Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
His argument is that since truck-bombs were used in 1993, and had failed to bring down the building, there was no reason to consider the idea of terrorists bringing down the WTC, and thus it was an ideal place.Darth Wong wrote:Ummm, is Shep seriously arguing that it's easier to manage a disaster and co-ordinate rescue efforts if your "emergency command bunker" is located right in the middle of the disaster itself?
The argument seems to be that only hindsight shows that the disaster would be at the WTC and thus the availability of space within walking distance of City Hall and One Police was a paramount consideration.Darth Wong wrote:Ummm, is Shep seriously arguing that it's easier to manage a disaster and co-ordinate rescue efforts if your "emergency command bunker" is located right in the middle of the disaster itself?
Absolutely uncertain in a crisis situation especially as lower manhattan was ALWAYS likely to be the target. Travelling t Metro Tech would be away from any likely crisis excepting bridge attacks. If the mayor was reduced to foot travel (as the severe weather worries implied) time becomes a moot issue as foot travel for not just the mayor but the entire staff becomes the greatest problem.1. Traveling to Metro Tech will consume more of the Mayor's time
Again looking at things the wrong way in so far as blizzard (whcih I'll address more in point 4) and terrorist as once more lower manhattan is THE target aside from certain bridges of historical significance. Once more points 1 and 2 are just repeats of the same idea that it will take to long to travel and I don't find them fully formed or nuanced as to the problems which should be entirely foreseable in regards to trael into lower manhattan during any crisis OTHER than weather. Weather is the SOLE situation which could hamper movement to 11 Metro against 7 WTC but even that could be dealt with and I'll address in point 42 Access to the facility may be difficult in a blizzard or during a major terrorist threat or incident.
Basically this problem presents its solution in the same sentence so its hardly worth worrying about. Again the locaiotn was already being used for Fire and EMS so there was a prescence on hand to deter truck bombs and in a crisis shutting down nearby traffic would be entirely possible without disrutption. What I also note is that the memo makes no mention of the suceptability of 7 WTC to attack so its also difficult to compare how that building rates against the threat of truck bombs but I rather susepct that being in the heart of the city would make it rather more difficult to divert traffic around without significant impairment. So again if it is a con it is barely one.3. The facility is vulnerable to a truck bomb on three (3) sides, but PD monitors cars that are parked next to the building, and we can block off two (2) streets during a threat without causing traffic problems.
This point has one of the most obvious problem and solution in the same breath statements that I am amaed it made its way onto the negative list. Subway access, along with regular ground, water, and air, means you not only have mutiple options in good operating weather but allow yourself to use a transit mode that you can absolutely controll traffic on (the Subway) and which is hardened from the elements and easier to protect from attack (once you are alerted) than ground transport.4 During a blizzard or hurricane the Mayor would have to move with ground transport, possibly limiting his ability to get to the facility. Flying would be difficult and wave heights preclude a PD Launch. Subway access would be possible and may have a positive public relations spin, but the Mayor would have to be willing to do this.
This is hardly a matter that should go into the concern for where an EM command post should go. Yes you need staff but christ designate some spaces and then remember that you are shutting down two streeets at least and have them fo parking as soon as you declare an emergency and need additional staff.5. Parking for staff would be difficult unless we had a certain area designated for OEM vehicles outside or space made available in the basement parking lot.
Entirely PR spin crap. Yes you shouldn't step on the FD's toes but since you were already going to screw them over and not give them radios worth shit why not take some office space from them and THEN have co-located command centers so you could...exchange information rapidly in a crisis EVEN if long distance communication broke down. Holy COW there's an idea.6. The Fire Department has designs on 40,000 square feet. We run the risk of hurting our relationship by acquiring half of their space
Not to vulture, but on top of it, an incoming serious weather event is actually predictable in advance. If the mayor is going to have to coordinate an emergency response to a blizzard, he should already be in the bunker by the time shit goes down. (I realize that to some people who live where the weather doesn't get as bad, the idea of "emergency response" to a blizzard seems weird, but I can assure you it happens.)CmdrWilkens wrote:This point has one of the most obvious problem and solution in the same breath statements that I am amaed it made its way onto the negative list. Subway access, along with regular ground, water, and air, means you not only have mutiple options in good operating weather but allow yourself to use a transit mode that you can absolutely controll traffic on (the Subway) and which is hardened from the elements and easier to protect from attack (once you are alerted) than ground transport.4 During a blizzard or hurricane the Mayor would have to move with ground transport, possibly limiting his ability to get to the facility. Flying would be difficult and wave heights preclude a PD Launch. Subway access would be possible and may have a positive public relations spin, but the Mayor would have to be willing to do this.
