Second Avenue Subway:Lessons Learned

Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned
Spring 2011 Studio Project

Hunter College
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
Adam Benditsky, Erin Durkin, Chris Ell, Neil Garry, Laura MacNeil, Nick Mosquera, Lucian Reynolds,
Kristin Shiller, Aga Trojniak, Angela Tovar, Sandy Wolff
Studio Advisor: Richard Bass

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Client
Carolyn B. Maloney, United States Representative
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Tim Gianfrancesco, Program Manager, MTA Capital Construction
Alissa Kosowsky, New York City Transit Government and Community Relations
Claudia Wilson, SAS Community Liaison, Sam Schwartz Engineering
Research Resources
Robin Caufman, Manager of Public Involvement, Metropolitan Council
Robert Esnard, President, Zucker Organization
Cynthia Nikitin, Vice President, Project for Public Spaces
Jonathan Sage-Martinson, Director, Central Corridor Funders Collaborative
Stakeholders and Elected Officials
Curtis Archer, President, Harlem Community Development Corporation
Hunter F. Armstrong, Executive Director, Civitas
Elizabeth H. Berger, President, Downtown Alliance
Jonathan Bing, New York State Assembly Member
Stephen Corson, Deputy Policy Director, Office of Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer
Geoffrey Eaton, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of Congressman Charles Rangel
Minna Elias, Chief of Staff, Office of Carolyn B. Maloney, United States Representative
Kristen Ellis, Community Liaison, Office of Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer
Jean Fischman, Community Liaison, Office of New York Assembly Member Micah Z. Kellner
Robin Forst, Director of Community Relations, Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center
Daniel Garodnick, New York City Council Member
Pastor Logan Gentry, Pastor of Community Justice, Apostles Church

Deborah Glick, New York State Assembly Member
Paul Goldstein, Representative of New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
Robert Harvey, Executive Director of Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center
Lolita Jackson, Manhattan Director, Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit
Micah Z. Kellner, New York State Assembly Member
David Kimball-Stanley, Community Liaison, Office of New York City Council Member Daniel Garodnick
Tom Lunke, Director of Planning, Harlem Community Development Corporation
Sarah Malloy-Good, Representative of New York State Assembly Member Deborah Glick
Joe Pecora, President, Second Avenue Business Association
Nancy Ploeger, President, Manhattan Chamber of Commerce
Kelly Postlewait, Director of Constituent Services, Office of New York State Assembly Member Jonathan Bing
Yvonne Przybyla, Chief of Staff, Office of State Senator José M. Serrano
Anne Purdy, Assistant Principal, Vanguard High School
Charles Rangel, United States Congressman
George Sarkissian, District Manager, Community Board 11
Barry Schneider, Co-Chair, Community Board 8 Second Avenue Subway Task Force
José Serrano, New York State Senator
Sam Schwartz, Founder, Sam Schwartz Engineering
Sheldon Silver, New York State Assembly Speaker
Scott M. Stringer, Manhattan Borough President
Kevin Walters, President, East Harlem Bar and Restaurant Association
Jeffrey M. Zupan, Senior Fellow, Transportation, Regional Plan Association

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary
II. History and Overview

a. Brief History
b. Client Profile
c. Current Scope
d. Needs Assessment
e. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority
f. Costs and Financing Sources
g. Engineering Problems
h. Public Outreach
i. Zoning Analysis
j. Demographics
III. Research Methodologies

a. Land Use Survey
b. Web-based Survey
c. Case Study
IV. Issues and Recommendations

a. Agency Coordination during Construction
b. Community Participation and Coordination
c. Social Media/Marketing
d. Political Champion
e. Business Impacts and Mitigation
f. Displacement Mitigation
g. Ancillary Structures
h. Street Beautification/Safety
i. Funding
V. Conclusion
VI. Bibliography
VII. Appendix
i. Zoning Maps by Phase
ii. Demographics Tables by Phase
iii. Web-Based Survey Results
iv. Case Study with Ready for Rail Action Pack
1
SECTION I:
This page: Ben Heckscher, The Launch Box

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Hunter College Spring 2011 Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney requested Hunter College’s Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
to examine Phase 1 of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Second Avenue Subway (SAS)
construction on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The goal was to propose recommendations for how the SAS
construction process could be improved and propelled into future phases.
This Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned report reviews the nearly century-long plan for an SAS and
details its present scope. After documenting the studio’s in-depth research, including 27 stakeholder interviews,
a land-use survey of 124 blocks, and two web-based residential and commercial surveys, as well as a case
study of the Central Corridor Light Rail Project in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, this report identifies eight areas in
need of improvement and suggests corresponding recommendations. These issues and recommendations are
summarized below:
Lack of communication, coordination, and oversight leads to construction delays and inefficiencies
• Designate oversight agency modeled on the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center (LMCCC)
• Mandate compliance through funding legislation
Subway construction will halt without continued political support

• Identify a “political champion” for each phase to build support for construction and advocate for funding
MTA and other agencies fail to adequately engage the community

• Create a community-construction advocate
• Expand the existing community liaison position
• Mandate that both positions answer to the community rather than the MTA
• Create a Community Coalition and a Community Advisory Committee
• Adopt an incentive bonus system to reward contractors who address community concerns
• Request that the MTA hire an SAS-specific PR person to communicate through multiple platforms
East Harlem is threatened with displacement

• Create a Second Avenue special zoning district
• Eliminate vacancy destabilization
• Increase affordable housing through a trust fund or mandatory inclusionary housing
• Develop an incentive program for long-term leases and commercial stabilization
• Limit the size of commercial units in portions of the East Harlem Special District
Second Avenue stores face a difficult business environment

• Establish a Small Business Service outpost
• Provide on-site business consultant services
Residents are displeased with non-contextual ancillary structure designs

• Create space for ground floor retail in ancillary structures
• Add design elements that relate to adjacent buildings
Construction corridor is visually unappealing and unsafe

• Incorporate specific expectations for street maintenance into construction contracts
• Use temporary art to improve construction sites and encourage community involvement
MTA has no funding plans for future phases of the SAS

• Nominate a political champion to lobby for funding for future phases of the SAS
• Use legislative mandates tied to funding to implement recommendations in this report
Hunter College Spring 2011 Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned 3

We recognize that Congresswoman Maloney cannot implement many of our recommendations on her own, but
we look to her to galvanize funding and support for others to enact them. We also suggest the following “Next
Steps” for each of the major players involved in the SAS to encourage its continued progress:
Congresswoman Maloney
• Continue to successfully advocate for full-build SAS
• Incorporate recommendations into legislative mandates tied to funding
Other elected officials

• Take Maloney’s lead: champion the SAS and tie recommendations to future funding
Community
• Voice support for SAS to community boards and elected officials
• Seek out avenues for participation
• Work with the political champions to develop community coalition
MTA
• Continue improved efforts to engage public and provide a face for the SAS
• Allow for greater flexibility in communication and construction processes
• Move forward with a full-build of the SAS
We are enthusiastic about the benefits and future of a fully-built Second Avenue Subway, and are confident these
recommendations will help secure its long-term success.

SECTION II:
This page: Courtesy of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority

HISTORY AND OVERVIEW

The overview summarizes the almost century-long plan for a
Second Avenue Subway (“SAS”) and details its present iteration.
Also included is the area needs assessment, the organizational chart
of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) as it relates
to this project, project financing, construction history, engineering
hurdles, and public outreach conducted to date. The purpose is
to better understand the project’s complexities before conducting
analysis of its impacts and presenting recommendations for the
remainder of Phase 1 and future Phases.

From top: New York Transit Museum, New York Times, New York Transit Museum. Opposite page: Andrea Mohin, New York Times
HISTORY
In the 1920s, a subway under Second Avenue was
first proposed as part of the second phase of the
city’s Independent Subway System (“IND”) master
plan. The proposed route was from the Bronx to the
southern end of Manhattan, and engineers envisioned
various track connections to Queens, the Bronx and
cross-town. The stock market crash of 1929, however,
made financing impossible, and, in 1930, a plan to
build a less expansive version of a Second Avenue Second Avenue El’s 121st Station
subway was created. Although construction was slated
to begin in 1931, with the first phase opening in 1937,
a combination of the severe economic impact from the
Great Depression and a gross underestimation of costs
halted the project by 1931.
The east side of Manhattan has not always lacked

adequate access to public transit. The Second Avenue
El, an elevated train line, stretched the length of the east
side of Manhattan from City Hall to the Harlem River.
It ran from City Hall, eastward along Park Row towards
Chatham Square, where there was a connection with the
Third Avenue El. The Second Avenue El then traveled
north through Division Street, Allen Street, and First 1972 Groundbreaking Ceremony
Avenue, before veering west on 23rd Street to run north
along Second Avenue (nycsubway.org A). The route of
the Third Avenue El mirrored that of the Second Avenue
El. Thus for decades, (approximately 1880 to 1940), the
East Side was served by two elevated rapid transit lines,
and the Lexington Avenue subway, which opened in
sections between 1904 and 1918 (nycsubway.org B).
In 1940, the Second Avenue El was demolished, leaving

the far-east side of Manhattan without convenient access
to rapid transit, and making the need for a subway line
under Second Avenue more dire. A new Second Avenue
Subway plan was proposed in 1944, but, as with the
earlier plans, construction was delayed for financial Second Avenue Subway construction in East Harlem, 1973
reasons. Rather than constructing a new line, monies
went toward improving the existing system. However, tunnel sections under Chrystie Street and under Second
the remainder of the Third Avenue El was demolished Avenue from E. 99th to E. 105th Streets and E. 110th
by 1955, leaving the East Side with only the Lexington to 120th Streets (nycsubway.org D). The East Harlem
Avenue subway as rapid transit (nycsubway.org C). tunnels will be used as part of Phase II of the current
SAS plan.
Recognizing this need, a plan to build a two-track line
from the Bronx to Water Street was approved in 1968
and construction began in 1972. While construction
halted in 1975 due to inadequate funding, there was
significant progress. Construction workers completed
CLIENT PROFILE
The Hunter College Second Avenue Subway studio
was commissioned by Congresswoman Carolyn
B. Maloney, who represents the 14 Congressional
th
District in New York. Before her election to the

House of Representatives in 1992, Maloney spent
10 years advocating for East Harlem as a New York
City Councilmember. She previously was a teacher
and administrator for the New York City Board of
Education, and a senior staff member in the New
York State Senate and Assembly (Maloney 2011).
The Second Avenue subway will run almost entirely

within Congresswoman Maloney’s district, which
encompasses the Upper East Side to the Lower East Side
of Manhattan, and the western Queens neighborhoods
of Sunnyside, Woodside, and Astoria (Maloney 2011).
The Democratic Representative has made the Second
Avenue subway one of her top priorities while in office.
She is responsible for resuscitating Second Avenue
subway construction project in the mid-1990s. The
Congresswoman also played an instrumental role in
arranging a full-funding grant agreement between the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the MTA,
which guaranteed $1.3 billion in federal funds for the
first phase of subway construction (Maloney 2010).
Congresswoman Maloney has spent her career working

for not only for improvements in transportation,
but also in financial services, national security, the
economy, and women’s issues (Maloney 2011). She is
a senior member of both the House Financial Services
Committee and the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, and a past Chair of the Joint
Economic Committee. Some of the bills introduced
by Maloney that have been signed into law include the
Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights, the James Zadroga
9/11 Health Care and Compensation Act, and the anti-
rape Debbie Smith Act (Maloney 2011).

CURRENT SCOPE
Courtesy of the MTA. Opposite page, from top: Rob Bennett, The New York Times; E.V. Grieve
The scope of the SAS construction project is to replace
the service once provided by elevated trains in the
age of limited capital resources for transit projects.
The 1995 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives
Study (“MESA”) analyzed a variety of congestion
relief options, including the construction of the full
1974 alignment, a Northern East Harlem to Midtown
alignment, and a Midtown to Lower Manhattan
alignment. The 1999 Manhattan East Side Alternatives
Major Investment Study/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (“MIS/DEIS”) focused on the Northern East
Harlem route, which envisioned an underground rapid
transit line beneath Second Avenue from about 125th to
63rd street, where it would then link with the Q train
(FTA et al. 1999).
Public feedback from the EIS indicated that a subway

line along the entire length of the Far East Side would
be preferable to a simple link with the 63rd Street Line
(Vollmer Associates et al. 2001). In response, the MTA
prepared a 2003 supplemental draft EIS (“SDEIS”) to
study the additional impacts of the subway construction
and operation through the East Village, the Lower East
Side, Tribeca, and the Financial District. The proposed
alignment also allowed for future connections to the
Bronx and Brooklyn, as well as a cross-town leg on 125th
Street. The MTA published the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (“FEIS”) in 2004. The document
proposed a subway that blended the characteristics of
express service with a local-only two-track construction
by placing stations at least 10 blocks apart to allow
trains to reach higher speed (FTA et al. 2004).
Proposed SAS Alignment for Phases 1-4

quality (FTA et al. 2004). If trends persist, Manhattan
NEEDS ASSESSMENT would not only remain a designated non-attainment
area for airborne particulates, but experience increased
Currently, the Lexington Avenue Line is severely
air pollution. This additional vehicular traffic burdens
congested and overcrowded. It transports approximately
the neighborhood with increased noise and congestion.
1.3 million riders daily, a total that exceeds the
This current state of poor transit also inhibits the
combined ridership of transit systems in San Francisco,
economic potential of the East Side, specifically the
Boston, and Chicago. It is the only north-south subway
Upper East Side and East Harlem. By being relatively
route serving the East Side and it shuttles more riders
inaccessible, these neighborhoods are less attractive to
to the Midtown Central Business District (“CBD”)
investors. The lack of transit also hinders the delivery of
than any other subway line, carrying approximately
goods and services to East Side neighborhoods, which
400,000 riders to the CBD daily. The stations along the
hampers any improvement of the area’s socioeconomic
Lexington Avenue Line in Manhattan are also among
conditions (FTA et al. 2004). Providing accessible
the busiest in the city, with 20 out of the 22 stations
methods of public transit would “help prevent further
being “ranked in the top 100 for annual paid patronage,
deterioration of New York City’s air quality by reducing
and more than a third of these were in the top 20” (FTA
the number of vehicle trips per day on average weekday
et al. 2004).
by over 8,300” (FTA et al. 2004). The SAS could also
improve the city’s economic activity and further its
In addition to congested and overcrowded subway lines,
commitment to lessening the current inequalities that
the East Side is also burdened by an overcrowded bus
exist in lower income communities.
system. According to the FEIS, “[New York City Transit
(“NYCT”)] local bus routes on Manhattan’s East Side
served more than 65 million riders in 2000. The M15
line, which operates along First and Second Avenues,
ranked as the busiest of NYCT’s 193 local routes,
serving more than 19 million passengers annually. In
fact, all of the East Side’s north-south routes ranked
in the top third of the city’s local buses for annual
patronage” (FTA et al. 2004).
Manhattan’s East Side also suffers from poor transit

accessibility and mobility. East of Second Avenue, most
residents have a 10- to 15-minute walk (half mile to
three quarters of a mile) to the nearest subway station. In
certain areas of East Midtown and the Lower East Side,
connections to north-south subways are inconvenient,
leaving only east-west connections readily available.
It is estimated that on the East Side, 324,000 residents
Overcrowded 4 Train on the Lexington Line
and 226,000 workers are not within a 10-minute walk
of a subway station. This lack of accessibility to public
transit on the East Side severely limits the economic
opportunities not only of the discussed area, but also
of the residents attempting to travel and work in other
areas of the city (FTA et al. 2004).
The current lack of an accessible form of public transit

for the East Side has negative environmental and
socioeconomic impacts. Poor access to transit forces
many people on the East Side to use taxis and cars for
everyday travel, which degrades the neighborhood’s air
Overcrowded conditions on the M15 bus on Second Avenue
From top: Patrickck Cashin, MTA; Gabriela Resto-Montero, DNAInfo; Ben Heckscher, The Launch Box
MTA ORGANIZATION
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(“MTA”), comprised of numerous bus, commuter
rail, and subway divisions operating in 14 counties
of New York State and Connecticut, is the largest
public transit provider in the hemisphere. It has
a regimented bureaucracy for the oversight of its
ongoing mega-projects: the 7-train extension to
Hudson Yards, the Fulton Street Transit Center,
Long Island Railroad East Side Access, and the SAS.
For the SAS, MTA Capital Construction (“MTACC”),

a subsidiary of the authority, is responsible for building
the subway and reports to several oversight bodies
during the construction process. The Capital Program MTA Chairman Jay Walder
Oversight Committee (“CPOC”), a subset of the larger
MTA board including Chairman and CEO Jay Walder,
is responsible for the MTA Capital Program, the five-
year financial plan under which Phase I of the SAS is
being funded. Assisting in this oversight process is the
Independent Engineering Consultant (“IEC”), which
reviews designs, budgets, and schedules, and reports to
the CPOC on a quarterly basis to ensure that projects
are completed on time and within their budget. The IEC
also reports to the MTA Office of Construction Oversight
(“OCO”), which confirms that contractual requirements
are met and that CPOC has sufficient information on the
progress of projects. A November 2010 report produced
by the office of Barry Kluger, the MTA’s Inspector
General, criticized the functioning of this oversight
process and attributed scheduling and budget overruns to
a lack of clear authority on certain matters (Kluger 2010).
MTA Capital Construction President Michael Horodniceanu and
MTA’s multi-layered oversight structure helps explain Vice President Bill Goodrich
why there are multiple representatives of the SAS.
Michael Horodniceanu, the president of MTACC, is
now the main face of the SAS. He regularly appears
at public meetings along with his vice president, Bill
Goodrich, as they are responsible for management of the
engineering, construction, and financing of the project.
Further outreach is provided by Alissa Kosowsky and
Lois Tendler, who work in the Office of Government
and Community Relations for New York City Transit,
the division of the MTA that will operate the SAS. But
from the public’s perspective, the first points of contact
for any questions about the SAS are Claudia Wilson and
Dennis Tierney, who actually work for a subcontractor
of the MTA, Sam Schwartz Engineering (Elias 2011).

COST & FINANCING SOURCES ENGINEERING PROBLEMS
Phase 1 of the SAS project has experienced construction In the late 1990s, when SAS came back on the table, it
delays and ballooning costs. Originally estimated to cost became clear that tunneling through one of the world’s
$4.1 billion and scheduled to open in 2014, the MTA most dense urban environments would face massive
now estimates that the project will cost $4.451 billion, engineering challenges. In 1999, Mayor Giuliani and
with a completion date of December 2016 (Brown the MTA spent $500 million on engineering studies of
2009). The Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) is the proposed line. The studies detailed geotechnical
far less optimistic, projecting a worst-case scenario of construction problems due to highly complex bedrock
$5.728 billion in project costs and an opening in mid- geology and inconsistent rock formations (Lueck 1999).
2018. The complexities of construction are not limited to the
subsurface of Second Avenue: tunneling has damaged
Funding sources fall into two broad categories: federal building foundations and required demolition of certain
and “local.” Through its New Starts Initiative, the structures. Engineers anticipated major impacts to utility
FTA has committed $1.29 billion to the SAS with a lines and sewer systems, but have struggled to mitigate
Full Funding Grant Agreement signed in 2007 (MTA those impacts. Even with technological advances that
Capital Construction 2009). Approximately $950 allow tunneling to occur deeper than in the 1970s
million of this commitment has already been allocated plans, disturbance of the above-surface structures and
to the SAS (Maloney 2010 A). In addition, the project utility lines remains the leading culprit for current
received $78.87 million in stimulus funds (MTA construction delays. “The relocation of underground
Capital Construction 2010). These federal funds total utilities, including water pipes, gas lines, fuel tanks and
$1.374 billion. At the local level, funding structure electrical wires, are to blame for at least six months
and commitment is less clear. Using the MTA’s current of delays and more than $130 million in overruns on
cost estimate of $4.451 billion, the state and/or city the perennially postponed project, according to the
must contribute at least $3.077 billion to complete inspector general of the Metropolitan Transit Authority”
Phase 1. Using the FTA’s highest estimate, the local (Grynbaum 2010 A).
bill increases to $4.352 billion. A 2005 transportation
bond act provided $450 million towards the project Further contributing to delays, the MTA does not have
(Chan 2005). Some sources suggest that NY State has an adequate system to evaluate its subcontractors on
committed approximately $1.5 billion to the project the project. “The authority is constantly under fire for
from its general revenues (Maloney 2010 A). rampant delays and ballooning budgets on its major
construction projects, including the SAS, which are
There are serious questions about how New York often handled nearly entirely by private contractors”
State’s financial crunch and the ballooning costs of the (Grynbaum 2010 B). High-level officials in the MTA
SAS will impact the project’s funding in the coming have put pressure on evaluators to give satisfactory
years. In mid-2010, the MTA claimed Phase 1 was marks for subcontractors who have failed at their
“fully funded,” assuming a project cost of $4.46 billion tasks because of fears of not being able to work with
(Smerd 2010). If the actual cost is closer to FTA’s high these companies in the future. Thus new technologies,
estimate, however, the project may be under-funded like signals installed by Siemens in existing subway
by as much as $1.27 billion. Unfortunately, the FTA lines, are often riddled with problems that create more
has made it clear that “not a single penny of additional delays. A new report has called for stricter evaluation of
… New Starts dollars will be used to fund … delays subcontractors, such a system is already in place for the
and cost overruns” (Brown 2010; Rogoff 2010). While Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but there
New York State’s most recent budget did not affect is resistance within the MTA (Grynbaum 2010 A).
the MTA’s capital funding, there is “concern about the
state’s ability to provide funding during a fiscal crisis”
(Maloney 2010 B). Furthermore, there are currently no
funding commitments or funding plans for the future
phases of the SAS project (Smerd 2010; Elias 2011).

PUBLIC OUTREACH ZONING ANALYSIS
The MTA began public outreach in 1995, when it The proposed alignment of the Second Avenue Subway
published a Notice of Intent for the project and held (SAS) is in a densely populated corridor characterized
a joint public scoping meeting for the SAS’s Major by a mix of activities, from hospitals and apartments
Investment Study (MIS) and Draft Environmental to bars and office buildings. Second Avenue, along
Impact Statement (DEIS). The MTA scheduled more which the first three phases of the subway will run, is
than a 100 community meetings throughout the MIS/ an important commercial and residential spine through
DEIS process, including a public hearing in 1999 to the east side of Manhattan. The alignment of Phase 4
receive comments on the DEIS. The MTA expanded will meander through residential and commercial areas
the Second Avenue project into a full-length SAS of lower Manhattan and end at Hanover Square in the
from 125th Street to Lower Manhattan in response Financial District.
to these public comments. The new scope forced the
agency to conduct a Supplemental Environmental Zoning—the set of laws that defines the permitted uses
Impact Study (SDEIS) and incorporate it into the Final and size of a structure on a given piece of land—along
Environmental Impact Study (FEIS). Public outreach the alignment reflects the commercial and service role of
during these latter stages included: presentations and the corridor. The most common typology is residential
discussions with affected Community Boards; small- use with ground floor retail. Though this pattern is
group meetings and presentations to elected officials, persistent throughout the study area, the actual zoning
organizations, and business groups; meetings of a 50- designations—and thus the height, bulk, and character
member Technical Advisory Committee; and meetings of the buildings—change often. This section describes
of a Public Advisory Committee. Most of this public the land use and zoning for the current phase of the
outreach, including the Public Advisory Committee, construction as well as the three subsequent phases.
ended with the conclusion of the EIS process in 2003.
Zoning can be generally divided into three categories
During the current phase of the project, Claudia of land use: R for residential, C for commercial, and
Wilson, the contracted community liaison for the SAS M for manufacturing. The number after the land use
construction project, is the point person for residents’ category generally reflects the intensity of the use; for
questions and concerns. Wilson sends out weekly email residential and commercial uses that translates to a
blasts to give residents three-week advance notice of taller, wider building. For manufacturing, that typically
construction activities. Full quarterly reports issued by translates to an industrial use with more significant
the MTA, as well as community presentations and the impacts on the surrounding area. A second letter or
Environmental Impact Statement, are available to the number in some districts signifies additional controls.
public on the MTA website. Community Board 8 also Floor-area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the building’s
runs a SAS Task Force, which organizes bi-monthly permitted floor area to the size of its lot; in other words,
meetings with the MTA, subcontractors, and community it determines how big a building can be in relation
stakeholders to discuss construction issues. Task force to its footprint. An overlay district is superimposed
meeting minutes and agendas, as well as construction upon another zoning district to modify the underlying
updates and notices are available to the public on the regulations. Commercial overlays, for instance, are
MTA and Community Board 8 websites. often superimposed on residential districts to allow for
ground-floor local retail.
See appendix for zoning maps by phase.

