – ROOFTOP PARK LEVEL
Page 3: “The 30-foot distance shown from the solid waste tipping floor to the top of the
proposed rooftop is insufficient space to provide structural support to operate collection
vehicles and to incorporate building systems, including fire protection, dust suppression,
HVAC and lighting. To properly address these issues, the elevation of the rooftop park
would likely exceed 70 feet.”
RESPONSE –Greeley and Hansen’s report raises only this single question about the
design of the rooftop park – arguing that, because of a necessary increase in the
elevation of the roof deck, “the rooftop park would be a series of small flat areas
connected by steep ramps or stairs, rather than a large gently-sloping open space” as
depicted in the FHRP proposal. This is not necessarily true. Even if, as Greeley and
Hansen assumes, the final elevation of the park is raised 10’ to allow for additional
structure and an HVAC system, the rooftop park could still be designed in such a way to
create a majestic and beautiful rooftop park experienced as a large gently-sloping open
space. A series of switchbacking, gently-sloping ramps embedded in lush plantings and
B-5
lined with benches will allow the ADA accessible ramps system to be experienced as a
promenade. This promenade zig-zags up the sloped MTS roof – allowing the park
visitor to enjoy the park while moving gradually up to the large flat elevated deck
overlooking the Hudson River. As series of stairs will direct access up and down, but
the overall impression will not be “a series of small flat areas” – although some small flat
areas could be provided to allow for gathering spaces, lawns or active uses like tennis
courts – but a “large gently-sloping open space” that moves the park visitor from the
Hudson River Park and the city beyond to a spectacular raised view up and down the
river, of the Palisades, of Midtown’s mass of towers and the new Midtown West and
Hudson Yards development. Rather than complicating the maintenance and use of the
park as stated by Greeley and Hansen, a good design can use any required elevation
change to make the park into a spectacular event in its own right.
B-6

Pier 76 Final Report 10-5-07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pier 76 Final Report 10-5-07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEASIBILITY STUDY

FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND 2-1

3. BASELINE COSTS 3-1

4. THE PROPOSED PLAN 4-1

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1

APPENDIX A – POTENTIAL INTEGRATED SYSTEMS DIAGRAMS A-1

Title Page No.

• Base Case 1: Recycling Facility (Gansevoort Program)

• Base Case 2: Commercial and Recycling Facility – Economized Function

• Containerized and Expanded Commercial and Recycling Facility:

FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK

0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet

FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

A November 2006 structural inspection of the facility conducted by HPA indicated

2.3 PIER 76 PROPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.3.1 General Facts

Many benefits present themselves with this alternative. A Commercial MTS at

2.3.2 Usable Space

2.4 SITE COMPARISON

FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK

Base Case #1: Recycling Facility

Base Case #2: Commercial and Recycling Facility - Economized Function

Legalized and Expanded Commercial and Recycling Facility

FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK

FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

Base Case #1: Recycling Facility

Demolition and Repairs

Repair of Existing Concrete Pier Deck at Ramps and Access 3,144,000

New Facility Construction

Recycling MTS Facility

Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures - Recycling Facility 1,696,000

Base Case #1: Recycling Facility $ 72,031,000

FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK

FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

Base Case #2: Commercial and Recycling Facility - Economized Function

Demolition and Repairs

Demolitions at Barge Access Slips - Commercial MTS Location 520,000

Demolitions at Barge Access Slips - Recycling MTS Location 4,349,000

Repair, Protection and Maintenance of Existing Timber Pier Piles 16,267,000

Repair of Existing Concrete Pier Deck 4,926,000

New Facility Construction

Vehicular Ramp for Access to MTS Tipping Stations 15,720,000

Commercial MTS Facility

Recycling MTS Facility

Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures - Commercial Facility 718,000

FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK

FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

Containerized and Expanded Commercial and Recycling Facility

Demolition and Repairs

Demolitions at All Locations 11,300,000

Repair, Protection and Maintenance of Existing Timber Pier Piles 9,426,000

Repair of Existing Concrete Pier Deck 3,144,000

New Facility Construction

Vehicular Ramp for Access to MTS Tipping Stations 18,340,000

Commercial MTS Facility

Marine Fendering and Deck Fixtures

Containerized and Expanded Commercial and Recycling Facility $ 187,474,000

FRIENDS OF HUDSON RIVER PARK

FIGURE 3-1 (CONT.)

Reclaim a large area of under utilized waterfront;

Make better use of under-utilized space by turning a single use

Create additional open space adjacent to areas of future housing

Make use of existing roadway infrastructure capacity.

Greatly reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff from all of Pier 76 through a

Greatly reduce impermeable surfaces, cool ambient air temperatures, and

Reduce air pollution through the aforementioned reduction of truck trips

Create an opportunity to further reduce truck emissions through the

Increase open green space, further improving air quality.

Reduce energy demands through daylighting interiors, more efficient

Implement cleaner energy sources through use of vertical axis wind

Create a source of distributed energy generation and a back-up energy