Staten Island To See World's Largest Ferris Wheel; But What About Transit?

Staten Island will soon become home to the world's largest Ferris Wheel, when a 625 foot tall wheel will be installed adjacent to the Richmond County Ballpark (home to the Staten Island Yankees) in St. George. Accompanying the amusement ride will be new retail development, plus a hotel. The location is ideally located for tourism and visitors will be treated to stunning views of New York Bay, including the Statue of Liberty, Lower Manhattan, and the rest of the New York City metro region.

The New York Wheel is coming to Staten Island, along with a retail and hotel complex featuring designer outlet shops that will pump nearly $500 million in private investment into the St. George waterfront and spur economic development, tourism and job growth into the future.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday is set to announce that the world's tallest observation wheel and an outlet mall will be built on 14 acres next to the Richmond County Bank Ballpark at St. George, transforming the North Shore waterfront.

"Our administration has made major investments all along the North Shore of Staten Island, because we know this area is full of potential for economic growth," Bloomberg said. "But this newest plan is the most exciting of all -- it's a once-in-a-generation opportunity for economic development."

At 625 feet, the $230 million New York Wheel will exceed the height of the Singapore Flyer, currently the world's tallest observation wheel, and will also eclipse the London Eye and a "High Roller" wheel planned for the Las Vegas Strip.

The ride is also expected to exceed a wheel planned for the New Jersey Meadowlands Xanadu/American Dream project. Critics are busy blasting the plan because of a lack of transit options - and most notably a lack of parking.

The new plan would clear existing parking lots to make way for the amusement ride, and there's no clear indication of where those spots would be relocated (if at all). The lots are used by commuters who park there because of a lack of transit options to commute to Manhattan by means other than the Staten Island ferry or express buses.

Staten Island has long been a backwater when it comes to transit options, and a new MTA plan to build a park-n-ride and new station in Tottenville isn't going to solve the problems either. The new station will be ADA compliant and have intermodal links with a bus stop, but it will replace two nearby stations that will be shuttered.

Staten Islanders need more transit options, and bus rapid transit is seen as one option, but more must be done to make commuting to Manhattan and the rest of the city easier. That would include more subway access, or light rail - particularly over the Bayonne Bridge to link up with the Hudson-Bergen light rail that includes a terminus at Hoboken (with links to PATH and ferries). It's not exactly a one-seat ride, but it would better integrate Staten Island transit options with the rest of the region and reduce pressure on the already overcrowded bridges.

Sadly, the Bayonne Bridge reconstruction to permit bigger ships to pass will not include a light rail option, and the construction has been expedited to make sure the Arthur Kill channel is ready for super Panamax shipping. Transit options take a back seat to other projects.

Some local residents are complaining about the lack of transit options and increased vehicle traffic that would result from the new amusement ride, but with most visitors expecting to arrive by ferry, the impact is seen as being minimal. The problem will be what to do with those cars hoping to park near the ferry terminal for their daily commute and there's no easy answer for that.

UPDATE:
A map of the area:


View Larger Map

Ahmadinejad Makes Annual Trip To UN General Assembly; Anti-Gay, Anti-Israel Comments Ensue

There's no surprises here. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hates Israel's very existence and doesn't think any better of gays or lesbians. He lets those views air once again in an interview given before he speaks at the United Nations expect that they will be part and parcel of his rants tomorrow when he speaks at the UN General Assembly (which will likely be marked by Israel, the US and other countries walking out on his rants).

During a taped interview with Piers Morgan broadcast Monday night on CNN, Ahmadinejad responded candidly to Morgan's questioning about a statement the Iranian leader once made that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Speaking through a translator, Ahmadinejad said:
If a group comes and occupies the United States of America, destroys homes while women and children are in those homes, incarcerate the youth of America, impose five different wars on many neighbors, and always threaten others, what would you do? What would you say? Would you help it? ... Or would you help the people of the United States?

So when we say "to be wiped," we say for occupation to be wiped off from this world. For war-seeking to (be) wiped off and eradicated, the killing of women and children to be eradicated. And we propose the way. We propose the path. The path is to recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-governance.

Ahmadinejad also did not fully acknowledge the Holocaust, saying to Morgan, "Whatever event has taken place throughout history, or hasn't taken place, I cannot judge that. Why should I judge that? I say researchers and scholars must be free to conduct research and analysis about any historical event."