Phase 1
The first phase of SAS construction takes place on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan. This densely developed
neighborhood has two general types of building
typologies: 25- to 30-story apartment buildings with
ground-floor retail along north-south avenues, and six-
story residential townhouses on cross-streets between
those avenues. The proposed subway alignment runs
down Second Avenue from 96th Street to 65th Street
before veering west to intersect with existing subway
tunnels at 63rd Street and Third Avenue.
There are also pockets of special zoning in the vicinity

of proposed subway stations along Second Avenue.
These special zoning districts are part of The Special
Transit Land Use District (TA), which stipulates that Second Avenue within Phase 1
developers must reserve space within their buildings the Upper East Side, 63rd Street between Second and
to facilitate pedestrian access to the future subway Third Avenues was downzoned to an R8-B designation
station and/or allow light and air to reach underground in order to permit new six-story apartment buildings
facilities (City Planning Commission 2011). Within with traditional row houses. At the intersection of
Phase 1, Special TA Zoning districts exist on 2nd Avenue 63rd Street and Third Avenue, the zoning is C1-9,
between 82nd and 84th Street and between 85th and 87th consistent with the rest of the avenue’s retail corridor.
Street. An additional TA district is located on Second
Avenue at 93rd Street. Many buildings within Phase 1 are not built to their
zone’s maximum allowable FAR (Department of City
The zoning on Second Avenue between 96th and 95th Planning 2010). Our data suggests that nearly 300
Streets is R-10A, with a FAR of 10.0. This designation buildings along Second Avenue could be subject to
typically produces 22-story apartment buildings with future development pressure1.
walls set at the street line. Under the Inclusionary
Housing Program, developers can build to a 12.0 FAR Phase 2
if they include lower-income housing. There is also a The second phase of SAS construction will occur in
C2-5 commercial overlay on all but the northeast corner East Harlem, a low-income neighborhood with a range
of 96th Street allowing for ground-floor retail uses. of land uses and housing types, including “tower in
the park” public housing developments; 2- to 6-story
Most of Second Avenue between 96th and 63rd Streets is private, multi-family (and often mixed-use) buildings;
zoned C2-8 or C1-9, which permits a residential 10.0 and the 125th St. commercial corridor. The subway will
FAR, bonusable to 12.0, and a commercial FAR of run on 125th Street from Lexington Avenue to Second
2.0. These similar zoning designations create high-rise Avenue before turning south on Second Avenue to
residential towers with ground-floor retail uses such as meet up with the new station at 96th Street.
dry cleaners and restaurants. The only real difference
between the designations is that C1-8 permits a narrower In Phase 2, Special Transit Land Use Districts are found
range of permitted retail uses (e.g. no funeral homes). on the south side of 125th Street from Lexington to
There are a few locations that are zoned differently. Second Avenues and on the north side the street from
Second Avenue between 71st and 72nd Streets as well as Lexington to Third Avenues (the subway alignment
78th and 79th Streets is zoned R10-A with a residential curves south of 125th to turn onto Second Avenue). TA
FAR of 10.0. And Second Avenue between 85th and 86th
Streets is zoned C2-8A, which requires new built forms
to conform to existing typologies. 1 These buildings are not built to the maximum FAR and
meet most soft site criteria as defined by the City Environmental
Quality Review manual. The data does not indicate whether the
Like the mid-blocks of most cross-town streets on
buildings are rent regulated.
“commercial districts that are predominantly residential
This page: Bridge and Tunnel Club. Opposite page: Dan_DC

in character” (NYC Department of City Planning 2011
C); between 123rd and 122nd Streets the zoning is R9
with a C1-2 overlay to encourage taller (height factor)
buildings with ground-floor commercial uses; between
122nd and 115th Streets the zoning is R8A with a C1-5
commercial overlay to create residential buildings with
a maximum height of 12 stories and ground-floor retail.
At present, this area is occupied primarily by 2- to
6-story residential buildings with ground-floor, local
commercial establishments.
Most of Second Avenue south of 120th Street to 96th

Street is zoned either R7-2 or R8A. As discussed above,
106th Street within Phase 2 the latter permits 12-story buildings with a 6.02 FAR.
districts are also found on Second Avenue between R7-2 districts are either Quality Housing contextual
124th and 120th Streets, 110th and 105th Streets, as districts permitting 8-story buildings with a 4.0 FAR, or
well as 97th and 96th Streets. In addition, Phase 2 of the height factor districts permitting tower developments
SAS construction will partially overlap the 125th Street with a 3.44 FAR. These zones usually have C1-5
Special District, designed to “preserve, protect, and commercial overlays to permit ground-floor local
promote the special character of 125th Street as Harlem’s retail use. The blocks contain 14- to 20-story public
“Main Street”” (NYC Zoning Resolution 2011). The housing developments, as well as many 2- to 6-story
125th Street Special District runs along 125th Street, multi-family residential buildings with ground-floor
from 2nd Avenue to Broadway. The district promotes retail. Several corners have been recently developed to
the commercial development of the street, especially include 10-story “luxury” housing.
for arts-related uses.
Phase 3
Both sides of 125th Street between Lexington and Second Phase 3 of the Second Avenue subway will run along
Avenues are zoned either C6-3 or C4-4D, reserved for Second Avenue between 63 Street and Houston Street.
rd
“regional commercial centers” (NYC Department of The subway alignment will move from the office towers
City Planning 2011 A). C4-4D is a contextual district of the Midtown Manhattan Central Business District
which ensures that new development fits in with the (CBD), through the more residential neighborhoods of
existing character of the neighborhood. C4-4D and Turtle Bay, Murray Hill, Kips Bay and Gramercy Park,
C6-3 districts have maximum commercial FARs of 3.4 and end in the bars and boutiques of the East Village.
and 6.0, respectively; maximum residential FARs of
6.02 and 7.52 respectively; and residential equivalents Most of Second Avenue between 63 and 39 Streets is
rd th
of R8A and R9, respectively. Unlike C4-4D districts, zoned either C2-8 or C1-9 with a commercial FAR of
which are contextual and meant to ensure that new 2.0 and a residential FAR of 10.0. These designations
development fits in with the existing character of the usually produce tall and dense residential buildings with
neighborhood, C6-3 districts are height factor districts, retail along the first floor. One exception is between 43
rd
permitting tower construction (NYC DCP 2011 B). and 41st Streets, where the zoning switches to a C5-2
designation with a residential and commercial FAR
The east side of Second Avenue from 125th to 120th of 10.0 to allow for tall office towers in addition to
Streets is zoned R7-2, a height factor or Quality residential and local commercial uses.
Housing district, that is occupied by the Senator Robert
F. Wagner, Sr. New York City Housing Authority Between 36th and 33rd Streets, moving south, the
(NYCHA) complex. The zoning on the west side of residential FAR decreases from 10 to 7.52 to reduce
Second Avenue varies by block: between 125th and 124th overall size of residential buildings. Between 33rd and
Streets is C4-4D; between 124th and 123rd the zoning is 23rd Streets, the zoning changes to C1-8A, which is a
C1-9, with a 10.0 to 12.0 residential FAR. These are contextual zone requiring new development to conform
lots. The Lower East Side and Chinatown comprise of
older low-rise residential or mixed-use residential with
ground floor retail. The financial district is primarily
high-rise office towers, with the exception of lower
historic buildings near the South Street Seaport. The
subway will follow Chrystie Street from Houston to
Canal Streets, where it veers down Bowery to East
Broadway, then along St. James Place to the Brooklyn
Bridge. From Dover Street, south of the bridge, the
subway follows Pearl Street to Hanover Square.
The proposed subway will pass through the zoning

designations of C6-1 and C6-1G as it travels from
Houston Street to Worth Street along Chrystie Street
and Bowery. Sara Delano Roosevelt Park, a 7.8-acre
one-block wide park, runs down Chrystie Street from
East Houston to Delancey Streets. The designations
of C6-1 and C6-1G have a residential FAR of 6.0 and
encourage tall buildings suited for offices or hotels.
The zoning changes to an R7-2 designation with an FAR

of 3.44 on Pearl Street south of the Brooklyn Bridge,
producing medium density residential buildings. The
zoning reverts to commercial around Hanover Square
in Lower Manhattan. The main designations along this
Lexington Avenue within Phase 3 stretch are C6- 2A and C5-5; residential FAR increases
from 6.02 to 10.0. There is a Special Lower Manhattan
to existing building typologies with a maximum
Zoning District south of Brooklyn Bridge to allow
building height of 145ft on wide streets and 135ft on
residential conversion of older commercial buildings.
narrow streets. The commercial FAR is 2.0 and the
The SAS, running along the east side of Manhattan,
residential FAR 7.52.
will serve the neighborhoods of East Harlem, the Upper
East Side, Midtown East, and the Lower East Side. The
South of 23rd Street, the zoning is mix of the residential
total population of these neighborhoods is about 7.6%
zones R7B, R8, R8B, and R9A. These designations
of New York City’s overall population.
permit buildings with heights raging from four to
See appendix for demographic tables by phase.
fourteen stories. Between 17th and 15th Streets, Second
Avenue passes through Stuyvesant Square, a four-
block-large park. Continuing south on Second Avenue
from 15th Street to Houston Street, land use reverts to
residential with ground-floor shops, bars, and restaurants.
The zoning designation of R8B with either a C1-5 or
C2-5 commercial overlay mandates a 75-ft height limit,
producing buildings six stories high. The residential
FAR varies from 3.44 to 7.52.
Phase 4
Phase 4 of the SAS construction process will include
the neighborhoods of the Lower East Side, Chinatown,
and the Financial District. The land uses are primarily
residential and commercial with some surface parking
Water Street within Phase 4

LAND USE ALONG PHASE 1 LAND USE ALONG PHASE 2

LAND USE ALONG PHASE 3 LAND USE ALONG PHASE 4

Phase 3
This page: Seth Werkheiser, Battery Park Media.

DEMOGRAPHICS Most of Phase 3 of SAS construction will be in the
Community Board 6 neighborhoods of Stuyvesant
Town, Tudor City, Turtle Bay, Peter Cooper Village,
Phase 1
Murray Hill, Gramercy Park, Kips Bay and Sutton Place.
Phase 1 of the SAS is within Community Board 8 and
Between 2005 and 2009, 80% of the population of these
will serve Manhattan’s Upper East Side neighborhood
neighborhoods identified as white, nearly double the
from 96th street to 63rd street. This area, according to the
city average. The age demographic of this community
2005-2009 American Community Survey is, on average,
varies widely from the city overall with approximately
whiter, wealthier, and more dependent on public transit
70% being between the ages of 25 to 64 compared to
than is New York City as a whole. More than 86% of
just over 55% for the city overall. Just over 8% of the
the residents of this community are white (American
population is under the age of 17, more than 60% less
Community Survey B). And, at $101,000, the area
than the percentage of the population under 17 in New
median income is twice the city average (American
York City overall (American Community Survey A).
Community Survey D). Over 15% of the population is
This community is, on average, $50,000 richer than the
over the age of 65, a demographic cohort that is often
city overall, and per-capita income is $65,000 greater
dependent on public transit (American Community
than the average median income for East Harlem and
Survey A). With 56% of all Upper East Side residents
the Lower East Side (American Community Survey
already dependent on public transit, an increase in the
D). East Midtown is the least transit-reliant community
elderly population over the next 20 years will push
on the east side of Manhattan, with only 42% percent
capacity on the existing Lexington Avenue subway line
of the population relying on public transportation to
even further (American Community Survey C).
access their jobs, 20% less transit reliant than the city
overall (American Community Survey C). More than
Phase 2
36% of the population of Midtown East walks to work,
Phase 2 of the SAS is within Community Board 11 and
making that mode the second most popular means of
will serve the East Harlem section of Manhattan. East
transportation in the district. The figure is more than
Harlem is one of the poorest and most racially diverse in
two and half times that of the city overall. High per-
the city. No single racial group holds a natural majority in
capita income, low transit ridership, a homogenous
this area. More than 30% of respondents identified their
racial demographic and a large percentage of people
race as other and 49% identifed their ethnic background
of working age seems to infer that most of the people
as Latino. About 35% of the population categorizes itself
in this area work at white collar office jobs in close
as black and only 25% of the population describes itself
vicinity to their homes.
as white. Area median income for this neighborhood is
$30,000, which is $20,000 less than the area median
Phase 4
income for the city as a whole. With more than 71% of
Phase 4 of the SAS is in Community Boards 1 and
its population dependent on public transportation, East
3 on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Since this
Harlem is the most transit-reliant community on the
community district encompasses Chinatown, it is not
East Side of Manhattan. The community is 30% more
surprising that nearly 35% of the district’s population
transit dependent than the city overall. And yet, despite
identifies as Asian, which is twice the share of Asian
heavy ridership, East Harlem is one of the city’s most
population in New York City as a whole. However,
underserved communities in terms of transit. Limited
several other majority white neighborhoods including
access to transit makes travel to work significantly
the East Village bring the total white population of
more difficult for East Harlem residents. Moreover,
the Lower East Side to 42%, making whites the single
considering that 54% of East Harlem’s population is of
largest racial group in the area (American Community
working age, adequate transportation to employment
Survey B). Area median income on the Lower East
is essential. the MTA can be guaranteed of significant
Side is approximately $38,000. That median income
ridership on the East Harlem segment of the SAS.
is nearly $12,000 less than the citywide average. It is
$60,000 less than the median income of Midtown East,
but $8,000 more than the median income of East Harlem
(American Community Survey D). With nearly 61% of
its population between the ages of 24 and 65, the Lower
East Side has the second largest number of working age
people in the city. The LES also has the second largest
percentage of elderly people on the East Side, with
14% of the population being over 65 years (American
Community Survey A). The Lower East side also has
the second lowest transit ridership of east side districts
(55.62%) and the largest number of people who bike to
work (2.23%) (American Community Survey C).
The southern terminus of the SAS will be within

Community Board 1 in Manhattan’s Financial District.
The population of this neighborhood has more than
doubled in the last 10 years thanks to the development
of new luxury towers and the residential conversion
of office buildings. This population explosion has put
considerable strain on area infrastructure, including
the local transportation system, but transit ridership
in the area is still 5% lower than ridership in the city
overall. This lower annual ridership among residents
can be correlated to the fact that more than a quarter of
the population walks to work. (American Community
Survey C). Further, 68 percent of the population is
of prime working age, 78 percent are white, and area
median income is $53,000 greater than the median
income for the city overall.

SECTION III:
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

This section summarizes our three main methods of research: a
land-use survey of First and Second Avenues, two resident and
business surveys, and a case study of the Central Corridor Light
Rail Project in Twin Cities, Minnesota. In addition to these research
projects, we conducted over 27 interviews with elected officials,
local organizations, and community leaders.

LAND USE SURVEY
For a baseline understanding of how the SAS
construction was affecting businesses along the
Phase 1 corridor, we conducted a land use survey of
the Second Avenue corridor from 63rd Street to 100th
Street. For comparison, we also surveyed the blocks on
First Avenue within the same north-south boundaries.
The survey identified 938 storefronts by block and lot
number and noted the following information for each
of them: street address, name of the business, type of
commercial activity (restaurant, dry cleaners, etc),
whether the storefront was vacant, and the presence
of any construction activity. This information was
compiled into a spreadsheet and mapped using GIS (see
the map at right). The studio then conducted a statistical
analysis of the differences in storefront vacancy levels
between First and Second Avenue .

Our analysis below revealed that while First Avenue had a higher percentage of vacant storefronts, the difference
was not statistically significant. The study also determined that there weren’t statistically significant correlations
between vacant commercial storefronts with and without construction materials.
Chart 1 – Commercial Vacancies According to Corridor

While First Avenue has a higher percentage of vacancies according to this cross-tabulation, our survey was merely
observational and did not control for other variables. Our analysis, beyond its descriptive statistics, cannot be used
to assign causation for vacancies along First and Second Avenues.
Chart 1: Storefront Vacancies Along First and Second Avenues

Storefront Vacant?
No Yes Total
Corridor First Avenue Storefronts 435 60 495
% within Corridor 87.9% 12.1% 100.0%
Second Avenue Storefronts 400 43 443
% within Corridor 90.3% 9.7% 100.0%
Total Storefronts 835 103 938
% within Corridor 89.0% 11.0% 100.0%
Chart 2: Chi-Square test to determine whether the number of vacant storefronts on Second Avenue is
statistically different from the number on First Avenue
Although this Chi-Square test suggests that First Avenue had a higher percentage of vacant storefronts, that
difference may not be statistically significant because our survey did not control for other variables.
Chart 2: Chi-Square Tests for Storefront Vacancies Along First and Second Avenues
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig.
Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.394 a
1 .238
Continuity Correction b
1.158 1 .282
Likelihood Ratio 1.402 1 .236
Fisher’s Exact Test .251 .141
Linear-by-Linear 1.393 1 .238
Association
N of Valid Cases 938
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 48.64.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Chart 3 – Cross-tabulation between the variables of storefront vacancy and presence of construction-
related materials
In Chart 3, we looked at whether or not there was a connection between commercial vacancies and the presence
of construction materials or structures, which included scaffolding, fencing, or pedestrian detours.
Chart 3: Storefront Vacancies Along First and Second Avenues Grouped by Construction
Storefront Vacant?
Construction Present? No Yes Total
No Construction Corridor First Avenue Storefronts 429 59 488
% within Corridor 87.9% 12.1% 100.0%
% within Corridor 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
% within Corridor 89.1% 10.9% 100.0%
Construction Corridor First Avenue Storefronts 6 1 7
% within Corridor 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%
% within Corridor 88.7% 11.3% 100.0%
% within Corridor 88.5% 11.5% 100.0%
Chart 4 - Chi Square test to determine whether the number of vacant storefronts near construction-related
materials is statistically different from other vacancies
Our Chi-Square test results did not find a statistically significant difference between the two groups.
Chart 4: Chi-Square Tests for Vacancies Along First and Second Avenues Grouped by Construction
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig.
Construction Present? Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
No Construction Pearson Chi-Square 1.786 a
1 .181
1.491 1 .222
Likelihood Ratio 1.822 1 .177
Linear-by-Linear 1.784 1 .182
Association
Construction Pearson Chi-Square .059c 1 .809
.000 1 1.000
Likelihood Ratio .055 1 .814
Linear-by-Linear .058 1 .809
Association
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 34.79.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
c. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .80.

WEB-BASED SURVEYS
In March 2011, we created and distributed two sur-
veys to reach community stakeholders beyond the
politicians and area leaders. Each of the surveys was
designed to draw from the experiences of a specific
group: one for the local business owners and one for
the community residents/other stakeholders. The sur-
veys were sent via email to 530 selected recipients, as
identified by the Second Avenue Business Association.
Recipients of the survey were encouraged to share the
web link with friends, families, and neighbors. The
resident/other stakeholder survey was also posted on
The Launch Box, a blog featuring daily updates on
the status of the SAS project. In addition, we recog-
nized the mobility and technological restrictions of the
elderly population and also distributed the resident/
other stakeholder survey onsite at a local senior home
and popular lunchtime destination for the elderly com-
munity in the area. A total of 53 individuals responded
to the resident/other stakeholder survey. Only 3 indi-
viduals responded to the business owner’s survey and
as a result of this low response rate the business owner
survey was not considered in our analysis of existing
conditions.
The resident/other stakeholders survey examined the

process by which people received information such as
construction updates and other important news about
the construction. The survey explored the role of the
community board as well as other organizations in
sharing information and mitigating any issues that
arose. Finally the survey allowed respondents to list
challenges as well as helpful suggestions for the future
of the project.
Our survey conclusions are as follows:

• 81% of respondents had never attended a meeting
regarding the subway construction project
• 91% of the respondents received little or
no resources from city agencies during the
construction process.
• 77% of the respondents were aware of plans
before construction began
• The primary methods for receiving information
regarding construction are independent blogs
(50%) and the MTA websites (42%)
A detailed summary of the survey is in the Appendix.

Opposite Page: Jeffrey Thompson, MPR
CASE STUDY
Central Corridor Light Rail Project, Twin Cities, MN
While the scope of the Central Corridor Light Rail and promote public involvement. The CAC members
Transit (LRT) project is vastly different than the scope represent a variety of stakeholder interests, including
and intensity of the SAS project, a case study provides neighborhood associations, area businesses, advocacy
a useful mechanism with which to analyze successful groups, disabled individuals (the CAC includes a vision-
approaches by other metropolitan areas in addressing impaired and two mobility-impaired individuals),
the impacts of major transportation construction educational institutions, ethnic communities, and
projects. This case study provides an overview of the religious organizations (Transit Cooperative Research
Central Corridor LRT project, its oversight structure, Program Synthesis 85 2010).
the forms of community participation and involvement,
outreach methods, and contractual tools used to make Construction Communication Committees (“CCC”).
contractors accountable to the communities. Detailed Metropolitan Council also created smaller, geographically
case study findings can be found in the Appendix. and community-based CCCs “to seek ongoing public
Highlights of the case study include: input during construction” (Metropolitan Council 2010
A). According to the CCC charter, its purpose is “to
Scope. The Central Corridor LRT projects spans be more proactive in communicating construction
11 miles connecting the downtowns of St. Paul and activities and addressing community concerns during
Minneapolis, runs through some of the region’s most construction” (Metropolitan Council 2010 A). Each
diverse neighborhoods, will cost approximately $978 of the four construction areas of the Central Corridor
million, and is anticipated to open in 2014. LRT project has a CCC with community representation
and technical staff and meets twice a month during
Community Advisory Committees (“CAC”). construction (Central Corridor Project Office 2010).
Metropolitan Council, the metropolitan planning agency
overseeing the project, established project-specific Contractor Requirements. As per their contracts with
CACs to provide advice and input from the community Metropolitan Council, each contractor must designate
a Community Relations Point person to work with about what business owners should know about the
Central Corridor Project Office (“CCPO”) outreach, project, how to plan ahead and mitigate impact through
engineering, and construction staff that has the power their own efforts, and about business practices that will
to commit the contractor to action, rather than merely benefit the owners beyond the LRT project (Business
a staff level person without the authority to bind the Resources Collaborative 2010 B).2
contractor (Central Corridor Project Office 2010).
Central Corridor Funders Collaborative. In late
Contractor Incentive Structure. Rather than provide 2007, the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative
incentive payments for completing the construction (“Funders Collaborative”) formed to ensure area
work ahead of schedule, the Central Corridor LRT residents, businesses, and neighborhoods benefit from
provides incentive payments when contractors the potential development along the Line. In doing so,
maintain a good relationship with the community and it focuses on four main areas: 1) affordable housing,
are accountable for their actions (Caufman 2011). The 2) ensuring a strong local economy along the route, 3)
community stakeholders of the four CCCs evaluate creating vital transit-oriented places, and 4) ensuring
the contractor’s performance based on information effective coordination and collaboration.
distribution, responsiveness to community concerns,
maintenance of access, safety, and site cleanliness. The
contractor’s incentive payment each quarter is based on
this evaluation.
Outreach and Information Dissemination. The

CCPO engages in the numerous forms of outreach
to communicate to community residents, businesses,
and other stakeholders, ranging from mailings and
weekly construction updates to door-to-door visits and
phone calls. In addition, Metropolitan Council hired
multilingual community outreach coordinators that had
experience in organizing and community-based work
(Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis
85 2010). The combination of public meetings and
presentations with door-to-door outreach, especially
in neighborhood with large immigrant populations,
ensures that the project reaches a larger percentage of
residents and business owners.
Business Resources Collaborative. The Business

Resources Collaborative (“BRC”) formed to mitigate
the impacts of construction of the Central Corridor LRT
project on area businesses. Through short and long-
term goals, the BRC seeks to mitigate construction
impacts and ensure that local businesses capitalize
on the economic development opportunities the
completed LRT line will provide (Business Resources
Collaborative 2010 A).
Readyforrail.net. To ameliorate the confusion over

which entity related to the project was responsible for
what aspect of it, readyforrail.net was created, along
with printed marketing materials. The Ready for Rail
Action Pack includes information about the BRC and
2 A copy of this Action Pack can be found in the Appendix.
SECTION IV:
Courtesy of Ben Heckscher/The Launch Box Blog

ISSUES & RECOMMENDATIONS

This section summarizes our three main methods of research:
a land-use survey of First and Second Avenues, two web-based
resident and business surveys, and a case study of the Central
Corridor Light Rail Project in Twin Cities, Minnesota. In addition
to these research projects, we conducted over 27 interviews with
elected officials, local organizations, and community leaders.

