June 12, 2002

Joseph Seymour
Executive Director, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
225 Park Avenue South, 17^th floor
New York, NY 10003

Dear Mr. Seymour:

I am writing in response to the most recent developments regarding PATH’s plans for new station entrance/egresses in Greenwich Village.

In our letter of May 15 to you, we stated that “if this process is to move forward in good faith, PATH must show a willingness to consider alternative locations for these entrances, and acknowledge the very real concerns about the appropriateness and impact of the entrances in the current proposal.” In response, PATH has informed us and the public that it has hired a consultant to study possible alternative locations for the proposed station entrances. We have several as yet unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of this study and the premises upon which it and this project are based. At the same time, issues continue to arise regarding the manner in which PATH is proceeding with this project. We are extremely concerned that work continues to move forward prior to the resolution of these issues, which include:

• PATH has thus far not provided us or the public with the scope of work given to the consulting firm to perform this study, in spite of repeated requests. Without knowledge of the parameters provided to the consulting firm for their study, or the bases upon which the study is founded and upon which its conclusions will be drawn, we cannot trust that the study will in fact provide a full and unbiased survey of all possible alternatives and their impacts, nor can we have confidence in its results.
• PATH should include examination of the possibility of emergency-only exits among any alternatives evaluated. Thus far this has not been included.
• PATH has made several assertions regarding the premises upon which the need for this project as proposed is based. These include fire department requirements regarding egress configurations and evacuation time, and structural limitations determining a single possible point of origin in each station for new entrance/exit stairs. Some of these assertions have never been substantiated, while others have been contradicted by information provided by other sources. PATH must fully substantiate and document the basis for its claims proscribing the possible location and configuration of new stairs.
• In our first letter to the Port Authority about this project on April 9, 2002, we asked that a “protection plan” for any proposed work be formulated with the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), and that daily “control inspections” by the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) be agreed upon to prevent any damage to nearby buildings from PATH work. As of yet, we have not heard or seen evidence of the formulation of any such plan with LPC, or of any such agreement with DOB. PATH must agree to these safeguards and demonstrate how they will be implemented before continuing with any work.
• PATH is seeking to alter a structure built in 1908 based upon governing agreements configured at that time. PATH has asserted that it has an absolute right to proceed with this project, in its determined form, without the approval of any other governing bodies. Such a broad, unmitigated mandate to proceed with a project like this, without the approval of local agencies and jurisdictions charged with regulating and protecting the streets, sidewalks, landmarks, construction procedures, and neighborhood character upon which this project impacts, is unusual and cause for great concern. We ask that PATH provide the body, in its entirety, of the original agreement between itself (or its predecessors) and the City of New York, and any other governing bodies or regulating authorities, authorizing the construction of these stations and transit lines, to substantiate its purported lack of encumbrance in moving forward with this plan.
• PATH has begun and continued boring work for this project in spite of the recent commitment to the public that alternatives are being evaluated. Boring work has been initiated on narrow historic streets such as Gay Street for which appropriate permits were not issued, which was halted only after the intervention of the New York City Police Department. PATH should voluntarily halt any further work until the above mentioned issues have been resolved, and substantiative assurances should be given that any inappropriate, unpermitted work will not occur in the future.

In order to arrive at a plan for the Christopher and 9^th Street PATH stations which responds to the legitimate needs and concerns of the Greenwich Village community and PATH, the above mentioned issues must be addressed and resolved. Until that time, we again exhort you to halt work on this project, and instead enter into good faith discussions with the affected community regarding the terms of this plan.

Sincerely,

Andrew Berman
Executive Director