That he's going to claim that Israel's existence is an abomination and is an illegitimate state isn't news. He's been doing this routine for years. Ahmadinejad's also been deep in Holocaust denial for years as well.

That he's doing it in a speech scheduled for Yom Kippur, Judaism's holiest day, is. Who put together that schedule?

Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement Gets Thumbs Up From Federal Highway Officials

The $5+ billion plan to replace the Tappan Zee bridge got the thumbs up from federal highway officials, paving the way for New York to award the contract for a design-build to begin work on the bridge.

The federal record of decision confirms the project has met requirements under state and federal environmental law, including completing an environmental impact study, a 10,000-page document that details how the state would protect nearby communities and river wildlife during construction. A dozen federal and state agencies contributed to the document, and the draft report received more than 3,000 comments from the public.

Cuomo last week announced the creation of a selection committee, made up of artists, architects and community representatives, to evaluate each of the proposals and make a final recommendation to the Thruway Authority’s board of directors. A design-builder is likely to be selected before the end of the year.

While federal approval lets the project proceed, possible lawsuits still threaten to hold it up.

The Hudson Riverkeeper, which has criticized the plan for not adequately addressing how river life will be negatively affected, has said it would wait for the federal decision before deciding whether to take legal action.

The state must still provide a detailed financial plan, but officials have said they are hoping a low-interest federal loan will cover about half the project cost. The rest would be paid for through toll-backed bonds.

While the approvals are good news, it isn't clear to what extent mass transit - whether bus rapid transit or commuter rail, will be incorporated into the designs other than the potential to build out those components at some future point in time. The time to build in the bus rapid transit is at the outset, and while it would only address the bridge span and approaches, the entire Rockland-Westchester corridor could be adapted to bus rapid transit in phases as the state's economic situation improves.

Conflict Over Senkaku Islands Rooted In Centuries Of Disputes

The ongoing territorial dispute between China, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea over the Senkaku Islands didn't just materialize overnight. The dispute has its roots more than 800 years ago when China and Japan fought off invasions by the other.

It's a history of violence, bloodshed, and genocide, which extends all the way into the 20th century when Japan invaded China and Korea and killed hundreds of thousands of people (see the Rape of Nanking). The Chinese aren't particularly forgiving of those acts, while the Japanese are reluctant to acknowledge the war crimes committed by their imperial armies both before and during World War II.

The current dispute reaches back through history, but it also centers on modern needs for mineral and oil and gas resources believed to be located in the waters off the islands.

While Japan claims the islands as its own, and dates that back to the turn of the 20th Century, there are Japanese archives that indicate that the Meiji government recognized Chinese ownership of the islands. Intervening decades of conflict, occupation, and the end of WWII muddy the waters a bit, but the end of the war meant that Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status. That would have meant the islands would have reverted to Chinese control.

Japan recently purchased the islands from a private landowner, and that got China complaining about the actions. But China's not alone in claiming the islands as their own. Taiwan, which mainland China sees as its own rogue province and not an independent country, also claims the islands as its own and its fishing fleet has been scuffling with Japanese patrol boats in the waters off the islands.

Though the islands are uninhabited, they are near coveted fishing grounds and potentially large gas reserves, and their status touches on historical grievances in East Asia dating to Japan’s behavior during and before World War II.

Taiwan’s government generally maintains friendly relations with Japan but activists there, as in mainland China and Hong Kong, have made their voices heard in the brewing dispute over the islands.

The Japanese public broadcaster, NHK, broadcast footage that showed a Japanese Coast Guard vessel blasting water at a Taiwanese fishing boat. Another Taiwanese boat tried to spray water back.

The Coast Guard said more than 40 Taiwanese fishing boats and eight patrol craft briefly approached the disputed islands. The boats had since left the waters, the coast guard said.

Tensions between Japan and China erupted earlier this year when the governor of Tokyo, a well-known nationalist, angered Chinese activists by announcing that he wanted to buy three of the disputed islands from their owner, a Japanese citizen. He said he believed that Japan’s central government was not doing enough to defend them.

The uproar over the governor’s threat prompted the central government to buy the islands instead — a move that Japanese officials stressed was to prevent them from falling into more provocative hands. But in China, the move was seen as an effort to assert Japanese control, setting off angry demonstrations. Some of the protesters attacked Japanese businesses.

In an effort to calm the dispute, Japan’s vice foreign minister, Chikao Kawai, met Tuesday in Beijing with his Chinese counterpart, Zhang Zhijun. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said the two sides had talked about ways to handle the dispute but indicated that no substantive progress had been made.