AGENCY COORDINATION DURING
Benjamin Kabak, Second Avenue Sagas

CONSTRUCTION
Lack of communication, interagency coordination and

oversight leads to delays and inefficiencies

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The lack of a centralized, oversight entity to coordinate the various public and private entities involved with
the construction of the SAS creates confusion and inefficiencies among the agencies involved and makes the
community unsure whom to hold accountable. Although the public often believes the MTA is responsible for every
aspect of construction of the SAS, many other players are responsible for various aspects related to construction.
The SAS project requires the involvement of multiple city agencies, private utility companies, the MTA, and
MTACC. These agencies and entities include the Mayor’s Office, the Department of Buildings, the Department
of Transportation, New York City Housing Authority, the Department of Sanitation, the Department of Cultural
Affairs, the Department of Environmental Protection, the NYC Police Department, the NYC Fire Department,
Consolidated Edison, Verizon, and National Grid, as well as multiple MTA contractors and subcontractors.
Despite the complexity involved with coordinating all of these entities, there is not currently an oversight entity
charged with ensuring this multitude of players work together efficiently and effectively. “Part of the problem
is insufficient monitoring of the work [with] little or no consistent, daily oversight,” lamented New York State
Assembly Member Deborah Glick in a telephone interview (Glick 2011). In addition, the number of entities
involved makes the community unsure of which agency or entity to contact when a problem arises. The difficulty
inherent in the coordination of the involved agencies invokes the need for a centralized entity to oversee the
construction process. Since the MTA already has the enormous task of building the SAS, an oversight entity
would be better suited to coordinate among the involved bureaucracies and the community.
GOALS
To propose an organizational model that provides oversight, coordinates concurrent construction and repair
efforts and establishes a centralized information portal for residents and business owners.
To create a multi-faceted communication system for resident complaints and communication.

AGENCY COORDINATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Establish an East Side Construction Command Center based on the LMCCC Model
The Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center (“LMCCC”) provides an existing model in New York
that addresses similar issues. The LMCCC is a joint state and city authority created by executive orders from
Governor George Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg in 2004 because of the enormous amount of anticipated
construction (over $20 billion) in Lower Manhattan. Both the Alliance for Downtown New York, the local
BID, and Community Board 1 advocated for the creation of such an authority. The LMCC is empowered by
the state and city to coordinate and oversee all construction projects south of Canal Street that are greater than
$25 million. The LMCCC deals with city operations, communications, community relations, construction
coordination and mitigation, environmental compliance, downtown opportunities for minority and women-
owned businesses, and marketing efforts (Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center 2011 A). The
purpose of the LMCCC, according to Robin Forst, its Director of Community and Government Relations, is to
“facilitate construction, mitigate impacts, and communicate what is happening” (Forst 2011).
The LMCCC also addresses the issue of confusion among residents and business owners about what agency
to contact, since it serves as one contact for all involved entities. It receives resident complaints from 311, its
website, local elected officials and the community board. The LMCCC also informs the community through
its interactive website map, detailed and regular email updates, a twitter feed, and community meetings (Forst
2011). The LMCCC has enjoyed a history of success of working with the MTA in community outreach. “The
MTA is interested in being respectful in Lower Manhattan,” said Forst, and by working with the LMCCC, the
“MTA has become more engaged over time” and more responsive to voices within community.
An East Side Construction Command Center (“ESCCC”) should provide the crucial task of coordinating
construction communication and outreach.
• The ESCCC, like the LMCCC, should host weekly meeting with all of the organizations, authorities,
agencies, and utilities working within the construction catchment area (125th Street to Houston Street on the
East Side, essentially Phases 1, 2, and 3).
• The ESCCC should prepare a master schedule with locations, times, the nature of the work, and expected
impacts. From this schedule, the ESCCC should work with contractors to develop weekly construction
mitigation and outreach strategies. The ESCCC should work closely with the Department of Buildings,
to determine which construction activities are more invasive (e.g. blasting), and require more notice or
mitigation strategies.
• The ESCCC should use the schedule to produce a dynamic, online map of ongoing projects and impacts,
such as street closures and vehicular congestion. The map should also be disseminated via online and print
media outlets.
• The ESCCC should allow for a more proactive approach to construction-related issues, and provide a central
contact where residents and business owners could voice their concerns.
Fund the ESCCC through legislative mandates and in-kind donations of services from city agencies
A concern in this ESCCC model is lack of direct funding for such an oversight entity. Currently, the LMCCC
receives its operating budget the from the Port Authority, MTA, NYSDOT and the City of New York, in
proportion to the amount of the project work being done by each respective entity. There is an inherent conflict
of interest as the MTA and Port Authority are essentially paying for their own oversight. For the LMCCC, there
is a threat that the agencies it oversees have the ability to decide not to pay for this oversight (Harvey 2011).

The ESCCC should be funded through legislative allocation to avoid this potential conflict. The ESCCC, like
the LMCCC, will depend on in-kind donations of service from the involved city agencies (Forst 2011).
The ESCCC should host biweekly meetings with city agencies and the community, including relevant
community board representatives and elected officials
Impacted communities should establish a coalition to coordinate construction mitigations with the ESCCC
In Lower Manhattan, the Downtown Alliance, the local Business Improvement District (“BID”) attends weekly
construction coordination meetings held by LMCCC to ensure the concerns of areas business owners are
addressed (Forst 2011). Unfortunately, for current and future phases within ESCCC’s catchment, a business
organization of the equivalent size and capabilities does not presently exist. Communities within future SAS
construction phases need to create community coalitions and designate representatives to speak for them at
weekly ESCCC construction coordination meetings. This community representative will also communicate the
potential construction impacts to the relevant constituency.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION &
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Matt Draper, DNAinfo
MTA and other agencies fail to adequately engage

the community

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Since the passage of the FEIS, information regarding the SAS and its construction impacts are primarily transmitted
to affected communities through regularly scheduled public meetings. The Second Avenue Taskforce, a special
taskforce setup by Community Board 8, holds meetings every other month for both the MTA and its subcontractors
to give updates, offer technical information regarding the construction process, and address community concerns.
Meeting notes and presentations are available online for pubic viewing via the Community Board 8 website.
Critics of public meetings contend that this forum typically attracts individuals or groups that have a particular
vested interest in an issue affecting them personally, and that concerns voiced through this medium are not fully
shared by the community at large (Innes and Booher 2000). Additionally, critics contend that public hearings
fail to engage everyday citizens and instead have become a formalized process. The results of our online survey,
which targeted residents directly impacted by the construction, showed that, three years into SAS construction,
only 20% of the 53 people surveyed had attended a meeting regarding the SAS. Of the surveyed respondents, only
34% knew the location of community board meetings.
Claudia Wilson, the MTA-contracted community liaison for the SAS construction project, is the point person for
residents’ questions and concerns. Wilson sends out weekly email blasts to give residents three-week advance
notice of construction activities. Interviews with stakeholders, however, have highlighted some of the limitations
of this level of public outreach. State Assemblyman Jonathan Bing sees a need for other forms of information
sharing, especially for older populations that do no have internet/email access. Lolita Jackson, Manhattan Director
at the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit, notices that Wilson works to resolve construction impacts once residents
complain, but that there is no one responsible for anticipating potential negative construction impacts on residents,
especially the elderly, and working to strategically avoid or mitigate those impacts in advance.
The MTA hosts a SAS webpage on its website to post construction alerts and background materials about the
construction project. The webpage, however, is not intuitively accessible; Internet users have to click through two
other pages to reach the SAS webpage and then interpret a not-very-user-friendly website design to read about
construction updates. Yvonne Przybyla, chief of staff for State Senator José Serrano, fields constituent complaints
about outdated and confusing information on the MTA website. Both in posting on its own site and collecting
email addresses for its weekly web blasts, the MTA is relying on residents to come to them in order to be informed
of construction activities. The result is that many residents end up in the dark: Three years into SAS construction,
both Pastor Logan Gentry of Apostles Church on East 76th Street, and Father McHale of St. Elizabeth Roman
Catholic Church on East 83rd Street, were unaware that the MTA even held community meetings, hosted a website,
or sent email construction alerts.
Monthly construction coordination meetings with MTA contractors and city agencies currently provide a limited
means of community input. Lolita Jackson runs these monthly construction coordination meetings, which allow
the city to comment on contractors’ upcoming construction calendars. By virtue of living on East 96th Street,
Jackson is able to understand the community impacts of these construction schedules, and is currently playing the
role of community advocate by pushing for safer pedestrian crossings within construction zones and improved
transit access for affected residents. This de facto role of community advocate, however, has its limitations:
“Contractors make up their own schedules. I can comment on them and send them back,” explains Jackson.
“There doesn’t seem to be anyone really preemptively thinking about the impacts of construction on residents
when designing these schedules.”
Other MTA efforts to solicit community input have been limited and reactionary in nature. In one case, the MTA
solicited feedback regarding proposed ancillary structures at the October 12, 2010 taskforce meeting. The MTA
asked for input—solely on the color of the structure—only after the 233 East 69th St Cooperative filed a federal
lawsuit (233 East 69th Street Owners Corporation versus US Department of Transportation et al. 2010). In another

case, the MTA posted a public survey asking for feedback on the MTA Model Block. The survey, announced on
the Community Board 8 website, was a word document available for download on the MTA website that consisted
of 5 open-ended questions. The survey did not include any imagery of the model block nor did it indicate how the
MTA would implement suggestions.
While these mechanisms allow members of the community limited, late-in-the-game participation, they do not
allow for proactive, community-wide participation in the MTA’s planning and decision-making process.
GOALS
Create an institutionalized mechanism for on-going, pro-active community participation in the current and future
phases of the SAS project. Such a mechanism will help
a) secure community buy-in;
b) more accurately and efficiently identify potential community impacts and strategies for mitigation; and
c) ensure that the project furthers community goals, plans, and visions for its neighborhood.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: PHASE 1
Appoint a community-construction advocate
• This community-construction advocate would attend construction meetings and comment on the schedules
for upcoming months in order to mitigate potential impacts on residents and businesses.
• This would be a more proactive role than the community liaison position currently filled by Claudia
Wilson. Where Claudia Wilson distributes information and answers questions about current or imminent
construction activities, this advocate would anticipate construction impacts on residents and suggest ways
to mitigate the impacts. Claudia Wilson would keep this advocate informed of community concerns, but the
advocate would also meet regularly with contractors, as well as community groups and members (property
managers, senior centers, business associations) to develop an intimate knowledge of the area and the
construction process.
• This advocate would be a full-time position paid for and mandated by state legislation. The advocate would
be accountable to the elected official sponsoring the funding bill. The advocate’s performance would be
judged by quarterly reviews submitted to the elected official’s office by the MTA, Lolita Jackson, president
of SABA, and the co-chair of the CB8 Task Force (also taking into account any constituent complaints heard
by the elected officials concerning the construction process).
• To ensure contractors’ compliance, state legislation should also mandate that the community-construction
advocate’s suggestions be implemented, where feasible.
• This advocate would be an official member of the construction coordination meetings run by the Mayor’s
Community Affairs Unit.
Adapt and expand the community liaison position to answer to the community rather than the MTA.
• Following the model of the LMCCC community relations director, the MTA would be legislatively
mandated to fund and respond to the community liaison position, but not consider the position under its
jurisdiction. This would reduce conflicts of interest between community concerns and those of the MTA and
its contractors.
• In the absence of a robust community coalition, this revised community liaison position could answer to the
CB 8 SAS Task Force.
• Legislation would also require the MTA to fund a weekend community liaison. (For complaints during non-
business hours, the community has been told to call 311 with complaints even though the MTA is not a city
agency.)
Schedule regular meetings with community liaison and local property managers
• The community liaison would personally inform property managers of large residential buildings about
upcoming construction activities in order to answer questions and clearly communicate the scope and timing
of construction activities. These meetings would be an opportunity to distribute construction notices for
property managers to post in their buildings’ elevators, corridors, and lobbies.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: PHASE 2
Create a community coalition to develop a vision for East Harlem and Phase 2 of the SAS, and advocate
for it from start to finish
Meaningful, proactive community input on Phase 2 of the SAS requires a community vision for the future of
the neighborhood and the project. This is particularly important given that the creation of a new subway line in
East Harlem will produce short and long-term impacts on many facets of neighborhood life, including traffic,
housing, schools, and the local economy. Creating a community coalition of diverse stakeholders will build
power and amplify the community’s voice. We recommend an Implementation Charrette exercise (explained
below) to form a vision for the project that will serve as the basis for future project-related advocacy by the
coalition.
• Coalition Members: To ensure that the coalition represents the community at large, coalition members
should include diverse stakeholders such as tenant and neighborhood associations, merchants’ associations,
faith-based groups, schools and parent-teacher associations, youth groups, social justice organizations,
social service agencies, local elected officials, the community board, and local civic and other community
organizations.
• Participation Methods: In addition to holding regular meetings to discuss SAS-related issues, we

recommend the coalition a) host “Implementation Charrettes3,” b) organize Civic Forums, c) use
“Crowdsourcing” as virtual town meetings, and d) run mobile community workshops through construction
zones on an ongoing basis:
o Implementation Charrettes would allow community stakeholders to work alongside engineers

and elected officials to develop a vision and plan for the community through the SAS construction
process. These charrettes would focus on possible community, municipal, and MTA responses to the
anticipated impacts of the SAS construction as outlined in the FEIS. Charrettes were a helpful tool
in creating Flatbush 2030, the “consensus-driven community-based” plan for Flatbush, Brooklyn
(PlaNYC 2011). The NYCDOT Public Plaza Program also uses the method when designing new
public spaces. Together with a nonprofit partner, Public Plaza Program hosts public visioning
workshops with a professional design team—including landscape architects and engineers, to
synthesize conceptual designs and community ideas (NYC Department of Transportation 2009).
o Civic forums are a way of encouraging marginalized populations, such as seniors and non-native-
English-speakers to participate. Civic forums require agencies and representatives to hold multiple,
smaller meetings in the community at different locations and times. The method helps tailor
interactions to the needs of community members, whether by providing translators or hosting nearby
meetings for mobility-challenged community members. This method was successful in gathering
community input for the 2011 PlaNYC update initiative. MTA and the Community Coalition can use
the civic forum as a strategy to receive feedback regarding designs in various stages of development
or on a semi-annual basis as a way to reach constituents who are not able to attend or participate in
regularly scheduled community board meetings.
o Crowdsourcing4 is a means of creating virtual town meetings. Both the MTA and relevant
3 According to the Federal Highway Administration, a charrette is a public decision-making meeting with the following com-
ponents: 1) definition of issues to be resolved, 2) analysis of the problem, 3) use of staff people for technical assistance, 4) develop-
ment of proposals, 5) development of alternative solutions, 6) presentation of analysis and alternatives, 7) consensus and resolution
around a desired solution. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/charrett.htm)
4 Crowdsourcing as a method for increased community involvement was successful in the design of bus stops for the Utah
Community Boards should use crowdsourcing as a method for increased community involvement
in future phases of the project. Crowdsourcing is non-traditional method of public engagement
that allows agencies to receive ideas and reactions from the community via the Internet.
Through crowdsourcing, web-users can offer suggestions and opinions regarding the design or
implementation of a project. Crowdsourcing also encourages those who could not physically attend
a public meeting to share an idea, offer commentary, or vote on a particular element of the proposed
project. The method helps redistributes decision-making power and allows the general public to be
heard in a more inclusive forum.
o Mobile workshops: Organizing a mobile workshop is a unique and effective way keep community
stakeholders informed and to solicit their feedback. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
has implemented this strategy during the construction at the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower
Manhattan (PANJY 2009). A mobile workshop, also known as a “WalkShop,” a discussion of recent
changes, updates, and concerns with a walking tour of the site. This allows community stakeholders
and construction managers to pinpoint specific examples of problems and/or successes. The WTC
WalkShops, conducted by consultant Sam Schwartz of Sam Schwartz Engineering, have led to
various site improvements including better lighting to increase safety and widened and repaved
sidewalks to reduce congestion (PANJY 2009).
• Coalition-Creation: Until the coalition develops sufficient capacity and funding to function as an
independent entity, it should be incubated in an existing community organization, such as Civitas, or the
office of a local elected official.
• Funding Sources: Potential sources of funding for the coalition include elected officials, foundation grants,
and/or tie-ins to state funding for the SAS project.
• Coalition Staff:
o Coordinator / spokesperson to represent the coalition and community interests in the SAS project
both to the media and in interactions with other agencies and community groups. The coordinator
would also promote membership in the coalition and coordinate coalition activities. She or he would
be the local, community-oriented face of the SAS project; a local counterpart to the MTACC’s Dr.
Horodniceanu. If community members had a concern, question, or problem with the SAS project, the
coalition coordinator would be who they would turn to for their voices to be heard.
o Community-Construction Advocate (to be introduced during the construction phase) would fill
the same role as in Phase 1 to proactively advocate for the community during construction meetings,
comment on schedules for upcoming months, and be available on the ground to advise contractors
and the MTA’s community liaison on issues requiring mitigation. Like the coalition coordinator, the
advocate would need intimate knowledge of the area, its stakeholders, and the construction process.
o Community Liaison to serve as the main means of communicating SAS updates and construction
activities to the public, and channeling community questions and complaints back to relevant
agencies and the community-construction advocate. This liaison would be funded by state legislation
and answer to the coalition in order to reduce any conflicts of interest between community concerns
and those of the MTA and its contractors.
Transit Authority (UTA) in 2009. The authority’s crowdsourcing project, called “Next Stop Design,” was a collaborative effort of the
Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, the Department of Communication at the University of Utah and the UTA. (University
of Utah 2009)
COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS: PHASE 2 CONT
Create a Community Advisory Committee
We recommend that an East Harlem Community Advisory Committee (EHCAC) be mandated as part of state
or local funding for Phase 2 of the SAS project. Community advisory committees (CACs) are “a commonly
used method to involve community members in decisions about transit planning and operations” (Transit
Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 85 2010). Comprised of a diverse group of community stakeholders,
the EHCAC would meet regularly with MTA decision-makers to discuss and make recommendations pertaining
to the planning and implementation of Phase 2 of the SAS project. Unlike the above-described PAC, the
EHCAC would serve an advisory function through all stages of the second phase.
Business
Association Community
Boards
Construction
Advocate Local
Electeds
Community
Advisory
Community
M Coalition
s
Committee
cie
TA Community
Organizations
en
ESCCC
Ag
Liaison
Political
Contractors Champion
Coordinator
The following recommendations for the EHCAC are adapted from best practices described in “Effective Use
of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning and Operations” (Transit Cooperative Research Program
Synthesis 85 2010):
• CAC Members: Approximately 10-15 EHCAC members should be selected by and from within the above-
discussed community coalition, with an eye to ensuring representative diversity. The above-mentioned
coalition liaison and construction advocate should serve as members of the EHCAC. A transportation
agency representative and/or an elected official may also sit on the CAC, depending on coalition preference.
• Scope: EHCAC should have authority to make recommendations on all issues pertaining to the project,
including funding, design, construction staging and scheduling, and public outreach.

• Time Line: The EHCAC would be involved in all stages of project development and implementation, from
Phase 2’s earliest planning stages through the first months of the subway’s operation.
• Structure of Decision-Making: EHCAC would decide on recommendations either by consensus or by

majority vote. Recommendations that are rejected by the MTA or command center should be discussed with
the EHCAC.
• Member Training: In partnership with the coalition, the MTA/command center should train CAC members
on their roles, the goal of the EHCAC, the structure of the MTA and its construction and decision-making
processes, the scope of the SAS construction project, and general facilitation techniques.
• Empowerment Methods: EHCAC should adopt an incentive bonus system to reward contractors who
address the community’s construction-related concerns. Please see the Appendix for Case Study details of
this method.
Publish Community-Coalition SAS report cards
The community coalition should annual judge the performance of the MTA and its contractors from the
perspective of the general public. Elected officials and MTA internal oversight committees have used the report
card format, but the community coalition is in a unique position to leverage media and public opinion for the
project and any necessary management improvements.

MARKETING, COMMUNICATION, AND
INFORMATION SHARING
Amy Zimmer, DNAinfo
MTA should create a multimedia plan to inform the public and

rally support for this multi-year project

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The MTA and its partners have taken a number of steps to incorporate multimedia tools into their marketing
and communications campaign. MTACC has dedicated a specific portion of its website to the SAS that is easily
retrievable from a Google search (MTA Capital Construction 2011). This page includes background and historical
information on the project, construction updates, and contact information, including an email address and a hotline
number.
The MTA has also partnered with the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce (“MCC”) to support local businesses
through the Shop 2nd Avenue – It’s Worth It campaign. The MTA also recently launched a Facebook page (Facebook.
com 2011) and a blog called the Second Avenue Shopper (The Second Avenue Shopper NYC 2011). As part of
this promotional effort, the MTA will release a MetroCard in April encouraging riders to Shop 2nd Avenue. This
MetroCard is available for purchase at vending machines in all Lexington Avenue 4/5/6 stations from 51st Street
to 103rd Street, as well as in the N/Q/R Line stations located at Lexington Avenue/59th Street and 5th Avenue/59th
Street, and the Lexington Avenue/63rd Street F Line Station (MTA A). According to the MTA’s website and
Nancy Ploeger, President of the MCC, plans to use additional social media tools such as Foursquare, Groupon,
and Twitter to promote Second Avenue establishments are in development.
GOALS
Improve communication strategies within the MTA about the SAS.
MARKETING RECOMMENDATIONS
The MTA should hire an SAS-specific communication design specialist
We recommend MTA create an SAS-specific marketing position to manage the PR, marketing, and
communication strategies for the SAS. This communication specialist would design a multimedia plan to inform
the public and rally support for this multi-year project. This position does not overlap with the Community
Liaison position currently filled by Claudia Wilson, as her role is to respond to individual inquiries as they arise.
This MTA should communicate through multiple platforms and technologies
According to the survey we conducted, community members obtained information about the SAS construction
in a variety of different ways. By creating a number of different contact points, the MTA can ensure that
important information is disseminated to a larger number of people. Although the MTA already uses different
avenues to provide information—the website, email blasts, meetings, flyers, street signage—there are a few
additional media that should be utilized:
• Twitter
The MTA should create a Twitter account specifically devoted to the SAS, which the communication design
specialist would update. This account should be used to provide construction notices and to promote the project.
The MTA already has multiple Twitter accounts devoted to different branches of the agency (MTAInsider,
NYCTSubwayScoop, LIRRScoop, MetroNorthTweet, ArtsforTransit, and NYTransitMuseum) (MTA B). A
dedicated SAS Twitter account would provide a quick and simple platform for sharing progress and successes
with the public. Residents and concerned citizens would also be able to sign up for an SMS feed of these tweets.

MARKETING RECS CONT
• Blog
Blogs have been used by other transportation agencies to promote and spread knowledge about projects.
According to our survey, 50% of people get their information about the SAS from independent blogs. By
creating its own blog, the MTA can ensure that the correct information gets to the public via a forum that is
already being utilized.
One example of this comes from the New York City Department of Transportation, which recently launched
a blog via Tumblr called “The Daily Pothole” that tracks progress on pothole repair throughout the city
(NYC Department of Transportation 2011 A). The blog also provides images from the field, maps, and facts
about the work being done. The MTA should implement a similar strategy to track and share construction
progress with the public.
• Flickr
While Flickr is not necessarily a means of distributing important information, but it is an excellent platform
for generating positive buzz about the SAS. There are a number of fascinating images from the New York
Transit Museum’s archive of Second Avenue throughout history that could be displayed on Flickr. New
construction photos could also be posted here. There is currently one album of the SAS project on the
MTA’s Flickr account. We recommend that the MTA create an SAS-specific account or post more images on
the main MTA account.
• Phone messaging
In the development of the overall communications strategy, traditional technologies should not be ignored.
For example, a number of seniors live in the community and may not have sufficient access to the internet.
In these cases, the implementation of an automated phone message would be useful for disseminating
important information, such as changes to bus stops or traffic flow. This would be similar to the system that
is frequently used to notify parents of school closures.
The MTA should improve its website utility
While the MTA’s SAS website is can be found easily via a Google search for “Second Avenue Subway,”
the website itself could be improved by including more interactive features. We recommend that the MTA
incorporate a number of the tools used by the LMCCC, which coordinates large construction projects south of
Canal Street. These include:
• Interactive maps
The LMCCC provides an interactive map based on the city’s Oasis platform that allows users to navigate
various construction sites in Lower Manhattan (Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center 2011 B).
A similar map for the SAS construction could include layers with information about traffic flows, bus stops,
and blasting zones.
• Active homepage
A “Latest News” scroll on the LMCCC’s homepage flashes construction-related advisories. A scroll of
“Headlines” linked to press releases or news stories written by the LMCCC about construction projects is
also provided. Incorporating a similar architecture to the SAS website would encourage people to explore
the information available and learn more about the project from MTA-produced literature. Creating a
“Latest News” scroll could be as simple as highlighting real-time tweets from the SAS Twitter account.

