Is the parking proposal based on projected use of the waterfront, or is it just a pretty design? (See p. 9.)It's sad, but also welcome, to see that the area between the building and train tracks will be utilized for parking. But for a plan which aims to increase use of the waterfront, will that be enough parking space? This design must last a long time.The northernmost empty lot at Ferry Street is slotted for a "future building." A proper parking study may turn that into "future parking."The notion of moving the jib crane to become some sort of centerpiece statuary at the entrance to the park seems a bit too odd (p. 9). The otherwise good idea to move the crane west of the tracks was originally Patrick Doyle's, when he was planning an outdoor train museum south of Broad Street. (It's still a good idea.) He'd even collected memorabilia for it, and was going to donate the curved rails still embedded at The Basilica to re-track the wooden rail bridge which passes over slip number 2. He was working on acquiring a flat car to be parked permanently on the bridge - a bridge which his engineer friend had vouched for.When he submitted his comments on the proposal for inclusion in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Cheryl Roberts, the city attorney who'd commandeered the entire waterfront program, and had no clue where anything was at the waterfront. (Think about that for a moment.)In the City's official responses to our Public Comments, Roberts replied as if Doyle's entire proposal focused on the Ferry Street Bridge instead. What we learned during that process was that the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program was far too important to entrust to locals.
I've travelled through every station stop on the Hudson line, ours is the only one left that boards at ground level.There should be platforms on both sides of track for easy access, no stairs and no pedestrians crossing the six foot.