Considering that all the countries involved have significant economic ties to the others, all should have reasons to see the dispute simmer down and end peacefully. However, the mineral and fishing resources are too good to pass up, and that's why everyone's disputing the ownership. There have been anti-Japanese riots in China, where Japanese-owned factories have shut down because of the violence. It's a volatile situation, and it's one that could get the United States involved - even if the US is trying to get things to settle down.

The dispute has also meant China's sent its first aircraft carrier into the field. The reflagged ex-Varyag is seen as largely being a training ship to accustom the Chinese navy to potentially building its own native-built carriers, but it also indicates that the Chinese are willing to put military resources towards defending its territorial claims.

UPDATE:
It should be further noted that while China has sent the aircraft carrier into service, it does so without any aircraft capable of landing or taking off from the carrier, and it isn't likely to have that capability for several years. Of much more relevance to the current situation is the fact that the Chinese military has invested in developing long range cruise missiles capable of hitting naval targets - which could potentially include US Navy ships, as well as expanding its submarine fleet.

Amtrak's Testing of 165mph Train Wont Bring Immediate Changes

Amtrak needs to increase the speed of its trains on the Northeast Corridor. Doing so would make its Acela service even more preferable for those commuting between Washington DC, New York, and Boston.

Currently, the top speeds in most areas is no more than 125 mph in regular service.

Amtrak is testing a segment in New Jersey between New Brunswick and Trenton at 165 mph over the next several nights. Amtrak's using this as an opportunity to run tests on equipment.

Two test locations — from Perryville, Md., to Wilmington, Del., and from Trenton to New Brunswick, N.J. — currently have a speed limit of 135 mph. The two others — in Rhode Island from Westerly to Cranston and in Massachusetts from South Attleboro to Readville — have 150 mph limits.

The same areas, totaling just over 100 miles, were used for tests reaching 165 mph in the 1990s before the introduction of high-speed Acela service, Cole said. Federal regulations required another round of testing, he said, to further raise the top speed limit.

Cole said the tests, with cars equipped with instruments to collect a variety of data, will not affect normal rail operations because they are scheduled at a time of minimal rail service.

In New Jersey, track, electric power, signals and other systems are to be upgraded over the next several years to improve reliability and to permit regular train operations at faster speeds, as part of a $450 million project funded by the federal high-speed rail program.

There are several factors holding back true high speed rail and they are mostly related to an archaic infrastructure.

For starters, the electrical systems need to be upgraded to a constant tension system. That includes the catenary system through New Jersey and that's part of the $450 million in upgrades to come over the next few years. The other part is dealing with a string of bottlenecks that reduce the number of tracks, including at the Portal Bridge and Hudson River tunnels. Those two projects mean that speeds from Newark into Manhattan can be no more than 70 mph.

Constructing a new Portal Bridge has been in the works for years, but its fate has been tied to the Gateway/ARC plan. Even if Gateway is still years away from being funded, the Portal Bridge should move ahead and that would pay immediate dividends in increasing speeds from Secaucus through to Newark. It would provide a more reliable link and that's in everyone's best interests.

But the thing to remember is that these tests wont pay immediate dividends and trains wont begin running at these speeds in revenue service for another few years, which is a tremendous shame since even doing so for these short segments could cut 7 minutes off service between New York and Washington (30 mile segment increase to 165 mph. As the high speed expands to other sections, the speeds could likewise result in cutting significant time off the trip.

Moreover, 165 mph isn't where Amtrak needs to be setting its sights. Speeds over 200mph should be. Doing so would revolutionize travel along the NEC and provide highly competitive travel as compared with flying in all too crowded skies and overburdened airports that are struggling to maintain their current flight schedules.

The Barak Disengagement Plan

Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak has come out with a new plan that is spurring a new debate about Israel's role in the West Bank. Ehud Barak is part of the government coalition under Binyamin Netanyahu, but he's also the leader of his own political party and has aspirations to once again be Prime Minister of Israel.

That means that his comments need to be framed both as an internal political issue within the Israeli electorate and as a wider Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Barak's plan? A disengagement from large portions of the West Bank, including uprooting settlements and using financial incentives to get Israel's to move back inside the Green Line. However, the Etzion and Ariel settlement blocs would not be included in the disengagement:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is urging the government to examine a plan for unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. Under the plan, secluded settlements and outposts in Judea and Samaria would be evacuated by the state, and any Jews wishing to remain in the region would be permitted to live there under Palestinian rule.