• Recommended links
On the LMCCC’s homepage, there is section called “Recommended Favorites” that provides links to six
different areas of the website that are most commonly searched. These include: “Get E-mail Updates,”
“Latest Advisories,” “About Lower Manhattan,” “Looking Ahead,” “Construction Contacts,” and “Lower
Manhattan Logistics.” This allows users to get what they are looking for quickly and easily. We recommend
that the MTA include a similar feature on the SAS website.
• Links to press and community happenings

Links to positive press related to the construction and/or the neighborhood are provided on the LMCCC
website. There is also a calendar of community meetings and “happenings.” The MTA should designate a
space on the SAS website to highlight positive press and feature community events.
• Comprehensive construction glossary/FAQ

A comprehensive glossary of construction terms is an excellent resource provided on the LMCCC website
(Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center 2011 C). The website also offers general construction
FAQs that answer questions like, “How does weather affect construction?” (Lower Manhattan Construction
Command Center 2011 D). Similar resources should be available on the SAS website in order to provide the
public with a framework and vocabulary to discuss construction issues.
Use creative brand marketing wherever possible
The MCC has expressed its intent to work with websites such as Foursquare and Groupon to attract customers
to Second Avenue. The MCC and Small Business Services should work together with local businesses to
encourage them to take advantage of these services. Furthermore, the SAS project and Second Avenue Shopper
campaign could both benefit from brand marketing via these services, as well. The following are a few
examples of how this may be achieved:
• Use Foursquare to “track” the tunnel boring machine (TBM). A small prize would be provided to whoever
is the “Mayor,” or most frequent participant, on the last day of each month. The prize could be subway
merchandise, such as a T-shirt.
• Build a virtual gallery of Second Avenue by asking people to upload their favorite pictures to Flickr and
use the tag “SAS Photo Project.” This work could eventually be displayed in a temporary gallery space on
Second Avenue.
• Create a Yelp list for the “Best of Second Avenue.” Encourage people in the social media sphere to write
recommendations of their favorite Second Avenue spots.
• Implement a SAS hashtag on Twitter (#SASNYC). This will encourage users to discuss the project and
allow the MTA and/or the MCC to track the discussion.
• Use a product like WildFire to build and monitor the SAS social media campaign through contests, quizzes,
trivia, and sweepstakes (Wildfire Interactive 2011). Offering one “large” prize, such as a free $10 Metrocard,
will encourage participation.
Link across multimedia
All websites devoted to the SAS (MTA’s SAS website, the Second Avenue Shopper website, and the Second
Avenue Shopper Facebook page) should link to each other in a prominent and consistent manner. This will allow
users to easily move between pages and will reinforce the brand.
POLITICAL CHAMPION
Clockwise from top: Lorenzo Ciniglia, The Villager; Courtesy of Senator Serrano; Richard Perry, New York Times
Subway construction will halt without continued

political support

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney’s support of the SAS resuscitated the SAS project in the mid-1990s. She helped
arrange a full-funding grant agreement between the FTA and the MTA guaranteeing $1.3 billion in federal funds
toward the first phase of subway construction (Maloney 2011). Maloney also initiated an annual “Second Avenue
Subway Report Card” to publicly grade the MTA on its construction efforts and hold it accountable to taxpayers.
In addition to Congresswoman Maloney, the Second Avenue Subway has benefitted from several other political
supporters. New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver made the SAS a budget priority in the early 2000.
In an effort to secure funding for a full build-out of the project, the Assembly Speaker went so far as to threaten
to hold up the entire state budget (Luo 2004).
Once construction of Phase 1 began, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer requested that Barry Kluger,
inspector general of the MTA, review the reasons behind an estimated $1 billion worth of SAS cost overruns
(Grynbaum 2010 A) and up to four years’ worth of construction delays (Kabak 2010). Borough President Stringer
then asked Kluger to propose changes to MTA project management practices to prevent their reoccurrence. After
a thorough investigation, the inspector general published a Governance Assessment of MTA Capital Program
Mega Projects with recommendations the MTA has begun incorporating into its project management strategies.
Other local elected officials, including State Senator Jose Serrano and Assemblymen Micah Kellner and Jonathan
Bing, have responded to constituent complaints by proposing legislation to mitigate the construction impacts on
businesses. A bill to provide grant-funded financial assistance to businesses, for example, made its way through
both state houses before being vetoed by then-Governor Paterson (Bloomgarden-Smoke 2011).
GOALS
The SAS needs concerted and constant political support, in addition to that of Congresswoman Maloney, to push
for the full build-out of the project and help procure its funding.

POLITICAL CHAMPION RECOMMENDATIONS
Encourage a Political Champion for Each Phase to Step Forward
This champion would build local support for the project, increase awareness of the benefits and temporary
detriments during construction, organize constituents into groups that can work with the MTA to mitigate issues
that do arise, and advocate for project funding.5
• Create Community Buy-In

The SAS Champion needs to get involved as early as possible at each phase in order to advocate for the
subway. Early advocacy for the SAS would help start off community-MTA interactions on the best possible
footing, according to Hunter Armstrong of Civitas (Armstrong 2011). The absence of a champion in Phase 1
led to the lack of local awareness and understanding of the SAS, despite Congresswoman Maloney’s active
solicitation of funding. Insufficient mediation of local concerns in between the publication of the FEIS and
the beginning of construction also led to sometimes tense relations between the MTA and Upper East Side
constituents.
• Fundraise
A political champion should help procure local, state, and federal funding for the project—both personally
and by partnering with other officials and interest groups. Though Congresswoman Maloney has long
advocated for a full-build of the SAS, additional lobbying will be all the more crucial given the relatively
unfriendly climate for transit funding in Washington.
• Start Early
The Champion should initiate community support for the subway now and push for federal and state capital
funds. A political champion could also help develop a coalition within a community that may not currently
be prepared to do so. In later phases, where neighborhoods might be better equipped for coalition-building,
the champion’s role might be focused on funding procurement, with the coalitions taking on more of the
advocacy and support-building duties.
Nominate Charles Rangel to be Phase 2 Champion
Charles Rangel, the current US Representative from New York’s 15th District, would be best suited to play the
role of the political champion for Phase 2. CB11 District Manager George Sakissian admits that East Harlem
currently lacks a local constituency: There are no Business Improvement Districts in the area and most local
organizations focus on housing and poverty-related issues; such a massive infrastructure process is outside their
scope. CB11 even lobbied, albeit unsuccessfully, for including Phase 2 funding in the federal allocation.
CB11 Should Play Back-Up Champion
In addition to Congressman Rangel’s direct involvement, we suggest that CB11 also champion for the SAS.
District Manager Sakissian would like to model a future CB11 initiative on the CB8 Task Force, which focused
on quality-of-life and construction concerns during Phase 1. A community-wide campaign for funding could
begin with a CB11 resolution, which could then be used to encourage other elected officials, such as Manhattan
Borough President Scott Stringer, Assemblyman Micah Kellner, or Senator José Serrano, to support the project.
5 The potential benefits of a Political Champion are illustrated in the example of San Diego-area mayor and later California
State Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith. Goldsmith successfully advocated for the introduction of High-Occupancy Toll congestion pric-
ing on local highways through newspaper Op-Eds and media appearances, one-on-one meetings with skeptical colleagues, newsletter
articles, and town-hall meetings (Institute for Sustainable Cities “Promising Practices in Transportation Efficiency” p. 14-17)
MITIGATING CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
ON BUSINESSES
Second Avenue stores face a difficult business environment

EXISTING CONDITIONS
On February 11, 2011 the MTA confirmed that the SAS was on track for completion in late 2016. Unfortunately,
many merchants along the Second Avenue corridor do not think they can last that long (Pasquerelli 2010). Some
businesses have lost 20% to 30% of their business, and others have closed permanently (Bing). There is an
estimated 12% commercial vacancy rate on Second Avenue between East 59th Street and East 96th Street. The rate
is only 1 percentage point lower than the commercial vacancy rate along First Avenue, the most economically
depressed corridor on the Upper East Side. However, vacancy rates on Second Avenue are consistent along the
entire corridor regardless of the presence or absence of subway construction (Bloch 2010). According to Barry
Schneider, co-chair of the SAS task force for Community Board 8, foot traffic on the avenue has dropped by
nearly a third; some speculate that pedestrians are trying to avoid the construction zone by walking along First or
Third Avenues instead (De Avila 2010). Based on a 2010 retail vacancy report by the local Our Town newspaper,
there were 2% fewer businesses on the Upper East Side than the year before, and First Avenue was the hardest
hit commercial corridor in the district (Bloch 2010). The concurrent existence of subway construction and an
economic recession makes it difficult to isolate the dominant force behind the decline in business. The SAS
construction, however, provides an impetus to build a coalition of merchants to mitigate construction impacts.
Second Avenue Business Association

In 2007, local businesses owners formed the Second Avenue Business Association (“SABA”) to ensure the
continuation of Second Avenue as a vibrant commercial corridor. Its members consist of approximately 100 local
merchants within the Phase 1 construction zone. Since its founding, SABA has successfully launched the Second
Avenue Shopper, a blog about special deals and events taking place along Second Avenue. SABA also hosted a
Second Avenue Halloween block party, and sponsored a Second Avenue photo competition. In the last four years,
SABA has made tremendous strides in uniting the business community along Second Avenue, and with additional
tools and resources, it has the potential to grow into a driver of economic development on the Upper East Side.
Legislative Efforts
Two bills intended to mitigate impacts on Second Avenue businesses were introduced in the State Assembly
and sponsored, in part, by State Assembly Members Jonathan Bing, Micah Kellner, Deborah Glick, and Robert
Rodriguez, though neither bill has yet been signed into law. The first bill, A1116, seeks to establish a SAS
construction economic development grant program (Bing et al. 2011 A). The grant program would provide
financial and technical assistance to businesses located within the construction area. In order to qualify for any
grant monies under this program, the applicant would have to prove that any financial burden it suffers was caused
by the construction of the SAS. The second bill, A4767, aims to attract customers to struggling business with
a temporary moratorium on sales tax on purchases of goods or services less than $110 in the construction area
(Serrano et al. 2011 B).
Efforts by the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce (“MCC”)

The MCC, serving as the de facto business leader on the Upper East Side, has also implemented initiatives to
assist Second Avenue businesses. Businesses directly affected by SAS construction can receive a free Chamber of
Commerce membership with its associated benefits, including professional networking opportunities, legislative
advocacy, and business supply discounts (MCC 2011). The MCC created a Second Avenue Resource Coalition to
assist local retailers and restaurateurs in improving their businesses. The coalition, consisting of elected officials,
technical assistance groups, financial organizations, the MTA, the Mayor’s office, and city agencies, successfully
lobbied for $10,000 in funding from State Senator Liz Krueger and $9,000 from Council Member Jessica Lappin
to create the “Shop 2nd Avenue, It’s Worth It” branding campaign. Additionally, the MCC has promoted area
businesses through social media and fliers distributed at local subway stations. It is currently printing 2 million
metro cards with the “Shop Second Avenue, It’s Worth It” logo on the back and working with business owners to
provide discounts to patrons who present those cards.

GOALS
Connect businesses to existing and proposed resources to help them mitigate construction impacts and prepare for
changing conditions once the SAS is completed.
BUSINESS RECOMMENDATIONS: PHASE 1

Department of Small Business Services (SBS) should maintain a remote facility on Second Avenue and
target services to the businesses most impacted by construction.
This SBS field office should bring the following existing SBS services to SAS-affected stores (SBS 2011):
• Business Planning / Education

Better business planning will allow owners to reduce waste, improve their profit margins, and make their
stores more nimble in light of oncoming challenges. The convenient Second Avenue location will allow
business owners greater access as to these services as they may not have used them in the past because the
services were too far away or they were not aware that the services existed.
• Legal Review of Contracts and Leases

Small Business Services currently has a team of pro-bono lawyers that help commercial tenants understand
their leases, and give them legal council during lease renewal to avoid rent costs from spiking after the
project is completed. SBS might also use this pool of legal knowledge to devise a strategy for securing
long-term commercial contracts that will give businesses time to adapt once again to the new business
environment that emerges once revenue service starts on the Second Avenue Subway.
• Navigation of Governmental Rules and Regulations

New and existing businesses both benefit from avoiding fines and other punitive actions that result from
unwittingly bumping against a standing rule or regulation. By understanding these standards, existing
businesses can have a better sense of how much room they have to operate within the rules while
prospective entrepreneurs can better form their business plans.
• Strengthening Neighborhood Organizations

Unity between businesses that are collectively bearing a common load is crucial in order to communicate
with a single voice. Small Business Services’ Strengthening Neighborhood Organizations initiative
establishes commercial organizations when they don’t exist, and strengthens them when they do.
Create a business coalition or association to help mitigate construction impacts
• In Phase 1, SABA and the Second Avenue Resource Coalition should take the lead in establishing this
organization, which should build upon already existing programs, resources, and infrastructure in order to
achieve its goals.
• In Phase 2, the East Harlem Chamber of Commerce, Friends of East Harlem and the East Harlem
Restaurant Association should be leaders in establishing this type of collaboration.
• The merchant coalition should be a democratic body with regular elections for board positions, monthly
board meetings, as well as bi-annual membership meetings to which all members and local residents are
invited to attend. This will enable the association to be dynamic and attuned to the pulse and needs of the
community.
• The coalition should be self-sustaining through annual member dues, which in comparable examples of San
Francisco-based merchants associations like Bayview Merchants, Mission Merchants, and North Beach
Merchants, traditionally range from between $100 to $150 a year.
• The coalition should also provide informational programs, marketing campaigns and networking events for
merchants.
• The coalition should create customer outreach strategies such as the following:
o Expand the Holiday trolley, which ferries residents around the East Harlem neighborhood with the
goal of introducing or re-introducing New York City residents to the diverse dining options in East
Harlem.
o Bring the Second Avenue Street Fair back to Second Avenue Work by working with the MTA to
establish a one-day moratorium on construction for the occasion. Street fair attractions could include
tunnel tours and an exhibit of Second Avenue construction images (Arbit 2007).
Provide business consultant services to stores along the SAS alignment
NYC Business Solutions, a government sponsored organization and a subsidiary of the Small Business
Commission, assists small businesses through the offering of a wide range of free or subsidized services,
including hiring, training, and business planning. These services should be targeted towards construction zones
along Second Avenue to mitigate impacts.6 Business consultants can also connect stores to alternative lenders
and help them get government contracts (Bloch 2010).
• Consultants should help stores create a financial plan that reduces overhead and operating costs prior to the
commencement of construction.
• Consultants should provide financial counseling, management solutions, marketing and business
development, legal services, and translation and interpretation services regarding construction and business
issues (Business Resources Collective 2010 B).
Create a small business loan program for businesses within the construction zone
These loans could be provided by credit unions, local economic development corporations, or community
banks, and would provide low-interest, below market loans for businesses if their cash flow is impacted by
subway constructions.
• Eligibility for these loans should be relatively easy with qualification open to any business on the portion of
Second Avenue directly affected by construction (Gulf Coast Institute 2006).
• Non-profit community development financial institutions known as revolving funds should provide
6 Based on recommendations by the Ready for Rail Action Pack of the Business Resources Collaborative, whose mission was
to create and implement innovative and highly effective collaborative strategies that mitigated challenges businesses faced during the
construction of the Minneapolis and Saint Paul Light Rail System.
low interest below market loans to businesses which are prioritized by showing hardship related to the
construction of the transit line. The only current example of revolving funds in the state of New York is
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which provides below market rate loans for the construction of
certain eligible public water system projects. As loans are repaid, money is made available for new loans.
Foster business ties with construction workers
Encourage a positive working relationship between businesses and contractors by inviting workers to eat
and shop at area restaurants with lunch specials or discounts. Contractors could reciprocate by mitigating
construction impacts through efforts to wash the windows and sidewalks of surrounding businesses, and clear
sidewalks of unnecessary obstructions.
BUSINESS RECOMMENDATIONS: PHASE 2

Start early
Early efforts at mitigation and collaboration among businesses are especially important for Phase 2 of the SAS,
which will occur in East Harlem, one of the poorest and most diverse sections of Manhattan. In Minnesota, the
Ready for Light Rail Pact began pre-construction meetings two years prior to breaking ground for their light rail
project.
Begin a pre-construction study of existing businesses and demographics as soon as possible (Business
Resources Collaborative 2010 A).
A study of existing conditions will help stakeholders craft appropriate mitigation strategies. Knowing the
community’s demographics will help coordinate communication to local businesses in the appropriate format
and language. A pre-construction survey will also enable stakeholders to adequately track changes along the
corridor during construction and alter mitigation strategies as necessary.
SBS should set up field offices and provide services in communities before each future construction phase
begins.
The organization should anticipate construction impacts to businesses and help merchants create survival
strategies.
Provide cost- and energy-saving resources to stores on an ongoing basis
Despite identification and implementation of mitigation strategies early in the process, businesses will
undoubtedly suffer financially. Therefore, local businesses should be educated about energy- and cost-saving
opportunities. For a limited time, ConEd is currently offering local businesses on the Upper East Side section of
Second Avenue free energy surveys and free energy efficient light bulbs. This and other available programs and
resource to support investments energy-saving upgrades that lower operating costs program should be ongoing.

DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION
East Harlem is threatened with displacement

While we advocate for transit-oriented development, we acknowledge that as the SAS construction moves into
future phases, various neighborhoods will be impacted by the increased development potential and associated rise
in real estate prices, perhaps leading to the displacement of long-term, low-income community residents and local
businesses. East Harlem, through which Phase 2 will run, is vulnerable to the forces of displacement in the face
of increased economic and real estate. This section will describe East Harlem’s housing stock, commercial space,
and income and recommend mitigation strategies tailored to the community. As construction moves into Phases 3
and 4, we urge neighborhoods that will be similarly impacted to pursue these same measures.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Affordable Housing Stock and Income Measures
East Harlem’s 2008 median income of $30,226 was ranked 50th of the 59 NYC neighborhoods studied
within the 2009 State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods report produced by New York
University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. The citywide average median income was
$50,934. The State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods report also determined that East
Harlem had the city’s highest percentage of subsidized housing units; of the neighborhood’s total housing
units, 53.8% were subsidized units, defined as city-owned, NYCHA properties or any building receiving
a federal subsidy for affordable housing. In addition, 34% of the units in this neighborhood of 126,609 were
rent regulated, defined as rent-stabilized, controlled, or loft-board regulated (NYU Furman Center 2009).
These numbers, however, belie the shift that has taken place in the neighborhood over the last decade. While
the percentage of rent-regulated units grew by two percent, the percentage of subsidized units fell by ten
percentage points (NYU Furman Center 2001).7 As of 2000, the median price per housing unit was $44,495.
At the peak of the real estate bubble in 2007, that figure had skyrocketed to over $210,000 per unit, and even
as of 2009 it remains at $132,609. The index of housing price appreciation, defined by the Furman Center
as a measure of price changes for the same unit, calculated from repeated sales, was as high as 5.4 times the
2000 cost as the peak of the bubble and as of 2009 remains 3.4 times the 2000 cost, the highest in the report.
The poverty rate, which stood at 37% at the beginning of the decade, has dropped to 27%. East Harlem is
undergoing a significant shift in terms of housing costs and the increased potential for residential displacement.
Commercial Rents
The movement towards higher real estate prices affects business owners in East Harlem, as well as residents.
While data depicting historical trends in commercial lease prices along Second Avenue or the commercial
corridors of 106th and 116th Streets is lacking, and will need to be catalogued in greater detail as Phase 2 reaches
the implementation stage, there is evidence that average retail asking rents in northern Manhattan are generally
increasing. From an average of $47 dollars in the spring of 2001, numbers held relatively steady until 2007,
when the real estate bubble led to a dramatic increase, peaking at $76 in the fall of that year. Since then, prices
dropped but not back to pre-boom levels, and were rising again by 2009. The most recent northern Manhattan data
available indicates an average asking price of $67 per square foot as of the fall of 2010 (Ariel Property Advisors
2011).8
The current estimate for East Harlem commercial rents is $51 per square foot, which is on par with Hamilton
Heights, but still below rents in Central Harlem, Inwood, Washington Heights, and Morningside Heights. This
indicates that the rapid redevelopment of certain parts of Harlem, and the northern portion of the borough in
general, may move into East Harlem when its transit access increases. Already Second Avenue is bound by major
development projects, including the Hunter College School of Social Work under construction at 3rd Avenue
between 118th and 119th Streets, the East Harlem Media, Entertainment, and Cultural Center planned for the
parcels bound by 125th and 127th Streets between Second and Third Avenues, and the already completed East
River Plaza mall which sits between 116th and 119th Streets on the FDR Drive.
It is reasonable to assume that the lower rents along the corridor of Second Avenue that will see new subway stops
will entice commercial activity that may displace some of retail tenants that currently occupy the space. These
7 A report under production by the Regional Plan Association will provide a detailed calculation of the number of affordable
housing units built over recent years in comparison to the total number of units produced in East Harlem. Readers of this report should
consult the RPA product when available for more detailed information on this topic.
8 Along 125th Street, a unique retail corridor that is not necessarily comparable to other commercial thoroughfares in the
neighborhood, prices followed the same general pattern, though the peak-year asking prices reached $200 per square foot.
renters are in danger of holding onto their stores during a potentially difficult construction period only to lose it
as Phase 2 of the subway opens.
Community Capacity-Building
East Harlem lacks an organization capable of single-handedly assisting residents and businesses to
deal with the construction of the SAS and the potential rent increases and other displacement concerns,
according to George Sarkissian, District Manager of East Harlem’s Community Board 11. As described
in the Public Participation and Community Involvement section of this report, organizations such as the
East Harlem Restaurant Association have traditionally been more limited in scope. Existing resident
associations are more fractured than in other New York City neighborhoods. As such, it will be necessary
to create new mechanisms for the organization and empowerment of East Harlem communities for Phase 2.
Zoning and Land Use

Please refer to the zoning and land use section for a detail assessment of East Harlem’s zoning along the route of
Phase 2.
GOALS
Limit the Loss of Below-Market-Rate Housing
Limit Commercial Displacement
Strengthen the community’s voice within SAS-related decision-making processes

DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
As described in the existing conditions, the arrival
of the SAS will threaten the existing housing stock
in East Harlem and cause market rate rents to soar. It
will be critical to implement policies that protect low-
income residents who face displacement.
Current zoning measures in East Harlem are outdated

and do not explicitly address affordable housing. The
existing zoning, contextual guidelines, and Quality
Housing mandates focus instead on creating new
housing and maintaining the existing character of the
community. Since Harlem’s last rezoning in 2003,
new zoning provisions have been introduced by the
City of New York to create and maintain low-income
housing, and minimize displacement. Although
our recommendations draw on some of these new
strategies, we maintain that they are inadequate to
protect East Harlem’s many low-income residents from
displacement.
Our studio group identified strategies within current

city policies that can be altered to address the specific
needs of East Harlem. We have also introduced
several new initiatives to better address the potential
for displacement within this area. Our goal in making
the following recommendations is to present the
community and our client with several feasible tactics
as options to maintain affordable housing in the
community.
Establish a special zoning district in East Harlem
We recommend the designation of Second Avenue

from 96th to 125th Streets between Third Avenue and
the East River as the Special East Harlem Zoning
District (SEHZD). Establishing Second Avenue as
Location of Proposed Special East Harlem Zoning District
a special zoning district along the proposed subway line will allow for more specific regulations to mitigate
the threat of displacement for low-income residents. The City Planning Commission designates defined areas
as special zoning districts when their zoning requirements and/or zoning incentives do not lend themselves to
generalized zoning and standard development (NYC Department of City Planning D). The establishment of the
special zoning district permits specific zoning objectives. Special zoning districts were established in New York
City neighborhoods, such as Clinton, where the designation was created to preserve the existing scale of the
community (i.e., specific height and maximum FAR) by regulating rehabilitation and new construction within
the area (City Planning Commission 2011).

DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION RECS CONT
Establish an anti-harassment zone within the SEHZD
The Special East Harlem Zoning District would include a special provision requiring developers to obtain
a certificate of no-harassment. This provision would protect low-income tenants, particularly those in rent
stabilized units, from harassment and displacement by developers interested in demolishing or converting
residential structures to luxury housing. Where it is currently implemented, such as within the Hudson Yards
Special District, developers in the specified “anti-harassment zone” are required to obtain a Certificate of No
Harassment from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) prior to any building
modification. Unless HPD can confirm from all existing and previous tenants in the building targeted for
demolition or alteration were not harassed, no building permits could be issued (City Planning Commission
2011). A similar measure should be adopted within the Special East Harlem Zoning district.
Eliminate vacancy destabilization in the SEHZD
Vacancy destabilization allows landlords to remove an apartment from rent stabilization once its legal rent
reaches a cap, currently $2,000. This cap, together with other rules introduced in the 1990’s to allow significant
rent increases in vacant apartments, have led to the destabilization of more than 100,000 apartments since
1994 (Rent Guidelines Board 2010). Eliminating vacancy destabilization and prohibited increases allowed in
vacant apartments would protect a key source of affordable housing for low-income residents of the Special
East Harlem Special District.9 With more than 1 million rent stabilized apartments in NYC, rent stabilization
is the largest source of affordable housing for low-income New York families (Community Service Society
2011). In East Harlem, more than a third of all families rely on these protections to remain in their homes
and neighborhood (NYU Furman Center 2009). Each year, vacancy destabilization pushes more than
10,000 apartments out of rent regulation.10 Destabilization also speeds the pace of rent increases and creates
displacement in apartments with rents well below $2,000/month. Since having a cap, regardless of how high,
creates an incentive to frequently turn over apartments and increase rents, the SEHZD should eliminate vacancy
destabilization and scale back allowable rent increases in vacant apartments.
Create New Affordable Housing in the SEHZD Through One of Two Options
• 1) Establish an Affordable Housing Trust Fund within the SEHZD
o We recommend an affordable housing trust fund to finance the construction or retention of affordable
units because the small lot sizes (between 25 and 50 feet) along Second Avenue within the proposed
SEHZD don’t easily accommodate the types of affordable housing units called for by a typical FAR-
bonus system.
o This program would use payments made by developers within the district for the construction of
new units as well as formalization of existing, less expensive housing stock in the neighborhood as
permanently affordable units.
9 New York State rent regulation protections, including rent stabilization, expire June 15, 2011. At the time of the writing of
this report, housing advocates are fighting for a state-wide renewal and strengthening of the rent stabilization laws. (See, for example,
www.realrentreform.org) Should the renewed legislation include eliminating vacancy destabilization and lowering allowable vacancy
increases, the above recommendation need not be pursued.
10 In 2009, NYC lost 13,557 rent stabilized apartment due to vacancy destabilization. Rent Guidelines Board, “Changes to
Rent Stabilized Housing Stock in NYC in 2009”, p. 13. June 3, 2010. Accessed March 15, 2011. http://www.housingnyc.
com/html/research/cresearch.html
o In return for paying into the fund, developers would be granted bonus FAR which would allow them
the right to build a limited amount of additional market rate square footage on top of the FAR limits
included in the text of the proposed SEHZD.
o The zoning will mandate all trust fund payment be directed toward financing affordable housing within
the special district itself, reducing displacement and the interruption of social networks. Affordable
units created through this process would be required to be created within ten blocks of the market-rate
development and would be allowed to be built outside of the SEHZD.
o The fund should be self-sustaining, requiring developers that seek the FAR allowance to fund one
square foot of an affordable unit in return for the right to build an additional 0.25 square foot of a
market rate unit within the district. Although this fund would be used entirely for affordable housing
unit construction and retention, the financing scheme is akin to that of the Hudson Yards District
Improvement Fund, which uses zoning bonuses within the district to finance the No. 7 subway extension
and the construction of additional open space (City Planning Commission 2011).
o The fund should be operated by the HPD rather than a local development corporation, as is the case for
the Hudson Yards fund.
o The fund should be also be protected from appropriation for other state or city uses. A similar
mechanism created for housing construction in Battery Park City failed when the funds were instead
spent on the city’s operating costs (Fernandez 2009).
• 2) The SEHZD should mandate inclusionary housing for market-rate residential development and
ensure that is indexed to East Harlem’s median income
The SEHZD would establish an Inclusionary Housing Program in areas currently zoned residential. Under
the current Inclusionary Housing program, developers voluntarily providing affordable housing are eligible
for a floor area bonus. This FAR bonus allows developers to build an additional 1.25 square feet of floor area,
up to the maximum FAR permitted, for each square foot of lower-income housing provided (City Planning
Commission 2011). Typically, any affordable housing built on site must comprise at least 20% of the building
receiving the bonus. This affordable housing is designated for low-income households at or below 80 percent
of Area Median Income (AMI), and must remain affordable for the life of the development receiving the bonus
(City Planning Commission 2011).
Although NYC’s existing Inclusionary Housing program has produced more than 2,000 units of affordable
housing since its expansion in 2005 (NYC Department of City Planning 2009), its effectiveness is limited in
two ways: First, the program is voluntary, and in practice many NYC developers choose to forgo the extra FAR
rather than build affordable housing. Second, the inclusionary housing program, even when used, produces little
housing that is affordable to low-income residents of neighborhoods with high rates of poverty. In East Harlem,
80% of the federally-defined AMI is still more than double the median household income in the neighborhood,
which currently stands at $30,226.11 Establishing an amended inclusionary housing program within the SEHZD
would:
o Target families earning no more than 50% of the Area Median Income, with a significant subset of
11 According to this report, the median household income in East Harlem is $30,226. This is only 38% of New York’s Median
Area Income, determined by HUD to be $79, 188 for a family of four. Furman Center for Real Estate, “State of NYC’s Housing &
Neighborhoods, 2009.” (http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il2010/2010summary.odn)
DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION RECS CONT
this housing affordable to families earning between 30% and 40% AMI, and
o Be mandatory. Studies show that mandatory inclusionary housing results in the creation of significantly
more affordable housing units than do voluntary programs (Lerman 2006; Brunick 2004; PolicyLink
2003). Studies also indicate that mandating inclusionary housing does not depress housing production
(Brunick 2004). At the high end, mandatory inclusionary housing (IH) programs mandate that 25%
of total newly developed floor area must be affordable (Brunick 2004; PolicyLink 2003). Most cities
with IH programs offer developers additional benefits to compensate for some of the cost of building
affordable housing (Lerman 2006).12 These benefits include bonus FAR for market rate development,
reductions in the amount of parking required for affordable units, and other incentives (PolicyLink
2003). According to a Drum Major Institute report on the potential of mandatory inclusionary housing,
a 10% affordability yield would have resulted in 5,800 affordable apartments in New York City in the
last 5 years alone, or “more than the total number of inclusionary units produced in New York City since
1997” (PolicyLink 2003).
o Require developers to use at least 25% of bonus FAR for affordable housing. Bonus FAR should
be significant enough to ensure that at least 25% of total units in any new development are affordable
to East Harlem’s low-income households. This percentage is in keeping with high-end mandatory
inclusionary housing programs in the United States (Policy Link, 2003). It represents a 5% increase
over the existing voluntary inclusionary housing program in New York, which can yield up to 20%
affordable units.
Develop an incentive program for long-term leases and commercial stabilization
This incentive program can be modeled on three policies created by the New York City Economic Development
Corporation (“EDC”)’s to retain commercial tenants in various parts of the city that are subjected to economic
stress: the Commercial Expansion Program, which provides real estate tax abatement for new, renewal, or
expansion leases for commercial or industrial space in Manhattan north of 96th Street or anywhere in the outer
boroughs; the Commercial Revitalization Program, which offers similar incentives to businesses in Lower
Manhattan; and the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (“FRESH”), which promotes the establishment
and retention of grocery stores within designated program areas, one of which includes East Harlem and
northern Manhattan in general (NYC Economic Development Corporation 2011).
• These programs incentivize leases of 5 years or more with a 5-year abatement equal in the first 3 years to
the lesser of actual liability, and $2.50 per square foot with a two-year phase out after that. (Lesser terms are
offered for short leases.)
• Lease minimums are dependent on the number of employees and the wording of leases must indicate that
any abatement will be passed to the tenant.
• A SEHZD incentive system would be developed for all the retail and commercial space in the special zoning
district.
• Building owners would receive property tax abatement in return for granting long-term leases to tenants.
12 Lerman notes programs that do not provide “incentives like density bonuses” are vulnerable to constitutional challenges un-
less alternatives are provided. We offer two alternatives for providing bonus FAR. Lerman, pp. 388-389; 406-407
Ideally this program would be created as soon as possible, so that owners and tenants can agree on rates that
remain unaffected by the expectations of future subway access; the closer to construction, the more time
commercial rents will have had to rise under the external pressures described in the Existing Conditions.
• Lease minimums should not be tied to the number of employees, but to a formula that accounts for rent
increases over a designated period of time for comparable spaces along the stretch affected by Phase 2.
• Benefits to landlords and long-term lease arrangements should be developed in context-sensitive fashion for
Phases 3 and 4 as well.
Limit the size of commercial units in portions of the East Harlem Special District
Due to the economics of the real estate environment, mom-and-pop-owned businesses tend to be displaced
by chain stores with larger footprints as commercial real estate prices rise. We recommend a cap on the size
of commercial units within the special district. The Pratt Center for Community Development (“PCCD”)
recommends “store size caps” as an effective way to “prevent large floorplate-seeking chains from moving in”
(Pratt Center for Community Development 2009). PCCD notes that such caps have already been implemented
in 30 cities throughout the U.S.
Establish a branch office of NYC Small Business Services in East Harlem
Many East Harlem business owners will need training and financial advice in order to take advantage of the
above recommendations. Opening of a branch office of the New York City Department of Small Business
Services (SBS) in East Harlem will bring much-needed business resources to merchants along the SAS
alignment. The role of the SBS and business consultants is covered in greater detail in the Mitigation Strategies
for Businesses section.
Create a Community Coalition and adopt of an SAS Project Champion
East Harlem needs the committed support of community organizations and elected officials to prepare for the
expected impacts of the subway and make the above recommendations feasible.
• East Harlem would create a community coalition, comprised of a diverse set of stakeholders, to unite the
various local organizations, city agencies, and elected officials and direct the community’s response to the
construction period.
• The political champion, most likely an elected official representing all or a portion of East Harlem, should
advocate for the construction of the subway in a manner that is sensitive to the community’s concerns. These
recommendations are described in greater detail in the community coalition and participation section.

ANCILLARY STRUCTURES
Courtesy of the MTA
Residents are displeased with non-contextual

ancillary structure designs

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Ancillary structures, also known as ancillary facilities or auxiliary facilities, house the equipment to circulate fresh
air into subway tunnels, provide electricity, and extract smoke in case of fire, and contain emergency staircases
in case of an evacuation. The mechanical equipment within ancillary structures are extensions of facilities that
lie underground—in this case, seven stories underground (Ryley 2009). The seven ancillary structures in Phase
1 will vary in height and bulk, but all feature blank walls, and a façade composed of terra-cotta bricks and steel
grating.
Upper East residents protest the MTA’s proposed ancillary structure designs because they lack ground level
activity, do not reflect the primarily residential character of the Upper East Side, and are anti-urban and anti-
pedestrian in character. Hunter Armstrong, the executive director of Civitas, stated that these buildings will hinder
street life on Second Avenue (Pristin 2010). In addition, a co-op located next to a Phase 1 ancillary structure on
the corner of 69th Street and Second Avenue filed a lawsuit against the MTA and the FTA, among other parties.
The plaintiffs allege that that the current design for ancillary structures significantly differs from the design in the
FEIS, necessitating a supplemental environmental review. However, since the MTA has already awarded the Phase
1 construction contracts and begun construction, our recommendations focus on Phase 2 ancillary structures.
GOALS
Better integrate ancillary structures required for each phase into existing communities by redesigning their scale,
bulk, and uses as needed.
Improve community buy-in for, and reduce opposition to proposed ancillary structures.
Provide a new revenue stream for MTA by introducing commercial uses to ancillary structures.

Opposite Page, top image: Courtesy of the MTA
ANCILLARY RECOMMENDATIONS
While the functions of ancillary structures are determined by engineering necessity, their features and design
should be determined by the needs and urban design of the communities in which they are placed. The
following design elements should be considered for future ancillary structures with the understanding that
all decisions should be made within contextual parameters of each specific location.
Add ground-level commercial space in ancillary structures

Introducing ground-level retail into ancillary structures creates a new destination in the neighborhood,
drawing people to an area that would otherwise be devoid of life. Commercial uses would create a new flow
of pedestrians to better integrate the otherwise inert structures into neighborhood street life. Commercial
rents would also generate an income stream that the MTA could use to offset ancillary structure construction
costs.
Mitigate the visual impact of ancillary structures with contextual design elements
Ancillary structures should not stick out like sore thumbs in residential communities. With thoughtful
design, these structures can interact and complement the surrounding existing built structures. These design
elements could include continuing the same parapet line of adjacent buildings, or adding windows to the
structure’s façade to match neighboring window heights. Building materials can also play a helpful role in
better integrating ancillary structures into its surrounding urban fabric.
Allow multiple uses on lots reserved for ancillary structures
The MTA should explore integrating multiple uses into the lots reserved for ancillary structures; not only
to better integrate mechanical equipment into dense residential neighborhoods, but also to potentially earn
revenue. Any lot area not taken up by the ancillary structure should be considered as potential public plaza
space.
The MTA should consider adding residential units to ancillary structures wherever possible. Building the
ancillary structures to the maximum floor-area-ratio (FAR) of permitted zoning ordinances would allow for
residential units that could generate long-term revenue streams for the agency. Security concerns regarding
access to mechanical equipment could be resolved through practical design solutions on a case-by-case
basis. The MTA is already pursuing this option with the Moinian Group in regards to an ancillary structure
at 26th Street and 11th Avenue in the Hudson Yards Development (Pristin 2010).
Illustrative Design Elements for Ancillary Structures in Phase 2
Pursuant to the SAS final environmental impact statement (“FEIS”), our proposed design is tailored
for three lots on the northeast corner of Second Avenue and 105th Street that will be appropriated by the
MTA to build ancillary structures for the 106th Street station (FTA et al. 2004). Taken together these lots
will have a perimeter of approximately 76ft by 75ft (NYC Department of Finance 2011). The dimensions of
the structure designed for this lot are currently 75 feet high, 75 feet wide, and 47 feet deep, including a base
height of approximately 75 feet and an additional 12 feet of venting on the roof (MTA 2010). We determined
that the ancillary structure would be in the middle of the three lots from Figure 8-04 of the FEIS (FTA et al.
2004). Our ancillary structure illustration demonstrates how several recommended design elements could be
implemented.
Reduce base height, if possible, to 50 feet, even in high FAR districts. Perhaps it would be possible to
achieve this by setting back any height above 50 feet and creating a base height of 50 feet and/or by making
MTA rendering of a non-contextual ancillary structure
Illustrative design element recommendations for Phase 2 ancillary structures
the building wider. (see above)
Design a façade that relates to the height, width, and placement of windows on surrounding buildings.
Create a continuous street wall by adding ground-floor retail between the ancillary structure and the adjacent
buildings on Second Avenue.
Introduce additional uses onto the ancillary structure lot wherever possible. Options could include a public
plaza, a string of small retail units lining the sidewalk, or even residential units below the mechanical
equipment.
STREET BEAUTIFICATION
Construction corridor is visually unappealing and unsafe

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Reduced safety, unkempt construction sites, and lack of way-finding and signage during Phase 1 of SAS construction
created quality of life concerns for those who live, work, and travel on the Upper East Side. This section addresses
area aesthetics, as well as a safety and quality of life concerns for all those impacted by the construction zones
Phase 1, stretching from East 63rd Street to East 96th Street along the Second Avenue corridor, has faced numerous
problems associated with safety. Several muggings and burglaries occurred along the corridor, encouraged by
lack of visibility created by sidewalks, high opaque fencing, tall stacking containers, poor lighting and the lack of
surveillance cameras. These visual impediments restrict the ability of policeman and pedestrians to monitor the
activity along the sidewalks. These incidents also further discourage economic activity along Second Avenue.
Massive construction equipment has also been a huge safety concern for the neighborhood. On March 25, 2011,
a 26-year-old restaurant deliveryman was killed along Second Avenue near 96th Street when he fell of his bicycle
and was hit by an MTA Express Bus. The family of Qi Ming Weng claimed the SAS construction was to blame
because the lane was narrowed to make room for the construction equipment. Witnesses of the accident agreed,
alleging that the construction constricted lane width and obstructed visibility, and didn’t allow for safe travel
through the corridor (Chung 2011).
This past February, the MTACC and the MCC unveiled a “model block,” a renovated block in the SAS construction
zone on Second Avenue between 92nd Street and 93rd Street. The model block featured new fencing and an
extended nine-ft-wide sidewalk with freshly painted and straight crosswalk lines. The MTACC and MCC wanted
public feedback regarding the pilot street treatments before implementing on blocks affected by construction.
These improvements, however, did not answer all of the community’s safety concerns. Opaque fencing and stacked
shipping containers still impede sight lines, so muggings and other criminal activities could go unnoticed.
GOALS
Expand the concept of temporary street treatments so that they not only improve safety conditions within
construction zones, but also create dynamic street environments that tell the story of the history and magnitude
of the SAS.

STREET RECOMMENDATIONS
The MTA should require street cleanliness requirements in all construction contracts
Construction contracts should explicitly spell out expectations for street cleanliness and maintenance, down to
the number of times contractors should sweep sidewalks (ideally twice daily) and repave streets (at least once
every six months) as well as the size, color, and model of storage structures used on site.
The MTA and the MCC should regularly update business signage along construction fencing
While the model block features helpful way-finding signs that list the businesses on the block as well as signage
that is visable to pedestrians across the street, not all of the businesses listed remain open. This mismatch
creates confusion for pedestrians, especially for senior citizens who have a more difficult time navigating the
construction zone.
Increase sidewalk visibility
• Replace opaque fencing with transparent barriers to allow police patrols clear sightlines to sidewalks.
• The MTA should provide gaps between shipping containers to maximize sightlines.
• Install surveillance cameras along obscured sidewalks and add more on-foot police patrols as supplementary
safety measures.
Improve and expand the “model block” on Second Avenue
• The MTA and the MCC need to go beyond the survey issued after the model block was first unveiled
by soliciting additional public feedback and ensuring that the community’s most pressing concerns are
addressed. This recommendation applies to the remainder of Phase 1 and future phases.
• Communities will be more likely to support the project and less likely to consider it a nuisance if they know
there will be every effort made to ensure their safety while the subway is being built.
MTA should create a temporary art program modeled after NYCDOT’s Barrier Beautification Initiative
and the Downtown Alliance’s Re:Construction Program
• MTA’s existing art-related program, Art for Transit, only funds permanent art in subway stations.
• The NYCDOT Urban Art Program includes a Barrier Beautification Initiative to “commission professional
artists to create temporary designs to be painted by [NY Cares] volunteers on barrier sites” (NYC
Department of Transportation 2011 B).
• Although the Barrier Beautification Initiative program is designed for DOT projects, the MTA and local
community organizations should work with DOT to replicate such a program, orchestrate ideas, and install
the temporary art.
• The MTA should also model its temporary street art program on the Downtown Alliance’s Re:Construction
program, which has produced 22 pieces of temporary urban artwork in Lower Manhattan (Downtown

Alliance 2011). The program, funded by a Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (“LMDC”) 13 block
grant, has created installations on jersey barriers, chain link fencing, and scaffolding. Elizabeth H. Berger,
president of the Downtown Alliance, confirmed that “installations beautify our streets as well as increase
foot traffic and economic activity” (Downtown Alliance 2009).
• The MTA should take advantage of the Downtown Alliance’s Re:Construction program when the SAS runs
through Lower Manhattan in Phase 4. It should also allocate funding to develop similar programs for Phases
1, 2, and 3.
• East Harlem does not have a BID such as the Downtown Alliance, but the Harlem Community Development
Corporation (“HCDC”) is a potential partial funding source. Its president, Curtis Archer, and planning director,
Tom Lunke, noted that HCDC already provides matching funds of up to fifty percent for local art installations.
The HCDC, however, cannot provide full funding and only distributes money on a reimbursement basis, so the
East Harlem temporary art program must also seek corporate grants and city funds.
• Community Board 11, in conjunction with local elected officials, should draft plans for future temporary art
installation programs using the Downtown Alliance Re:Construction program as a model.
Use temporary art programs to increase community support for the SAS
The construction beautification efforts would create a unique sense of involvement in the SAS project by
including local artists and other community members in the creative process. The temporary installations would
become destinations and attract pedestrians to Second Avenue despite ongoing construction.
Use temporary street art to foster “placemaking” along the SAS corridor
• The New York Transit Museum and the MTA should display historical photos of SAS construction
throughout the construction zone corridor to enhance the character of the neighborhood. The New York
Transit Museum has a massive archive of photography related to the project, including photos of old cut-
and-cover methods, groundbreaking ceremonies throughout the decades, and maps reflecting various
versions of the project.
• The MTA should display renderings of future station areas and other portions of the project to remind people
of the subway that is being constructed under their feet will open within the next five to seven years.
• SABA should display photographs in storefront windows, including vacant storefronts, and transform
Second Avenue into a sidewalk museum.
• The New York Transit Museum and the MTA should collaborate with local Community Boards and business
associations to develop and implement these projects. SABA has already expressed interest and has cultivated
relationships with local business owners that may be willing to display photographs (Pecora 2011).
Funding sources for the SAS fall into two broad categories: federal and “local.” Through its New Starts
Initiative, the FTA has committed $1.29 billion to the SAS with a Full Funding Grant Agreement signed in 2007
(MTA Capital Construction 2009, 2010). Approximately $950 million of this commitment has already been
13 Created after September 11th, the LMDC is a joint city and state agency funded primarily through Community Development
Block Grants from United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Through various projects and programs, the LMDC
has been successful in the revitalization and improvement of Lower Manhattan. The Downtown Alliance, which manages the Down-
town-Lower Manhattan Business Improvement District, serves an area roughly from City Hall to the Battery, from the East River to
West Street.
FUNDING
Benjamin Heckscher, The Launch Box
The MTA has no funding plans for future phases of the SAS

EXISTING CONDITIONS
allocated to the SAS (Maloney 2010 A). The project received an additional $78.87 million in stimulus funds
(MTA Capital Construction 2010). These federal funds total $1.374 billion. At the local level, funding structure
and commitment is less clear. Using the MTA’s current cost estimate of $4.451 billion, the state and/or city must
contribute at least $3.077 billion to complete Phase 1. Using the FTA’s highest estimate, the local bill increases
to $4.352 billion. A 2005 transportation bond act provided $450 million towards the project (Chan 2005).
There are serious questions regarding how New York State’s financial crunch and the ballooning costs of the
SAS will impact the project’s funding in coming years. In the past, major transportation projects were funded
by legislative earmarks or the MTA’s Capital Program budget. These methods are no longer as reliable: the
New York State legislature often raids transit-dedicated funds to finance other programs (Kazis 2011), and
the MTA’s five-year capital budget is only fully funded for its first two years (DiNapoli 2010). Efforts to use
alternate funding sources, like a 2008 attempt to use congestion pricing to finance MTA projects, have so far
not succeeded (Confessore 2008). In mid-2010, the MTA, assuming a project cost of $4.46 billion, claimed
that Phase 1 was “fully funded” (Smerd 2010). If the actual cost is closer to FTA’s high estimate, however, the
project may be under-funded by as much as $1.27 billion. Unfortunately, the FTA has made it clear that “not a
single penny of additional…New Starts dollars will be used to fund…delays and cost overruns” (Brown 2010;
Rogoff 2010). While New York State’s most recent budget did not affect the MTA’s capital funding, there is
“concern about the state’s ability to provide funding during a fiscal crisis” (Maloney 2010 B). Furthermore,
there are currently no funding commitments or funding plans for the future phases of the SAS project (Smerd
2010; Elias 2011).
GOALS
Propose funding mechanisms that will finance future phases while mandating higher standards of community
outreach and construction coordination from the MTA.
Use legislative mandates tied to those funds to implement the recommendations in this report.

FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
SAS funding is both a means and an end; implementation of many of our recommendations require legislative
mandates tied to funding, while securing those funds requires recommendations of its own.
Nominate a Political Champion to lobby for funding for future phases of the SAS
A political champion should help procure local, state, and federal funding for the project—both personally and
by partnering with other officials and interest groups. Though Congresswoman Maloney has long advocated for
a full-build of the SAS, additional lobbying will be all the more crucial given the relatively unfriendly climate
for transit funding in Washington.
Leverage net gains of affordable housing units from SAS construction to build community support and
political pressure to fund the SAS project
Use revenue-producing components like retail or residential leases to increase SAS eligibility for
infrastructure bank funding
A federal infrastructure bank, as President Obama has so far specified, would complement existing federal
programs to fund infrastructure and is expected to invest primarily in surface transport infrastructure. Acting
as an independent bank, an infrastructure bank would provide loans and loan guarantees—or even grants—for
transportation projects of regional or national significance (Cooper, 2011). The MTA should therefore explore
avenues through which to generate long-term revenue streams to pay back an infrastructure bank loan. Real
estate leases could be part of the revenue streams to meet those debt obligations and help the MTA secure
infrastructure bank funding.
Explore vehicular user fees as long-term revenue streams for transit

While congestion pricing didn’t pass the New York State legislature in 2008, both the MTA and New York City
should persist in making the case for congestion pricing as a means of financing the city’s necessary transit
maintenance, operations, and capital construction. The MTA and New York City government should also pursue
efforts to create transit-dedicated funds from vehicular tolls and gas taxes.
Use legislative mandates and in-kind donations of services from city agencies to fund the ESCCC
The ESCCC, like the LMCCC, will depend on legislative allocations and in-kind donations of service from the
involved city agencies (Forst 2011).
Incorporate community-relations requirements into construction contracts

These contracts should be modeled on those used in the St. Paul Central Corridor LRT. As per their contracts
with Metropolitan Council, each contractor must designate a Community Relations Point person to work with
Central Corridor Project Office (“CCPO”) outreach, engineering, and construction staff that has the power
to commit the contractor to action, rather than merely a staff level person without the authority to bind the
contractor (Central Corridor Project Office 2010).
Create a community-relations incentive system for contractors

Again, this incentive system should be modeled on that used in the St. Paul Central Corridor LRT. Rather than
provide incentive payments for completing the construction work ahead of schedule, the Central Corridor
LRT provides incentive payments when contractors maintain a good relationship with the community and
are accountable for their actions (Caufman 2011). The community stakeholders of the four CCCs evaluate
the contractor’s performance based on information distribution, responsiveness to community concerns,
maintenance of access, safety, and site cleanliness. The contractor’s incentive payment each quarter is based on
this evaluation.

Use legislative mandates tied to funding to pay for a community-construction advocate.
The advocate would be accountable to the elected official sponsoring the funding bill. The advocate’s
performance would be judged by quarterly reviews submitted to an elected official’s office by the MTA,
Manhattan director for the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit, the president of SABA, and the co-chair of the
CB8 Task Force (also taking into account any constituent complaints concerning the construction process).
Use legislative mandates to adapt the current community liaison position to answer to the community
rather than the MTA
The community liaison position should be funded by state legislation rather than the MTA.
Use elected officials discretionary budget lines, foundation grants, and legislative mandates tied to
funding to pay for community coalition-building.
The MTA should hire its own SAS-specific communication design specialist
We recommend MTA create an SAS-specific marketing position to manage the PR, marketing, and
communication strategies for the SAS.
An East Harlem business coalition should be self-sustaining through annual member dues
In comparable examples, dues traditionally range from between $100 to $150 a year. Other NYC Business
Solutions and SBS resources should be provided by the city as in-kind donations of service.
The process to create the Special East Harlem Zoning District (SEHZD) should be funded by elected
officials, foundation grants, and legislative mandates tied to funding for the SAS project
The initiative would be spearheaded by the proposed East Harlem community coalition and Community Board
11.
The MTA should be financially responsible for improving its ancillary structures
These improvements should encompass contextual designs, expanded uses within these ancillary structure, and
better public involvement methods in decision-making processes.
Street beautification efforts should be funded by the MTA, community organization grants, business
association donations, corporate grants, and city funds

SECTION V:
Courtesy of Ben Heckscher/The Launch Box Blog

CONCLUSION

The need for a subway along Second Avenue is greater than ever: The New York City subway system is
transporting record numbers of passengers but has barely increased capacity in over 60 years (MTA 2009). Its
overcrowded Lexington Avenue Line single-handedly moves more transit riders in a day than the combined
ridership of transit systems in San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago. More than 324,000 residents and 226,000
workers on the far East Side are not within a 10-minute walk of a subway station. This lack of transit
accessibility limits the economic opportunities not only of East Side residents and businesses, but the city as a
whole (FTA et al. 2004).
A SAS will also bring about great economic benefits of its own. Congresswoman Maloney’s Report on the
Economic Benefits of the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access determines that the SAS will support
the creation of employment in New York City’s Central Business Districts and encourage new residential
development along its alignment (2009). The report quotes a 2005 Fiscal Policy Institute study quantifying how
a billion dollars in public spending on mass transit in New York State results in $3.4 billion in total economic
output, 37,500 jobs and $1.8 billion in employee compensation.
The need for more SAS allies is greater than ever, too. While the benefits of SAS are substantial, so are its
costs and challenges. The price tag for Phase 1 has increased to a federally projected $5.7 billion, and building
in such a dense urban environment is physically, economically, and socially disruptive. We recognize that
Congresswoman Maloney cannot implement many of our recommendations on her own, but look to her to
galvanize funding and support for others to enact them. We also suggest the following next steps for each of the
major players involved in the SAS to encourage its continued progress:
Congresswoman Maloney
• Continue to successfully advocate for a full-build of the SAS
• Incorporate recommendations into legislative mandates tied to funding
Other elected officials

• Take Maloney’s lead in championing the SAS and incorporating recommendations into future funding
Community
• Voice support for SAS to community boards and elected officials
• Seek out avenues for participation
• Work with political champion to develop community coalition
MTA
• Continue with improved efforts to engage public and provide a face for the SAS
• Allow for greater flexibility in communication and construction processes
• Move forward with full-build SAS
We are enthusiastic about the benefits and future of a fully-built Second Avenue Subway and are confident these
recommendations will help secure its long-term success.

SECTION VI:
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alliance for Downtown New York. 2011. “Downtown legislation/bill/A1116-2011 (accessed April 15, 2011).
Alliance Unveils Aquatic Dream, A Re:Construction
Public-Art Project,” March 15, 2011. http://www. Bloch, A. 2010. “Second Annual Business Survey
downtownny.com/node/3069 (accessed March 25, Finds Merchants Still Struggling,”. Our Town.
2011). April 7, 2010. http://ourtownny.com/2010/04/07/
second-annual-business-survey-finds-merchants-still-
Alliance for Downtown New York. 2009. “Downtown struggling/ (accessed March 20, 2011).
Alliance Transforms Construction Sites into Artist
Canvases with Next Phase of Re:Construction Bloomgarden-Smoke, Kate. 2011. “Help for 2nd Ave
Initiative,” July 30, 2009. http://www.hudsonriverpark. Merchants Stuck in Station,” Our Town. January 26,
org/pdfs/pressRelease/PR07.30.09.pdf (accessed 2011. http://ourtownny.com/2011/01/26/help-for-2nd-
March 1, 2011). avenue-merchants-stuck-in-station/ (accessed March
14, 2011).
Alliance for Downtown New York. “Who We Are,”
http://www.downtownny.com/about-da/who-we-are Brown, Eliot. 2010. “Feds See ‘Grim’ Delays, Overruns
(accessed April 2, 2011). on Second Ave Subway, East Side Access,”The New York
Observer. July 9, 2010. http://www.observer.com/2010/
Arbit, David, and Will Delaney, David Ronzani, politics/feds-see-%E2%80%98grim%E2%80%99-
Theresa Sweetland. 2007. “Light Rail Construction delays-overruns-second-ave-subway-east-side-access
Mitigation Strategies: National Examples for (accessed March 1, 2011).
the Central Corridor,” December 2007. http://
www.universityavenuebiz.com/documents/ Brunick, N. 2004. “The Inclusionary Housing Debate:
ConstructionMitigationSurvey-finaldraft.pdf (accessed The Effectiveness of Mandatory Programs Over
March 14, 2011). Voluntary Programs,” American Planning Association.
September 2004, pp. 2-3; Policy Link Equitable
Ariel Property Advisors. 2011. “2010 Year End Development Toolkit http://www.policylink.org/site/c.
Northern Manhattan Retail Leasing Report,” lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5137031/k.8659/How_to_Use_It.htm
February, 2011. http://arielpa.com/download/ (accessed March 15, 2011).
ArielpaYearEnd2010Retail.pdf (accessed March 28,
2011). Business Resources Collaborative. 2010. “Ready for
Rail Action Pack,” http://readyforrail.net/ (accessed
Armstrong, Hunter. Interview by Sandy Wolff, March 15, 2011), A.
February, 25, 2011.
Business Resources Collaborative. 2010. “Strategic
Armstrong, Hunter. Interview by Studio Class, March Work Plan: Draft,” February 2010. (accessed March
9, 2011. 1, 2011), B.
Avila, J. D. 2010. “Business Slides on Second Avenue Caufman, Robin. Interview by Erin Durkin, March 5,
As Subway Construction Drags On,” Wall Street 2011.
Journal. July 31, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/S
B10001424052748703314904575399701327863236. Caufman, Robin. Email correspondence. March 6,
html (accessed March 15, 2011). 2011.
Bayview Merchants Association. 2011. http://www. Census.gov. (2005-2009). American Community

bayviewmerchants.org/join.html (accessed April 15, Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_
2011).
bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_
G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_
Bing, J. 2011. Economic Grant Program for the B01001&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_
Second Avenue Subway Construction Project Area B02001&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_
Act 2011 (NY) A1116-2011< http://m.nysenate.gov/ B08301&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_
B19013&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=5309 (accessed 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/nyregion/
March 8, 2011), A. metrocampaigns/09transport.html (accessed March 15,
2011).
Census.gov. (2005-2009). American Community
Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ Chung, Jen. 2011. “Dead Bicyclist’s Family Faults 2nd
bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_ Ave. Subway Construction: Gothamist,” Gothamist:
G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ New York City News, Food, Arts & Events - Blog View.
B01001&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ http://gothamist.com/2011/03/27/relatives_blame_
B02001&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ bicyclists_death_on.php (accessed March 28, 2011).
B08301&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_
B19013&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=5309 (accessed City Planning Commission. “New York City Zoning
March 8, 2011), B. Resolution, Article IX: Special Purpose Districts,
Chapter 3: Special Hudson Yards District,” http://
Census.gov. (2005-2009). American Community www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/art09c03.pdf
Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ (accessed March 15, 2011).
bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_
G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ Community Board 8. 2011. “Second Avenue Subway
B01001&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ Task Force,” February 15, 2011. http://www.cb8m.
B02001&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ com/events/second-avenue-subway-task-force-1
B08301&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ (accessed March 5, 2011).
B19013&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=5309 (accessed
March 8, 2011),C. Confessore, N. 2008. “Congestion Pricing Plan Dies in
Albany,” The New York Times, City Room Blog. April
7, 2008.
Census.gov. (2005-2009). American Community http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/
Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ congestion-pricing-plan-is-dead-assembly-speaker-
bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_ says/ (accessed April 19, 2011).
G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_
B01001&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ Cooper, Michael. 2011. “Group Wants New Bank to
B02001&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ Finance Infrastructure,” The New York Times, March
B08301&-mt_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G2000_ 15, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/us/
B19013&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=5309 (accessed politics/16infrastructure.html (accessed April, 2,
March 8, 2011), D. 2011).
Central Corridor Funders Collaborative. Corson, Stephen. Interview by Laura MacNeil and
2011. “Frequently Asked Questions,” http:// Nick Mosquera, March 3, 2011.
funderscollaborative.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/FAQ-
General-Press%20Kit-FINAL.pdf (accessed March DiNapoli, T. 2010. “Transit Facts,” Financial Outlook
15, 2011). for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Report
5-2011. New York State Comptroller. September,
Central Corridor Funders Collaborative. 2010. 2010.
“About,” http://funderscollaborative.org/about www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/mta/mta-rpt-52011.pdf
(accessed March 15, 2011). (accessed April 20, 2011).
Central Corridor Project Office. 2010. “Construction East 69th Street Owners Corporation vs .U.S.
Public Information and Communication Plan,” Department of Transportation, Ray LaHood et al.
(accessed March 15, 2011). Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets.
January 21, 2010. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/
Chan, Sewell. 2005. “Voters Approve Transit Bonds new-york/nysdce/1:2010cv00491/357519/ (accessed
for $2.9 Billion,” The New York Times. November 9, April 15, 2011).
Glick, Deborah. Telephone Interview with Chris Ell,
Elias, Minna. Interview by Studio Class, February 9, March 15, 2011.
2011.
Goldstein, Paul. Telephone Interview with Chris Ell,
Ellis, Kristen. Interview by Laura MacNeil and Nick February 25, 2011.
Mosquera, March 3, 2011.
Grynbaum, Michael. 2010. “Plumbing an Obstacle on
Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 383 (2006), http:// 2nd Ave. Subway,” The New York Times, September
lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol33/iss2/5p 8, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/
(accessed March 15, 2011). nyregion/09subway.html (accessed February 5, 2011),
A.
Esnard, Bob. Interview by Erin Durkin, March 30,
2011. Grynbaum, Michael. 2010. “M.T.A. Fails to Honestly
Rate Contractors’ Work, Report Says,” The New
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and York Times, February 2, 2010, http://www.nytimes.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). 2004. com/2010/02/03/nyregion/03mta.html (accessed
“Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 1: February 5, 2011), B.
Project Purpose and Need,” http://www.mta.info/
capconstr/sas/documents/feis/chapter01.pdf (accessed Gulf Coast Institute. 2006. “Light Rail Construction:
February 5, 2011). Mitigation of Business Interruption,” http://www.
gulfcoastinstitute.org (accessed March, 2, 2011).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). 2004. Gulf Coast Institute. 2006. “Light Rail in Six Big
“Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 8: Cities: Line and System Characteristics,” http://www.
Displacement and Relocation,” http://www.mta.info/ gulfcoastinstitute.org (accessed March 1, 2011).
capconstr/sas/documents/feis/chapter08.pdf (accessed
March 5, 2011). Gulf Coast Institute. 2006. “The Impact of Light Rail
on Local Business.” http://www.gulfcoastinstitute.org
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and (accessed March 2, 2011).
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). 2004.
“Final Environmental Impact Statement, Displacement Harvey, Robert. Interview with Chris Ell and Lucian
and Relocation, Figure 8-04,” http://www.mta.info/ Reynolds, April 1, 2011.
capconstr/sas/documents/feis/figure8-04.pdf (accessed
March 3, 2011) Hinds, K. 2010. “FTA Announces $182.4 Million in
Funds for Seven Major Transit Projects Underway
Fernandez, Manny. 2009. “Albany and City Battles Across U.S.,” Transportation Nation. December 27,
for Funds Meant for Low-Cost Housing,” The New 2010. http://transportationnation.org/tag/second-
York Times. January 29, 2009. http://www.nytimes. avenue-subway/ (accessed February 15, 2011).
com/2009/01/30/nyregion/30housing.html (accessed
April 4, 2011). HUD User. 2010. “FY 2011 Income Limits
Documentation System,”
Fischman, Jean. Interview by Laura MacNeil, March http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/
2, 2011. il2010/2010summary.odn (accessed February 14,
2011).
Forst, Robin. Interview with Chris Ell and Lucian
Reynolds, April 1, 2011. Innes, Judith E. and David E. Booher. 2000. “Public
Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st
Gianfrancesco, Tim, and Claudia Wilson and Alissa Century,” Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional
Kosowsky. Interview by Studio Class, March 2, 2011. Development, UC Berkeley, 2000. http://escholarship.
org/uc/item/3r34r38h (accessed January 20, 2011).
Institute for Sustainable Cities. 2009. “Promising “Construction Questions Answered,” http://www.
Practices in Transportation Efficiency,” Last modified lowermanhattan.info/construction/global/questions/
August 2009. http://www.iscvt.org/who_we_are/ (accessed March 25, 2011), D.
publications/Chicago_CLA_Resource_Guide.pdf
Lueck, Thomas J. 1999. “Officials Cite Costly
(accessed March 15, 2011).
Hurdles to Second Avenue Subway Plan,” The New
Jackson, Lolita. Interview by Erin Durkin and Laura York Times. March 12, 1999. http://www.nytimes.
MacNeil, March 3, 2011. com/1999/03/12/nyregion/officials-cite-costly-
hurdles-to-second-avenue-subway-plan.html (accessed
Kabak, B. 2010. “Federal Money for Construction February 5, 2011).
But Not Operations,” July 9, 2010. http://
secondavenuesagas.com/2010/07/09/federal-money- Luo, M. 2004. “On Tranist Map, All Roads Lead
for-construction-but-not-operations/ (accessed to Politics.” January 25, 2004. http://www.nytimes.
February 5, 2011). com/2004/01/25/nyregion/on-transit-map-all-roads-
lead-to-politics.html (accessed April 29, 2011).
Kabak, B. 2010. “Report: Cuomo to Cut State Transit
Funding,” January 31, 2010. http://secondavenuesagas. Maloney, C.B. 2011. “Biography,” February 1, 2011.
com/2011/01/31/report-cuomo-to-cut-state-transit- http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_
funding/ (accessed February 5, 2011). content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=3 (accessed March
15, 2011).
Kazis, N. 2011. “Assembly and Senate Would Strip
Another $170M From Transit Riders,” March 24, Maloney, C. B. 2010. “Maloney Hails $275
2011. http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/03/24/ Million Federal Grant for 2nd Ave. Subway,”
assembly-and-senate-would-strip-another-170m-from- September, 10 2010. http://maloney.house.gov/index.
transit-riders/ (accessed April 20, 2011). php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2191&Item
id=61
Kimball-Stanley, David. Interview by Erin Durkin, (accessed 15 March 2011).
March 14, 2011.
Maloney, C.B. 2011. “Second Avenue Subway
Kluger, Barry L. 2010. “Governance Assessment of Introduction,” http://maloney.house.gov/
MTA Capital Program Mega Projects,” Office of the index.php?option=com_issues&task=view_
Inspector General. November 2010. http://mtaig.state. issue&issue=251&parent=18&Itemid=35 (accessed
ny.us/assets/pdf/10-04.pdf (accessed March 25, 2011). 15 March 2011).
Lerman, B. Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning--The Maloney, C.B. 2010. “Second Avenue Subway Report
Answer to Affordable Housing Problem, p. 390; 33 Card,” September 25, 2010. http://maloney.house.gov/
B.C.(accessed March 1, 2011). index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2198&Ite
mid=61 (accessed February 5, 2011).
Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center.
“Homepage,” http://www.lowermanhattan.info Maloney, C.B. 2009. “Report on the Economic
(accessed April 10, 2011), A. Benefits of the Second Avenue Subway and East
. Side Access,” United States Congress, February
Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center. 3, 2009, http://maloney.house.gov/documents/
“Current Construction,” http://www.lowermanhattan. local/2ndavesubway/Report%20on%20the%20
info/construction/ (accessed March 25, 2011), B.
Economic%20Benefits%20of%20Second%20
Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center. Avenue%20Subway%20and%20East%20Side%20
“Glossary,” http://www.lowermanhattan.info/ Access.pdf (accessed March 14, 2011).
construction/global/construction_talk (accessed March
25, 2011), C. Metropolitan Council. 2010. “Charter of the Central
Corridor Construction Communication Committee
Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center.
for the Capitol Area,” http://www.metrocouncil.
org/transportation/ccorridor/construction/ MTA Capital Construction. “Second Avenue Subway,”
CCLRTConstructionCommunication.htm (accessed http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/ (accessed February
March 15, 2011). 10, 2011).
MTA Capital Construction. “Second Avenue Subway:

Metropolitan Council. 2010. “Contractor Inventive
Background,” http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/
Evaluation Process,” (accessed March 15, 2011).
background.html (accessed February 4, 2011).
Metropolitan Council. 2010. “Incentive Allowance,”
MTA Capital Construction. “Second Avenue Subway:
Update,” http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/update.
html (accessed February 4, 2011).
Metropolitan Council. 2004. “Summary Draft
Environmental Impact Statement,” http://www.
Metropolitan Transit Authority. 2010. “Transit
metrocouncil.org/transportation/ccorridor/DEIS/
Committee Meeting May 2010,” May 24, 2010. http://
DEISsummary.pdf (accessed March 13, 2011).
www.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/100524_1100_
Transit.pdf (accessed February, 14, 2011).
Metropolitan Council. “Central Corridor Light
Rail Transit (LRT) Project Description.” http://
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2009. “Twenty
www.metrocouncil.org/transportation/ccorridor/
Year Capital Needs Assessment 2010-2029. Draft
CCdescription.htm (accessed March 13, 2011), A.
August 2009,” Last modified August 2009. http://
www.mta.info/mta/pdf/CP/NeedsAssessment.pdf
Mission Merchants Association. 2011. “Join the
Mission Merchants Association,” http://www. (accessed April 2, 2011).
missionmerchants.com/become-a-member (accessed
April 15, 2011). Metropolitan Transit Authority. “Transportation Bond
Act,” http://www.mta.info/mta/bondact.html (accessed
MTA Capital Construction. “CB8 Presentation: February 4, 2011).
Construction Update and Ancillary Facility Design
(69th and 72nd Streets),” www.mta.info/capconstr/ Metropolitan Transit Authority. “MTA News,” http://
sas/documents/091130_CB8_Final_R1.pdf (accessed www.mta.info/news/stories/?story=189 (accessed
March 5, 2011). March 30, 2011).
Metropolitan Transit Authority. “Social Media,” http://
MTA Capital Construction. “CB8 Presentation: www.mta.info/social/ (accessed March 30, 2011).
Construction Updates, Ancillary Design Review,
86th Street Station Ancillary 2, 72nd Street Neuman, W. 2007. “U.S. Approves $1.3 Billion for
Station Entrance 3 (elevators), Ancillary Facilities 2nd Avenue Subway,” The New York Times. November
Equipment Screens, Ancillary Color Study, October 19, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/
12, 2010,” http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/ nyregion/19subway.html (accessed March 2, 2011).
documents/101012_cp.pdf (accessed March 5, 2011).
Nikitin, Cynthia. Interview by Erin Durkin, March 9,
MTA Capital Construction. “Quarterly Report, Second 2011.
Avenue Subway, Phase 1; July, August and September
2010,” http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/ North Beach Merchants Association. 2011. http://
SAS-Phase%201%20Quarterly%20Report%20 northbeachmerchants.com/pg/join.html (accessed
2009%20Q3.pdf (Accessed February 4, 2011). April 15, 2011).
NYC Economic Development Corporation. 2011.

