|
|
|||||||||
Home / News / Press Releases
/ Testimony
/ Legislation
/ On the Issues
/ Newsletter
/ Resources /
|
|||||||||
|
|
Testimony
Of State Senator Liz Krueger Before The
Mta Regarding The Second
Avenue Subway Project May 12, 2003 I am State Senator Liz Krueger
and I represent the 26th District on the East Side of
Manhattan. I want to begin by
expressing my sincere gratitude to the MTA for its commitment to this
project. The publication of the SDEIS
marks a tremendous step toward the first groundbreaking of the Second Avenue
Subway since 1972. I appreciate the
compelling case the document makes for the Second Avenue Subway, and its
honest and comprehensive treatment of both the obstacles and impacts of
construction. I just want to say a
few words regarding why I think this is the most important transit project
for New York City’s growth and well-being, and express some early concerns
about the impacts of construction on the lives of the people who live along
Second Avenue. No other
American city depends as much on mass transit, yet there have been no
significant additions to New York’s subway system since 1940. We have an undersized and outdated subway
system that has not been able to keep up with the tremendous growth in
ridership, and has not been able to serve many of the large residential areas
and business centers that have emerged since World War II. The result is a dangerously overcrowded
Lexington line that carries all the north-south subway traffic generated by
growth on the East Side for the last 50 years. Because the City strategically tied zoning and density planning
to transit planning, it allowed the aggressive development of the East Side
with the assumption that a Second Avenue subway would exist to serve these
people. In my district, residents of
the densely populated neighborhoods of the Upper East Side, Turtle Bay, Kips
Bay, and Murray Hill live at inconvenient distances from a subway. They endure long walks to a subway line
that is severely overcrowded and frequently delayed. In addition, there are a number of massive
projects, such as the Con Edison Waterside site and the expansion of the Bellevue
campus, which will bring tens-of thousands of new residents and workers to
the neighborhoods east of Third Avenue in the 20s and 30s over the next ten
years. The magnitude and rapid
progress of these developments makes the Second Avenue Subway even more
critical. The Second Avenue Subway will
play a key role in the economic revitalization of Manhattan. In fact, this project should be treated as
an investment that will promote future economic growth throughout the City. For instance, the access it provides to
Lower Manhattan makes it a vital component to the rebuilding of this
region. Since nearly half of all
subways in the MTA system would link directly to this new line, access to
Lower Manhattan from nearly any part of the city would be significantly
facilitated. It would also generate
new investment in areas currently underserved, such as East Harlem, the Lower
East Side, and Chinatown. Perhaps
most importantly in terms of long-term planning, the SDEIS explains that the
Second Avenue Subway would be built to allow for expansion to Queens, the
Bronx, and Brooklyn, making this project a key to the modernization of
citywide subway service. By having
the Second Avenue Subway connect to existing subway lines at various
stations, and by constructing it in a way that would allow for future
expansion to other boroughs, this project is needed to reintegrate New York
geographically by providing direct connections between today’s growing
neighborhoods and job centers. I also
want to touch on the environmental benefits of this project. The SDEIS documents the significant impact
the Second Avenue Subway would have in terms of the reduction of vehicle
trips per day. The new line would
divert auto and taxi modes to work and to the subway, improving carbon
monoxide levels. While the
long-term social, economic and environmental benefits of the Second Avenue
Subway project are undeniable, I do have concerns regarding the short-term
impacts of construction on the people who currently live along the Second
Avenue corridor. I greatly appreciate
the honest and full discussion of these impacts in the SDEIS, which
acknowledges the alarming increases in traffic, dust, noise, vibrations and
other serious impacts generated by construction. It is essential that the MTA establishes a meaningful dialogue
with the effected communities, and that community advisory groups are formed
and incorporated into the planning process.
In addition, it is important to have community representatives at the
Technical Advisory Committee and Interagency Traffic Task Force
meetings. This project is a civic
enterprise, and it is important to remember that often the best ideas and
solutions do not come from the agencies.
In order for this massively disruptive project to be successfully
executed, public participation and input must be systematically incorporated
throughout the construction phase. There are
a few specific concerns I have regarding the selection of shaft sites and
related issues. As the EIS documents,
these shaft sites will be enormously disruptive to nearby residents and will
generate traffic conditions that standard traffic engineering improvements
will not be able to mitigate. It is
essential for the MTA to select sites and manage operations in a manner that
is sensitive to local residents and businesses, as well as hospitals,
schools, and fire departments. The
MTA must restrict the timing of blasting and drilling operations, and trucks
must be rerouted off of residential streets.
I am particularly concerned about
the loss of active space in several parks, particularly St. Vartan Park. The western portion of the park, which
would be used as a staging area for station construction and spoils removal,
contains heavily used basketball and handball courts that constitute active
space in a neighborhood that is severely deprived of parkland. According to the SDEIS, “some park users
are likely to use other nearby parks with similar facilities to avoid noise
or other construction disturbances.”
In this neighborhood, there is essentially nowhere else to go for
these activities. As Federal law
prohibits the use of a public park for this purpose unless there is no
feasible alternative, I urge the MTA to further explore the alternatives
discussed in the SDEIS. In the event
that this park must be used, I was pleased that NYCT was committed to working
with the Parks Department to locate an appropriate location for a temporary
replacement facility. It is
absolutely imperative, however, that this replacement park is built prior to
any construction at St. Vartan Park and located in its direct vicinity. Once again, thank you for the tremendous progress you have made in planning for the construction of a full-length Second Avenue Subway. As we near the completion of East Side Access, which will bring nearly 20,000 more daily riders to the Lexington line, it is critical that this project remains on an ambitious schedule, with construction beginning by the end of 2004. I encourage the MTA to explore ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of the project, without jeopardizing that the Second Avenue Subway be built in its entirety. The people of New York have overwhelmingly expressed throughout the public outreach process that a partial subway is not acceptable. In my capacity as a State Senator, I look forward to working with the MTA and City, State, and Federal officials to secure the necessary support and funding for this vital project, which I consider one of the most important investments in New York’s future. |
|||||||