In a special interview with Israel Hayom, to be published in full on Tuesday, Barak outlined the details of his plan and explained the logic behind it. Under Barak's plan, the settlement blocs of Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim and Ariel would remain intact. These blocs house some 90 percent of Judea and Samaria's Jewish population. Strategic areas (such as the Samarian hills overlooking Ben-Gurion International Airport) would similarly remain under Israeli control, and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley would be ensured. The remainder of the territory would be handed over to the Palestinians to establish a state. Dozens of small Jewish communities would have to be evacuated.


Barak's plan elicited a harsh response from the right on Monday, with Likud Minister Yuli Edelstein saying that "this is not a disengagement plan we are talking about. This is our survival. Ehud Barak is continuing to make rookie mistakes. After supporting the disastrous Oslo Accords, orchestrating the escape from Lebanon and advancing the withdrawal from Gaza, which put a million Israelis in bomb shelters, Barak is now willing to put millions more in harms way just to get more votes."

There has been no visible movement on the peace process in the past couple of years as Hamas has solidified its hold on Gaza while Fatah continues running the show in the West Bank autonomous areas where Palestinians have civil administrative control. Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority has full civil administrative control over certain portions, shared security arrangements in other areas, and Israel controls the remaining areas. The ultimate disposition of the West Bank would be determined in an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. But since Hamas has remained steadfast in its refusal to recognize Israel's very right to exist and has no interest in holding to already signed deals between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, there's been no movement. Israel can't work on a peace deal when it doesn't have a partner in peace.

Elections are likely in the next year, and Barak thinks he's got a shot at winning the opportunity to forge a coalition government rather than Netenyahu. Disengagement isn't likely to sit well with many Israelis after the Gaza experiment, though there are significant differences between the two scenarios. For one, Hamas had a greater presence in Gaza than in the West Bank, and Fatah has been more willing to coordinate security with Israel. That isn't to say that disengagement is without risk to Israel's security.

So, this is where Barak's proposal comes into play. It would seem to be a version of Ariel Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan. It would take into account the demographic problems that face Israel with a growing Palestinian population that would threaten the very character of Israel's Jewishness.

Critics of Barak's plan in Israel point to the problems resulting from the Gaza disengagement. Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor notes that the disengagement from Gaza allowed Hamas to overrun and take control of the area and turned Gaza into a rocket and terrorist haven. Thousands of terror attacks have been launched against Israel - in the form of mortars, kassams, and grad rocket/missile attacks against Israel from Ashkelon and Ashdod through Sderot. Meridor points out that something similar would likely occur if Israel unilaterally withdraws from areas in the West Bank.

"We saw what happened in Gaza," Meridor told Israel Radio, expressing his belief that unilateral withdrawal from settlements is "not a good idea."

"We all want to reach an agreement," he said, "but since Olmert's proposal (in 2006) we haven't had real negotiations, and they [the Palestinians] don't seem to want it."

Meridor stressed that Israel should make an effort to reach an agreement and that the current situation must not continue, but he added that the army must remain in the West Bank for the time being.

Meanwhile, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom all but dismissed the proposal, predicting that Barak will not have sway on government action in the settlements, following elections scheduled for 2013.

The view that Israelis are the ones blocking a path to a peace deal ignore the reality on the ground unless the goal is to establish not a two-state solution, but a three state solution. One for Hamas in Gaza, one for Fatah in the West Bank territories, and Israel. If that's the path to take, then we need to eliminate the fiction that the Palestinian Authority has any actual authority, that the votes the Palestinians took, and their civil war that led to the current situation but that would also mean that Palestinian self-determination in those elections wasn't determinative.

The problem with the three-state solution is that the Palestinians themselves don't appear to want that - they still hold fast to 2-state solution that ultimately leads to a 1-state solution in overruning Israel.

Fatah's Abbas isn't willing to make concessions on right of return or other critical issues that would lead to a new peace deal. And housing and settlements are a non-factor since Israel has repeatedly shown that Israel is willing to uproot settlers from housing to have an opportunity for peace.

They did it in Sinai.

They did it in Gaza.

And they'd do so in the West Bank if there was a peace deal to be had. Without a partner in peace though, the Israelis aren't going to warm up to another unilateral disengagement plan.