MTA Capital Construction. “Results of
“Financing and Incentives: Tax Exemptions,”
Comprehensive Project Reviews: Second Avenue
http://www.nycedc.com/FinancingIncentives/
Subway & East Side Access,” July 22, 2009. http://
TaxExemptions/Pages/TaxExemptions.aspx (accessed
www.scribd.com/doc/17582918/Second-Avenue-
April 4, 2011).
Subway-Review (accessed February 4, 2011).
www.nycsubway.org, “IRT East Side/Lexington
NYC Department of City Planning. “New York Ave,” http://www.nycsubway.org/lines/eastside.html
City Zoning Resolution, Article IX: Special Purpose (accessed March 25, 2011), B.
Districts, Chapter 3: Special Hudson Yards District,”
March 16, 2011. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/, Bpdf/ www.nycsubway.org, “3rd Avenue El,” http://www.
zone/art09c03.pdf (accessed April 4, 2011), A. nycsubway.org/lines/3rdave-el.html (accessed March
25, 2011), C.
NYC Department of City Planning. 2011. “Zoning
Reference,” http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/ www.nycsubway.org, “Second Avenue Timeline,”
zonehis.shtml (accessed February 15, 2011), B. http://www.nycsubway.org/articles/2ndave-timeline.
html (accessed February 4, 2011), D.
NYC Department of City Planning. 2011. “Zoning
Reference: Special Purpose Zoning District,” http:// www.nycsubway.org, “Independent Subway,” http://
www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_special_purp_ www.nycsubway.org/indsubway.html (accessed
dist.shtml (accessed February 15, 2011), C. February 4, 2011), for research purposes.
NYC Department of City Planning. 2011. “Zoning www.nycsubway.org, “Second Avenue Subway,”
Reference: Inclusionary Housing Program,” <http:// http://www.nycsubway.org/lines/2ndave.html
www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_inclu_housing. (accessed February 4, 2011), for research purposes.
shtml> (accessed February 17, 2011), D.
www.nycsubway.org, “The Line That Almost Never
New York City Department of Finance. 2011. Was,” http://www.nycsubway.org/articles/2ndave-
“Digital Tax Map Online,” http://gis.nyc.gov/dof/dtm/ neverwas.html (accessed February 4, 2011), for
mapviewer.jsf?bbl=10167700 (accessed March 1, research purposes.
2011).
NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban
New York City Department of Transportation. The Policy. 2001. “State of New York City’s Housing and
Daily Pothole. http://thedailypothole.tumblr.com Neighborhoods,” http://furmancenter.org/research/
(accessed March 25, 2011), A. sonychan/2001-report/ (accessed March 28, 2011).
New York City Department of Transportation.
NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban
“Pedestrians and Sidewalks, NYCDOT Urban
Policy. 2009. “State of New York City’s Housing and
Art Program,” http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/
Neighborhoods,” http://furmancenter.org/research/
sidewalks/urbanart_prgm.shtml (accessed March 30,
sonychan/ (accessed March 28, 2011).
2011), B.
Pasquarelli, A. 2010. “Second Ave. Businesses Not
New York City Department of Transportation. “NYC
Digging Subway,” Craine’s New York Business.
Plaza Program,” 2009. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/
June 20, 2010. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/
html/sidewalks/publicplaza.shtml (accessed April 1,
article/20100620/SMALLBIZ/306209972 (accessed
2011), C.
March 15, 2011).
www.nycsubway.org, “Completed Portions of the
Pecora, Joe. Interview by Angela Tovar, March 15,
2nd Ave. Subway,” http://www.nycsubway.org/
2011.
articles/2ndave-builtfaq.html (accessed February 4,
2011) for research purposes.
Petro, John. 2011. “Cuomo Budget Cuts MTA
Operating Funds, Puts a Bandage on Capital Budget,”
www.nycsubway.org, “2nd Avenue El,” http://www.
Drum Major Institute Blog. February 1, 2011. http://
nycsubway.org/lines/2ndave-el.html (accessed
www.dmiblog.com/archives/2011/02/cuomo_budget_
February 13, 2011), A.
cuts_mta_operatin.html (accessed March 2, 2011).

Petro, John. “DMI Report: No More Delay: Proven 2010. http://www.housingnyc.com/html/research/
Policy Solutions for NYC; San Francisco CA, cresearch.html (accessed March 15, 2011).
Strengthening Inclusionary Zoning,” Drum Major
Institute for Public Policy. Rivoli, Dan. 2010. “MTA Agrees: 2nd Ave. Subway
http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/report. Expected in 2018,” Our Town. July 15, 2010. http://
php?ID=94 (accessed March 1, 2011). ourtownny.com/2010/07/15/mta-agrees-2nd-ave-
subway-expected-in-2018/ (accessed February 5,
Ploeger, Nancy. Interview with Kristin Shiller and 2011).
Adam Benditsky, March 9, 2011.
Rogoff, Peter. “Federal Transit Administration
PlaNYC. 2011. “Help update PlaNYC to create a Memo,” Scribd.com. Last modified June 18, 2010.
Greener, Greater New York,” http://www.nyc.gov/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/34113896/Sas (accessed
html/planyc2030/html/news/update.shtml (accessed March 1, 2011).
April 2, 2011).
Ryley, S. 2009. “With New Subway, Massive
Policy Link. 2003. “Equitable Development Toolkit: Eyesores,” The Real Deal. November 30, 2009. http://
Inclusionary Zoning,” Last modified 2003. therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/with-new-second-
http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/ avenue-subway-massive-eyesores (accessed March 1,
b.5137027/k.FF49/Inclusionary_Zoning.htm (accessed 2011).
April 5, 2011).
Sage-Martinson, Jonathan. Interview by Erin Durkin,
PolicyLink. 2001. “Housing Trust Funds,” June 2001. March 4, 2011.
http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/
b.5137007/k.2A6E/Why_Use_it.htm (accessed April Schneider, Barry. Interview by Studio Class, February
4, 2011). 23, 2011.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2011. Serrano, J. 2011. Sales and Compensating Use Tax
“World Trade Center Progress,” http://www.panynj. Exemption Act 2011 (NY) S3172-2011< http://m.
gov/wtcprogress/pdf/July2009-WTC-Progress- nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S3172-2011 (accessed
Newsletter.pdf (accessed March 2, 2011). April 15, 2011).
Postlewait, Kelly. Interview by Erin Durkin, February Silver, Sheldon and The Community Service Society.
25, 2011. 2011. “The New Housing Emergency:Vacancy
Destabilization and Excessive Rent Increases are
Pratt Center for Community Development. 2009. Undermining Rent and Eviction Protections for Low-
“Saving Independent Retail,” August 10, 2009. http:// and Middle-Income New Yorkers.” New York State
prattcenter.net/issue-brief/saving-independent-retail Assembly, Albany, New York. http://assembly.state.
(accessed February 23, 2011). ny.us/Press/20110313/report.pdf (accessed April 15,
2011).
Pristin, Terry. 2010. “Above Ground, a 2nd Ave.
Subway Plan Attracts Critics,” The New York Smerd, J. 2010. “MTA: First Phase of Second Avenue
Times. August 31, 2010. http://www.nytimes. Subway on Track,” Crain’s New York Business.
com/2010/09/01/realestate/01subway.html?_ June 14, 2010. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/
r=2&pagewanted=all (accessed March 1, 2011). article/20100614/SMALLBIZ/100619931 (accessed
March 1, 2011).
Przybyla, Yvonne. Interview by Laura MacNeil,
March 4, 2011. The Second Avenue Shopper. 2011. The Second
Avenue Shopper. http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-
Rent Guidelines Board. 2010. “Changes to Rent Second-Avenue-Shopper/128114143882201 (accessed
Stabilized Housing Stock in NYC in 2009,” June 3, March 1, 2011).

The Second Avenue Shopper. 2011. The Second 2001. http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/
Avenue Shopper. http://www.2ndavenueshopper.com/ final_summary_report.pdf (accessed April 15, 2011).
Wildfire. Wildfire. http://themecraft.net/www/
Stringer, Scott. Interview by Laura MacNeil and Nick wildfireapp.com (accessed March 30, 2011).
Mosquera, March 3, 2011.
Wilson, Claudia. Community Liaison, Second
Transitblogger.com. 2007. “Second Avenue Subway Avenue Subway Project; Sam Schwartz Engineering.
Gets Guaranteed Federal Funding,” November 20, Interview with Studio Class, March 2, 2011.
2007. http://www.transitblogger.com/transit-news/
second-avenue-subway-gets-guaranteed-federal- Zupan, Jeffery. Interview by Laura MacNeil, March
funding.php (accessed February 5, 2011). 1, 2011.
Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis
85 “Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees
for Transit Planning and Operations: A Synthesis of
Transit Practice,” Sponsored by the Federal Transit
Administration, 2010. Onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
tcrp_syn_85.pdf (accessed March 13, 2011).
Trimet. 2009. “Interstate MAX Yellow Line,” http://
trimet.org/pdfs/history/railfactsheet-interstate.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“Housing Trust Fund Websites,” http://www.hud.gov/
offices/pih/pihcc/housing_trust_fund_websites.pdf
(accessed April 4, 2011).
United States District Court of Southern New York.

2011. CIV 00491 233 East 69th Street Owners
Corporation v/s The MTA , et. al. Law Suit. New York.
(accessed April 12, 2011).
United States Senate Committee on Aging. 2007.

“Issues: Emergency Preparedness for Seniors,” March
13, 2007. http://aging.senate.gov/issues/emergency/
index.cfm (accessed March 21, 2011).
University of Utah. 2009. “Next Stop Design,” http://

nextstopdesign.com/ (accessed April 2, 2011).
Vanshnookenraggen. 2010. “The future NYC Subway:

2nd Avenue Subway History,” March 25, 2010. http://
www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/03/the-
futurenycsubway-second-avenue-subway-history/
Vollmer Associates, SYSTRA Consulting, Allee King

Rosen & Fleming. 2001. “Manhattan East Side Transit
Alternatives (Mesa)/Second Avenue Subway Summary
Report,” New York City: MTA New York City Transit,
SECTION VI:
APPENDIX

ZONING MAPS BY PHASE: PHASE 1




95
Population by Race and Phase of Project

Upper East Side CB 8 East Harlem CB 11 Midtown East CB 6
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage
Total: 227,153 122,051 150, 263
White alone 196,779 86.62% 30,754 25.19% 121,451 80.8
Black or African American alone 6,784 2.98% 43,706 35.80% 4,103 2.73
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 222 0.09% 459 0.37% 78 0.05
Asian alone 17,392 7.60% 5,431 4.44% 17,895 11.9
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 52 0.02% 156 0.12% 47 0.031
Latino (not a race) 12,915 5.68% 59,877 49.05% 10,434 6.94
Some other race alone 2,830 1.24% 37,639 30.80% 3,548 2.36
Two or more races: 3,094 1.36% 3,906 3.20% 3,141 2.09
Two races including Some other race 297 0.13% 2,036 1.66% 572 0.38
DEMOGRAPHICS: RACE BY PHASE
Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more

races 2,797 1.20% 1,870 1.50% 2,569 1.7
Hunter College Spring 2011

Lower East Side CB 3 Financial District CB 1
Phase 3 and 4 Phase 4 New York City
Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage
Total: 168,041 143,354 8,302,659
White alone 70,739 42.09% 112,166 78.24% 3,767,986 45.38%
Black or African American alone 14,333 8.53% 3,479 2.43% 2,085,514 25.11%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 648 0.38% 227 0.16% 28,774 0.34%
Asian alone 57,977 34.50% 21,131 14.74% 968,161 11.66%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 37 0.02% 47 0.03% 2,366 0.03%
Latino (not a race) 38,887 23.14% 8,151 5.69% 2,273,447 27.38%
Some other race alone 20,690 12.31% 3,049 2.13% 1,272,868 15.33%
Two or more races: 3,617 2.15% 3,255 2.27% 176,990 2.10%
Two races including Some other race 880 0.52% 554 0.39% 67,329 0.81%
Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more
races 2,737 1.62% 2,701 1.88% 109,661 1.32%
Population by Age and Phase of Project
Upper East Side CB 8 East Harlem CB 11 Midtown East CB 6 Lower East Side Financial District CB 1
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 CB 3 Phase 3 and 4 Phase 4 New York City
AGE Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage Estimate PercentageEstimate Percentage
Total 227,153 122,051 150,263 168,041 143,354 8,302,659
0-17 years 34,060 14.99% 29,432 24.11% 12,560 8.36% 25,138 14.95% 16,212 11.31% 1,899,035 22.87%
96 Hunter College Spring 2011

18-24 years 9,248 4.07% 13,322 10.91% 10,924 7.27% 16,823 10.01% 16,000 11.16% 759,713 9.15%
25-64 years 149,061 65.62% 66,243 54.27% 105,541 70.24% 102,486 60.98% 97,692 68.15% 4,639,890 55.88%
65+ years 34,784 15.31% 13,049 10.69% 21,238 14.13% 23,594 14.04% 13,450 9.38% 1,004,021 12.09%
Population by Median Income and Phase of Project

Upper East Side CB8 East Harlem CB 11 Phase Midtown East CB 6
Project Phase Phase 1 2 Phase 3
Median household income $ 101,482.00 $ 30,715.00 $ 98,870.00
Lower East Side CB 3 Phase Financial District CB 1

Project Phase 3 and 4 Phase 4 New York City
Median household income $ 38,248.00 $ 103,166.00 $ 50,173.00

DEMOGRAPHICS: AGE AND INCOME BY PHASE
97
Population by Mode of Transportation to Work and Phase of Project

Upper East Side CB 8 East Harlem CB 11 Midtown East CB 6
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
DEMOGRAPHICS: TRANSPORTATION MODE BY PHASE
Mode Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage

Total: 131,898 44,708 95,973
Drove alone 10,529 7.98% 3,057 6.83% 5,818 6.06%
Carpooled 2,859 2.16% 871 1.94% 1,134 1.18%
Public Transit 74,387 56.39% 31,920 71.38% 41,139 42.86%
Taxicab 9,961 7.55% 425 0.95% 5,192 5.40%
Motorcycle 130 0.09% 18 0.04% 75 0.08%
Bicycle 378 0.28% 711 1.59% 580 0.60%
Walked 23,975 18.17% 6,062 13.55% 34,663 36.11%
Other means 962 0.72% 529 1.18% 634 0.66%
Worked at home 8,717 6.60% 1,115 2.49% 6,738 7%

Lower East Side CB 3 Financial District CB 1
Phase 3 and 4 Phase 4 New York City
Mode Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage Estimate Percentage
Total: 78,837 89,020 3,697,191
Drove alone 5,337 6.76% 4,821 5.42% 864,477 23.38%
Carpooled 2,379 3.01% 1,278 1.44% 207,808 5.60%
Public Transit 43,856 55.62% 46,193 51.89% 2,022,564 54.70%
Taxicab 1,070 1.35% 4,084 4.59% 46,230 1.25%
Motorcycle 123 0.15% 295 0.33% 2,739 0.07%
Bicycle 1,760 2.23% 1,252 1.41% 22,420 0.60%
Walked 19,612 24.87% 22,482 25.25% 370,940 10.03%
Other means 624 0.79% 659 0.74% 20,780 0.56%
Worked at home 4,076 5.17% 7,956 8.94% 139,233 3.76
Edit form - [ Second Avenue Subway - Survey for Residents/St... Page 1 of 8
WEB-BASED SURVEY RESULTS
53 responses
Summary See complete responses
Have you attended any of the following meetings with regard to the Second Avenue Subway?
Community Board Meetings 7 13%
Neighborhood Association Meetings 1 2%
Business Association Meetings 1 2%
Second Avenue Subway Taskforce Meetings 2 4%
MTA Public Hearings 5 9%
No 43 81%
Other 2 4%
People may select more than one checkbox, so

percentages may add up to more than 100%.
Are you a member of an organization or association that deals with issues about the
Second Avenue Subway?
Yes 4 8%
No 49 92%
People may select more than one

checkbox, so percentages may add up to
more than 100%.
If yes, which organizations or associations?

American Society of Civil Engineers, Professional Engineer so hear some things about project from
them cb8 Member of Manhattan Community Board 8 Community Board
8M CB8M 2nd Avenue Subway Task Force
Committee MemberCB8 Liaison to the Second Avenue Business Alliance (SABA)
Were you aware of plans for the construction on Second Avenue before it began?

them cb8 Member of Manhattan Community Board 8 Community Board
8M CB8M 2nd Avenue Subway Task Force
Committee MemberCB8 Liaison to the Second Avenue Business Alliance (SABA)

Were you aware of plans for the construction on Second Avenue before it began?
Yes 41 77%
No 12 23%
https://spreadsheets.google.com/gform?key=0Aq2002Wb8c3IdF... 4/13/2011
If yes, how were you informed?

No, but just moved here a year ago. The News word of mouth amongst residents Word of mouth Cb8
and the press SecondAveSagas.com Newspaper articles, elected officials reports/discussions and as a
member of CB8. newspaper, tv newspaper I was aware of the plans to build the subway but didn't have
any specifics. Realtor told us newspaper + TV news + neighborhood word of mouth Community Board
meetings going back to 1995. If I recall it was by reading it in the paper. our town newspaper and maybe
posted, but don't know tv; on 2nd ave they show you a plan noticed it as walked to work, at around 60th and
2nd sever ...
Do you get updates and information about the Second Avenue Subway?
Yes 23 43%
No 30 57%
If yes, how do you receive your information/updates?

MTA Notices 6 25%
MTA Website 10 42%
Public Meetings 0 0%
Community Board Meetings 5 21%
Community Board Email 3 13%
Independent Blogs 12 50%
Neighborhood Associations/Organizations 1 4%
Street Sinage 9 38%
Flyers/Letters distributed to residence 3 13%
Other 4 17%
People may select more than one checkbox, so

Hunter College Spring 2011 Second
percentages may Avenue Subway:
add up to more Lessons Learned
than 100%. 99
If not, what would be the most convenient way to receive updates?
email email is best MTA updates, the news, email via e-mail updates
monthly mailing Other Subway stations close by. a twitter account that is actively maintained
and up to date. Email. email newspapers; because live here 40 years know where to
look email none, becasue it's a lost cause not interested because politicians don't listen to people anyway
- regular mail newspapers; signs on trains email by regular mail nes; but they will do it anyway so not
interested in updates newsletters, cb meetings, NOT email read news about it Email Letters in the
mail Tv/Internet but I wouldn't believe it anyway Email all of the ...
What hardships or difficulties, if any, have you experienced since the start of the construction
process?
restaurants closing on 2nd buses are slow; hard to walk on 2nd ave esp with kidshard to tell where when there
are cars on 2nd ave when walking, esp with kids garbage piling; access a ride vans have difficulty navigating;
deliveries are confused; Lots of traffic on the FDR, and First, Second and Third avenues. there has been a
big increase in the amount of mice that have been visiting our apartment More traffic in the area; difficult to
get across Queensboro Bridge. Change to pedestrian walkways and access to businesses 1)sidewalk
accessibility (no room, have to alk single file some times)2) co ...
What actions, if any have you taken to lesson the impact of the hardships?
avoid 2nd avenue, difficult walking along with kids so avoid it avoiding 2nd avenue; walking and driving
elsewhere Take the subways we hired an exterminator None. frequent more 2nd ave
establishments None, any issues I've had have been minor and I've just chosen to stay in my building,
right on 2 Ave, for another 2 years. The bars in the neighborhood especially Crowe's Nest, which is our
favorite bar has decrease dramatically in crowds The consumer is powerless in this situation. I
investigated and found out where the office is and went up there and got satisfaction once for a ditch that was
outside ...
Please respond to the following statements: - When I have concerns about or difficulties
with the construction of the Second Ave subway, I know whom to contact for help
Agree 16 30%
Disagree 28 53%
Don't Know 9 17%
N/A 0 0%
Please respond to the following statements: - Community Board meetings are held on
convenient days and times
Edit form - [respond
Please Second Avenue
to the Subway- -Community
following statements: Survey Board
for Residents/St...
meetings are held on Page 4 of 8
convenient days and times
Agree 13 25%
Disagree 10 19%
https://spreadsheets.google.com/gform?key=0Aq2002Wb8c3IdF...
Don't Know 27 4/13/2011
51%
N/A 2 4%
Please respond to the following statements: - I know where Community Board meetings
are held
Agree 18 34%
Disagree 17 32%
Don't Know 16 30%
N/A 2 4%
Please respond to the following statements: - Information regarding the Second Avenue
subway is available and easy to find
Agree 17 32%
Disagree 25 47%
Don't Know 8 15%
N/A 2 4%
Please respond to the following statements: - My concerns/suggestions regarding the

Second Avenue subway project have been taken seriously
Agree 8 15%
Disagree 16 30%
Don't Know 5 9%
N/A 24 45%
Please respond to the following statements: - My concerns about the Second Avenue
subway have been addressed
Agree 7 13%
Disagree 16 30%
Don't Know 5 9%
N/A 25 47%
Looking back, is there anything you would have done differently during the construction to help
reduce or avoid hardships or difficulties?
no, with road work there's not much a person can do on front endbut, would have liked to get more info,
updates, schedule of the project avoid walkign on 2nd ave I feel bad for the shop owners who have lost
business due to a decrease in foot traffic such as Delizia and the Crowes Nest. I wish that they could have
been compensated for their fall in business whether it be tax rebates or a monetary
contribution yeh, remove all the B.S. bureacracy and build like they build in China. Phase 1 would
have been done by now in China I might not have chosen to live right on 2nd Avenue had I known how
l ...
Throughout the construction process, have you been properly notified in advance of any
inconveniences such as blasting, service disruptions, side walk closures, etc.?
Yes 16 30%
No 35 66%
If so, how accurate are the notifications?

Very accurate 6 11%
Somewhat accurate 9 17%
Somewhat Inaccurate 5 9%
Very Inaccurate 1 2%
N/A 16 30%
Have any city agencies offered support or resources to you during the construction
process?
Yes 4 8%
No 49 92%
If yes, please list the name of the agencies and support offered.
Shop Second Ave campaign Whoever it is that is in the office on 94th street near
3rd Avenue. The Manhattan Borough President tried to
help limit the number of 40 year old trees that were slated for destruction to make room for the sidewalk cuts in
order to make room for an extra traffic lane on 2nd Ave. between 90th and 91st Streets. n/a
Have any community organizations offered support or resources during the construction
process?
Yes 3 6%
No 47 89%
If yes, please list the name of the organizations and support offered.
Make construction crews accountable for
progress. Set benchmarks. Manhattan Borough PresidentCity Council Members MTA has
had the construction crews clean up the area and improved lighting on the sidewalks Community Board
8 n/a
Looking at the construction process overall, what are your suggestions for improvement?
- publish public info about the construction along the route- we don't know exactly what's going on- what
construction is being done now,etc.; flyers put out along the route; info that points to a website would be
helpful - had no idea what's involved in building a subway, so don't know how to answer I think they don't
work hard enough as I always see extra people walking around the site doing nothing It would
be helpful if the MTA put up notifications on the project status. Whatever is being done now near me is all
happening below ground so we cannot gauge the progress. Even just posting pic ...
What advice do you have for residents in later phases of the construction process who may be
impacted?
-renter: benefits to live on route because rents tend to go down during construction- owner: look for another
location as soon as possible - be patient- put in sound-proof windows be patient What's
happening on the street level has changed so much in the past two years, I'm not sure what kind of issues may
crop up once the actually subway stations are being built or when they start laying the tracks. Until that
happens, I'm not sure what advice to give.If I had to give any advice to someone who is looking to buy in the
area, I would say do it now before the subway is complete because prices ...
Please select one of the following:

I am a tenant 27 51%
I am a homeowner 19 36%
I work in the community 4 8%
Other 3 6%
I received this survey from:

My Community Board 3 6%
Business Association 0 0%
Resident Association 0 0%
In Person Survey 20 38%
Neighborhood Organization 5 9%
A Friend or Family Member 0 0%
An Elected Official 0 0%
Other 25 47%
Number of daily responses
CASE STUDY
Central Corridor Light Rail Project, Twin Cities, Advisory Committee is comprised of 30 to 42 members
Minnesota chosen through an open application process, selected
by Metropolitan Council staff and confirmed by the
While the scope of the Central Corridor Light Rail Council chair (Transit Cooperative Research Program
Transit (LRT) project is vastly different than the scope Synthesis 85 2010). Most project-specific CACs are not
and intensity of the SAS project, a case study provides as large as the one for the Central Corridor LRT, but
a useful mechanism with which to analyze successful the Metropolitan Council felt the size was necessary
approaches by other metropolitan areas in addressing to ensure adequate representation was achieved. The
the impacts of major transportation construction CAC members represent a variety of stakeholder
projects. This case study provides an overview of the interests, including neighborhood associations, area
Central Corridor LRT project, its oversight structure, businesses, advocacy groups, disabled individuals (the
the forms of community participation and involvement, CAC includes a vision-impaired and two mobility-
outreach methods, and contractual tools used to make impaired individuals), educational institutions, ethnic
contractors accountable to the communities. A detailed communities, and religious organizations (Transit
summary of the case study findings can be found in the Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 85 2010).
Appendix. After the CAC was formed, its members
underwent a thorough training process that included
Highlights of the case study include: familiarization with the project corridor, project staff
and officials, their roles and responsibilities, and the
The Metropolitan Council, as the regional project’s public involvement plan (Transit Cooperative
planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven-county Research Program Synthesis 85 2010). Each CAC
metropolitan area, is responsible for construction of the member was assigned a Metropolitan Council outreach
Central Corridor LRT. The Central Corridor LRT project coordinator as their main contact person, whose purpose
connects the downtowns of St. Paul and Minneapolis, is to answer questions or concerns that arise for the
Minnesota with an 11-mile light rail line. At $978 CAC member and to maintain an ongoing relationship
million, this line will provide an additional transit with them. When CAC members are no longer involved
option for areas deemed to be some of the “largest traffic in the project and new members take their place, the
generators in the Twin Cities” (Central Corridor Funders outreach coordinators ease the transition for these new
Collaborative), and will include 18 new stations and CAC members.
five stations shared with an existing LRT line. Further, CAC meetings occur on a standing, monthly
the Central Corridor line will run through some of the basis and are chaired by a Metropolitan Council member.
region’s most diverse neighborhoods (Central Corridor The CAC reports to the Metropolitan Council and the
Funders Collaborative 2011). Utility relocation began Central Corridor Management Committee, via the
in mid-2010, construction of the line began in March public involvement manager. The CAC does not vote
2011, and completion is anticipated for 2014. on matters, but uses a discussion format with project
staff and engineers to address issues and share insight.
Community Advisory Committees - The reason the CAC does not vote is that, despite having
Since the 1990s, the Metropolitan Council has 40 representative members, it does not represent the
used Community Advisory Committees (“CAC”) as a entire corridor, so the Metropolitan Council does not
form of public involvement and it maintains a standing feel that voting is an appropriate mechanism for CAC
Transportation Accessibility Advisory Committee and finds the discussion format is effective. One lesson
that focuses on general transportation policy for learned by the Metropolitan Council was that breakout
the region (Transit Cooperative Research Program focus groups at the monthly CAC meetings were not
Synthesis 85 2010). For specific capital projects, like the most effective method of conducting these meetings
the Central Corridor LRT, it creates smaller CACs and found a more traditional presentation with question
to provide advice and input and promote public and answer format was better received. Another lesson
involvement. The Central Corridor LRT Community learned was that businesses had interests that were
CASE STUDY
distinct from the other stakeholders, so an additional action, rather than merely a staff level person without
Business Advisory Committee was formed in response the authority to bind the contractor. In addition, the
to this discovery (Transit Cooperative Research Program Community Relations Point person must have real time
Synthesis 85 2010). access to all project details, be a member of the CCC
and attend all meetings, attend regularly scheduled
Construction Communication Committees – construction update meetings, provide information
Together with the Business Advisory to CCPO and support its public information and
Council and the Community Advisory Council, the communication efforts, ensure that the contractor
Metropolitan Council created smaller, geographically responds to community concerns, provides adequate
and community-based Construction Communication access for all snow and garbage removal, and provide
Committees (“CCC”) “to seek ongoing public input and maintain appropriate signage (Central Corridor
during construction” (Transit Cooperative Research Project Office 2010).
Program Synthesis 85 2010). According to the Incentive Allowance – The incentive program
CCC charter, its purpose is “to be more proactive in for the Central Corridor LRT project was modeled
communicating construction activities and addressing incentive programs from other cities, but takes a
community concerns during construction” (Metropolitan different approach. Rather than provide incentive
Council 2010 A). Each of the four construction areas payments for completing the construction work
of the Central Corridor LRT project has a CCC with ahead of schedule, the Central Corridor LRT provides
community representation —residents, businesses, incentive payments when contractors maintain a good
transit users, and those with accessibility concerns—and relationship with the community and are accountable for
technical staff—from the Central Corridor Project Office their actions (Caufman 2011). Here, each contractor’s
(“CCPO”), construction staff, contractors, and public contract with the Metropolitan Council contains an
works staff (Central Corridor Project Office 2010). incentive allowance, the purpose of which is “to allow
Each CCC meets twice a month during the construction the community to take ownership of the project and
period, beginning in August 2010. Responsibilities of provide some accountability between the contractor
each CCC includes: assisting with the implementation and the businesses and neighborhoods” (Metropolitan
of communication efforts, advising the CCPO on Council 2010 B). The community stakeholders of
communications and access during construction, the four Construction Communication Committees
coordinating information dissemination to the public discussed earlier evaluate the contractor’s performance
and identifying opportunities to leverage existing based on information distribution, responsiveness to
communications vehicles, review construction activities community concerns, maintenance of access, safety,
to ensure compliance with standards outlined in the and site cleanliness. Using a Contractor Incentive
Construction Public Information and Communication Ballot, CCC members rate the contractor in each of
Plan, periodically assess the communications efforts those categories. The weighted average percentage of
and provide necessary feedback, and evaluate the all ballots is calculated and multiplied by the quarterly
contractor’s performance on a quarterly basis and make incentive pool, resulting in the percentage of the
a recommendation for allocation of the contractor allowable incentive pool recommended to be paid to
incentive (Central Corridor Project Office 2010). the contractor. This amount is subject to final approval
by the CCPO Project Director, who as the right “to
Contractor – award the incentive amount based upon the CCC’s
The contractors are also involved in the recommendation and other factors, and has the right
communications plan for the Central Corridor LRT to reduce or reject incentive payments for the period”
project, as each contractor must designate a Community (Metropolitan Council 2010 C).
Relations Point person to work with CCPO outreach,
engineering, and construction staff (Central Corridor The Central Corridor Project Office and Public
Project Office 2010). The Community Relations Point Information –
person must have the power to commit the contractor to An office of the Metropolitan Council, the
CASE STUDY
Central Corridor Project Office is the “first and preferred Caufman 2011). Further, these outreach coordinators
point of contact for residents, businesses or other were trained in facilitation and outreach techniques and
members of the public with questions ro comments on conducted outreach door-to-door, in public meetings,
the [Central Corridor LRT] project” (Central Corridor through surveys, and presentations (Transit Cooperative
Project Office 2010). Research Program Synthesis 2010). The combination
Notification Schedules – The CCPO established of public meetings and presentations with door-to-
a notification table for which each type of construction door outreach, especially in neighborhood with large
notice adheres to specific requirements. For example, immigrant populations, ensures that the project reaches
a weekly construction update is provided to each a larger percentage of residents and business owners.
business or resident fronting a Construction Zone and
that update will take the form of a personal visit, an Business Resources Collaborative –
email, or a letter, based on the business or resident’s The Business Resources Collaborative (“BRC”)
preference (Central Corridor Project Office 2010). formed to mitigate the impacts of construction of
notifies affected residents, businesses, and the general the Central Corridor LRT project on area businesses.
public of construction impacts. Currently, there are 13 members of the BRC, including
24-hour Hotline and Database – The CCPO the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, community
established a 24-hour hotline, along with procedures development organizations, and four long-standing
for documenting and responding to all calls to the business associations and two that specifically grew
hotline. Deadlines for responding to these calls were out of concern about this project. The BRC has three
also established, including immediate responses for distinct goals: 1) eliminate or reduce construction
emergency calls to one-hour responses for urgent related impediments that may cause disruption to the
construction related issues to one or five-day responses financial performance of businesses, 2) strengthen the
for non urgent issues and comments (Central Corridor ability of existing businesses to proactively prepare
Project Office 2010). Information provided via the and effectively manage adverse conditions that may
online complaint/comment form will also be logged occur during periods of construction and beneficial
into the contact database. opportunities that may arise after construction is
Outreach Methods – The CCPO engages completed, and 3) maximize the economic opportunity
in the following forms of outreach methods to and job growth potential, and thereby the community
communicate to community residents, businesses, and benefit, of the Central Corridor LRT line (Business
other stakeholders: personalized emails, posters on Resources Collaborative 2010 A). Guided by a
community gathering spots, mailings, presentations leadership team, the BRC seeks to achieve these three
at chamber and neighborhood meetings, quarterly goals. The BRC was formed by a group of stakeholders
meetings, community groups/organization newsletters, interested in the economic state of local businesses that
press releases, weekly construction updates, twitter, a met monthly, starting three years before construction of
dedicated website, mass emails, door-to-door visits, the Central Corridor LRT took place. Through short and
bus stop signage, phone calls, individual meetings long-term goals, the BRC seeks to mitigate construction
with businesses, advisory committees, a construction impacts and ensure that local businesses capitalize on
hotline, general email, and a monthly newsletter. For the economic development opportunities the completed
businesses specifically, the CCPO has sent out surveys LRT line will provide.
via mail with the option to return the results via email, Readyforrail.net – The BRC, and other
fax, or postal mail. collaborations and committees focused on the Central
Outreach Coordinators – Recognizing that Corridor LRT project, contain a large number of
the Central Corridor LRT runs through ethnically stakeholders and participants, which can make it
diverse neighborhoods, the Metropolitan Council hired confusing to know which of these many players
multilingual community outreach coordinators that had someone should contact with a particular concern or
experience in organizing and community-based work question (Sage-Martinson 2011). To ameliorate this
(Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 2010; confusion and to ensure information about the project
CASE STUDY
reached as many people as possible, the readyforrail. impact on these issues and [play] an important role as a
net website was created, along with printed marketing catalyst for positive change” (Central Corridor Funders
materials. Collaborative). The Funders Collaborative is envisioned
The printed marketing materials, entitled as a ten-year initiative, investing $20 million over the
the Ready for Rail Action Pack, were distributed in life of the collaborative “to invest in corridor-wide
July 2010, at the time of utility work related to the strategies, planning and action that address corridor-
project, but nine months prior to actual construction wide benefits, and support the formation of several
commencement, and were printed in four languages. multi-sector partnerships…” (Central Corridor Funders
The Action Pack includes information about the BRC Collaborative 2011). SECTION II:
and about what business owners should know about the HISTORY AND OVERVIEW
project, how to plan ahead and mitigate impact through
their own efforts, and about business practices that will
benefit the owners beyond the LRT project (Business
Resources Collaborative 2010 B). It also includes
contact information for outreach coordinators and other
resources, specific to each category of information–for
example, the “Know What’s Ahead” section lists, with
pictures and contact information (phone and email), the
five people that business owners can contact regarding
issues listed under “checklist” of that section. In
addition, it includes construction timeline maps for
St. Paul and Minneapolis, divided into segments with
start and end dates for each. The website, readyforrail.
net, provides the information contained in the Action
Pack, along with updated schedules and more specific
information about resources for small businesses.
Central Corridor Funders Collaborative –

In late 2007, the Central Corridor Funders
Collaborative (“Funders Collaborative”) formed
because its members, local and national funders,
believed the Central Corridor LRT project has “the
potential to both strengthen the regional economy
and positively impact development in the diverse and
low-income neighborhoods along the Line” (Central
Corridor Funders Collaborative). It seeks to ensure
area residents, businesses, and neighborhoods benefit
from the potential development along the Line. In
doing so, it focuses on four main areas: 1) affordable
housing, 2) ensuring a strong local economy along
the route, 3) creating vital transit-oriented places, and
4) ensuring effective coordination and collaboration.
The Funders Collaborative understands that with the
LRT line comes “transformative potential,” bringing
beneficial transit options and economic development
opportunities, but also the possibility of gentrification
and displacement. Therefore, it wants “to have greater
The Business Resources Collaborative For more information about us and our
(BRC) is a partnership of business coalitions, efforts in the Central Corridor, visit
nonprofit community developers, and
local governments that bridges various 5HDG\)RU5DLOQHW
community-led planning efforts addressing
Call the construction hotline with construction
business and economic development in the
related comments or to report an incident:
Central Corridor.
The BRC includes the business organizations
most active in promoting the interests of
businesses and property owners in the
Central Corridor. Their informational
programs, marketing campaigns, and other $&7,213$&.
joint efforts will help you get ready for rail.
BRC Members:
African Development Center
Asian Economic Development Association
City of Minneapolis
City of Saint Paul
Metropolitan Consortium of Community
Developers
Metropolitan Council
Midway Chamber of Commerce
Minneapolis Regional Chamber
of Commerce
Neighborhood Development Center
Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
Southeast Business Association
Stadium Village Commercial Association
University Avenue Business Association
University Avenue Business Preparation
Collaborative (U-7)
West Bank Business Association
Contact Information Card listing your key Ready for Rail contacts
Small Business Support Services list for your city
Small Business Loan Program information
Construction Timeline showing planned construction dates
Construction Communication brochure
&RUULGRU/LJKW5DLO7UDQVLW/LQHSOXV
WRJHW\RXUEXVLQHVVUHDG\IRUWKH&HQWUDO
5HDG\IRU5DLOJXLGHWKDWWHOOV\RXKRZ
,QVLGHWKLV$&7,213$&.LV\RXU
%5&B55B)ROGHUBSULQWLQGG $0
The Business Resources Collaborative For more information about us and our
(BRC) is a partnership of business coalitions, efforts in the Central Corridor, visit
nonprofit community developers, and
local governments that bridges various 5HDG\)RU5DLOQHW
Central Corridor.
most active in promoting the interests of
Central Corridor. Their informational pro-
grams, marketing campaigns, and other +RZWRJHW\RXUEXVLQHVVUHDG\
joint efforts will help you get ready for rail. IRUWKH&HQWUDO&RUULGRU/LJKW5DLO7UDQVLW/LQH
BRC Members:
African Development Center
City of Minneapolis
City of Saint Paul
Metropolitan Consortium of Community
Developers
Midway Chamber of Commerce
Minneapolis Regional Chamber
of Commerce
Neighborhood Development Center
Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce

1221(.12:6 %XWZLWKWKHFRPLQJRIOLJKW
UDLOWRWKH&HQWUDO&RUULGRU
025($%287<285
\RXPD\KDYHWRGRPRUH Collaborative (U-7)
%\WDNLQJVRPHVWHSVQRZ\RX West Bank Business Association
%86,1(6625:$176 FDQPDNHVXUH\RXUEXVLQHVV
LVUHDG\IRUUDLO — VRLWUHPDLQV
,77268&&((' YLWDOGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQDQG
LVVHWWRWKULYHDIWHUWKHOLQH
025(7+$1<28'2 LVFRPSOHWHG
Daisy and Thomas Haung, owners of Shuang Hur
Supermarket on University Avenue in St. Paul
Photo © Metropolitan Council
%5&B55B%URFKXUHYLQGG $0
Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned 111
7KH%XVLQHVV5HVRXUFHV&ROODERUDWLYHFUHDWHGWKH 1RZLVWKHWLPHWRXQGHUVWDQG
5HDG\IRU5DLO$FWLRQ3DFNWRKHOSFRUULGRUDUHD ZKDW’VDKHDGDVVHVV\RXU
EXVLQHVVHVDQGSURSHUW\RZQHUV EXVLQHVVDQGWDNHDFWLRQ
35(3$5(IRUWKHLPSDFWRI/LJKW5DLO7UDQVLW
6859,9(GXULQJSHULRGVRIFRQVWUXFWLRQ :+$7’6$+($' 727+5,9( ,17,0(
7+5,9(DIWHUWKHOLQHEHFRPHVRSHUDWLRQDOLQ
Yes, light rail construction will bring some challenges. But the project
also is bringing increased public attention to the entire corridor, plus 7KH0HWURSROLWDQ&RXQFLOKDVDVWDIIRI2XWUHDFK&RRUGLQDWRUV %XVLQHVV&RQVXOWDQWVDUHDYDLODEOHDFURVVWKHFRUULGRUWR 0DQ\RIWKHDFWLRQVZHUHFRPPHQGKHUHDUHVLPSO\JRRG
greater-than-ever resources to aid corridor businesses. RUJDQL]HGE\ORFDODUHD7KHLUMRELVWRNHHS\RXLQIRUPHGDQG KHOSVPDOOEXVLQHVVRZQHUVLPSURYHWKHLUPDUNHWLQJREWDLQ EXVLQHVVSUDFWLFHV<RXZRXOGGRWKHPDQ\ZD\WRVWUHQJWKHQ
Although many non-profit groups and government agencies offer free KHOS\RXDGGUHVVLVVXHVUHODWHGWRGHVLJQFRQVWUXFWLRQDQG WUDLQLQJDQGWHFKQLFDODGYLFHDQGLGHQWLI\VRXUFHVRIORDQV DQGJURZ\RXUEXVLQHVV%XWEHFDXVHRISRWHQWLDOGLVUXSWLRQV
or low-cost services to help small businesses, you should know about RSHUDWLRQRIWKH&HQWUDO&RUULGRU/57/LQH PDWFKLQJJUDQWVDQGRWKHUILQDQFLDODVVLVWDQFH GXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLW’VLPSRUWDQWIRU\RXWRDFWQRZ
the resources (included in this packet) that are specifically focused on
the Central Corridor and the challenges you face. Downtown Minneapolis (connection to Hiawatha Line) Minneapolis
&+(&./,67
-RH\%URZQHU651-602-1953 joey.browner@metc.state.mn.us 1DWDOLD3UHWHOW612-789-7337 ext. 10 npretelt@mccdmn.org
Set up financial record keeping and reporting to demonstrate
West Bank, East Bank, Stadium Village, 29th Avenue Saint Paul, University Avenue West (Emerald to Hamline) construction impact
-HVVLFD+LOO651-602-1840 jessica.hill@metc.state.mn.us 0DULO\Q3RUWHU651-230-1020 marilyn@aurorastanthony.org
Establish a construction savings account and start saving now
Westgate, Raymond, Fairview, Snelling, Hamline Saint Paul, University Avenue East (Hamline to Rice) Create a customer database — addresses, e-mail, etc.
5LWD5RGULJXH]651-602-1805 rita.rodriguez@metc.state.mn.us 6LD/R651-291-8436 sialo@ndc-mn.org
:H’UHKHUHWRKHOS\RX Develop marketing materials (website, Facebook, Twitter)
*(75($'<)255$,/ Lexington, Victoria, Dale, Western, Rice, Capitol East
Business Information Center Consider customer incentives/promotions for construction phase
6KRXD/HH651-602-1014 shoua.lee@metc.state.mn.us

/LQGD:LQVRU651-647-2276
Notify customers about access during construction
10th Street, 4th & Cedar, Union Depot 712 University Avenue, Suite 105
'DQD+DSSHO651-602-1954 dana.happel@metc.state.mn.us Participate in future corridor campaigns and local market branding
Rondo Community Outreach Library
Business Resources Center 651-357-4620
461 Dale Street (free parking in underground lot)
&+(&./,67
Meet your Outreach Coordinator and ask to receive Construction Updates &+(&./,67
Find out when construction is scheduled for your block (see Review the Business Resources available in your city (see
Construction Timeline ) Small Business Support Services information sheet)
Watch for a local Construction Communication Committee to form as con- Attend small business workshops or request a one-on-one consultation
struction date approaches Complete a street-view and in-store self-assessment
2875($&+ %86,1(66 %86,1(66 Make sure contractors understand your access issues — customer Calculate and plan for a “worst case” financial impact of construction
&225',1$725 &2168/7$17 25*$1,=$7,216 access, loading, delivery
Reduce overhead and operating costs in advance of construction
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW -RLQWDFWLRQ Make sure you have emergency contact information for construction
LQIRUPDWLRQ PDUNHWLQJDQG &RUULGRUPDUNHWLQJ
manager (see Construction Communication brochure)
Consider staffing and scheduling adjustments before, during, and
after construction
:$7&+)25PRUHFRPPXQLW\DQGJUDVVURRWV
/LDLVRQEHWZHHQ SODQQLQJDVVLVWDQFH FDPSDLJQV Work with neighboring businesses to develop interim parking plans
HIIRUWVDVFRQVWUXFWLRQQHDUV\RXUDUHDLQFOXGLQJ
Schedule an energy audit
EXVLQHVVHVDQG /RDQVDQG 5HIHUUDOVWREXVLQHVV Campaigns to market, promote, and encourage support for
FRQVWUXFWLRQFUHZV PDWFKLQJJUDQWV Consider replacing sewer connections if the roadway in front of your
VXSSRUWVHUYLFHV businesses affected by the construction
building is excavated
Contractor/community committees that provide quick
resolution of local parking and construction concerns
%5&B55B%URFKXUHYLQGG $0
$&7 ,17,0(
0DQ\RIWKHDFWLRQVZHUHFRPPHQGKHUHDUHVLPSO\
JRRGEXVLQHVVSUDFWLFHV<RXZRXOGGRWKHPDQ\ZD\WR
VWUHQJWKHQDQGJURZ\RXUEXVLQHVV%XWEHFDXVHRISR

WHQWLDOGLVUXSWLRQVGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLW’VLPSRUWDQW
IRU\RXWRDFWQRZ
&+(&./,67 The Business Resources Collaborative
(BRC) is a partnership of business coalitions,
Set up financial record keeping and reporting to demon- nonprofit community developers, and
strate construction impact local governments that bridges various
Establish a construction savings account and start
saving now
Central Corridor.
Create a customer database — addresses, e-mail, etc.
Develop marketing materials (website, Facebook, etc.) most active in promoting the interests of
Consider customer incentives/promotions for construc-
Central Corridor. Their informational pro-
tion phase
grams, marketing campaigns, and other +RZWRJHW\RXUEXVLQHVVUHDG\
Notify customers about access during construction joint efforts will help you get ready for rail. IRUWKH&HQWUDO&RUULGRU/LJKW5DLO7UDQVLW/LQH
Participate in future corridor campaigns and local market BRC Members:
branding African Development Center
City of Minneapolis
City of Saint Paul
:$7&+)25PRUHFRPPXQLW\DQGJUDVVURRWV Metropolitan Consortium of Community
Developers
HIIRUWVDVFRQVWUXFWLRQQHDUV\RXUDUHDLQFOXGLQJ
Campaigns to market, promote, and encourage support Midway Chamber of Commerce
for businesses affected by the construction Minneapolis Regional Chamber
of Commerce
Contractor/community committees that provide quick Neighborhood Development Center
resolution of local parking and construction concerns Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce

Collaborative (U-7)
West Bank Business Association
For more information about us and our
efforts in the Central Corridor, visit
5HDG\)RU5DLOQHW

%5&B55B[YB(QJOLVKLQGG $0
1221(.12:6025($%287<285%86,1(66
.12: :+$7’6$+($'
3/$1 727+5,9(
25:$176,77268&&(('025(7+$1<28'2
7KH0HWURSROLWDQ&RXQFLOKDVDVWDIIRI2XWUHDFK %XVLQHVV&RQVXOWDQWVDUHDYDLODEOHDFURVVWKHFRU
&RRUGLQDWRUVRUJDQL]HGE\ORFDODUHD7KHLUMRELVWR ULGRUWRKHOSVPDOOEXVLQHVVRZQHUVLPSURYHWKHLU
%XWZLWKWKHFRPLQJRIOLJKWUDLOWRWKH&HQWUDO&RUULGRU
NHHS\RXLQIRUPHGDQGKHOS\RXDGGUHVVLVVXHVUHODWHG PDUNHWLQJREWDLQWUDLQLQJDQGWHFKQLFDODGYLFHDQG
\RXPD\KDYHWRGRPRUH%\WDNLQJVRPHVWHSVQRZ\RX
WRGHVLJQFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGRSHUDWLRQRIWKH&HQWUDO LGHQWLI\VRXUFHVRIORDQVPDWFKLQJJUDQWVDQGRWKHU
FDQPDNHVXUH\RXUEXVLQHVVLVUHDG\IRUUDLO7KH%XVL
&RUULGRU/57/LQH ILQDQFLDODVVLVWDQFH
QHVV5HVRXUFHV&ROODERUDWLYHFUHDWHGWKLV5HDG\IRU5DLO
$FWLRQ3DFNWRKHOSFRUULGRUDUHDEXVLQHVVHVDQGSURS Downtown Minneapolis Minneapolis
HUW\RZQHUV -RH\%URZQHU651-602-1953 1DWDOLD3UHWHOW612-789-7337 ext. 10
joey.browner@metc.state.mn.us npretelt@mccdmn.org
35(3$5(IRUWKHLPSDFWRI/LJKW5DLO7UDQVLW
West Bank, East Bank, Stadium Village, Saint Paul, University Avenue West
6859,9(GXULQJSHULRGVRIFRQVWUXFWLRQ 29th Avenue (Emerald to Hamline)
7+5,9(DIWHUWKHOLQHEHFRPHVRSHUDWLRQDOLQ -HVVLFD+LOO651-602-1840 0DULO\Q3RUWHU651-230-1020
jessica.hill@metc.state.mn.us marilyn@aurorastanthony.org
Yes, light rail construction will bring some challenges. But
Westgate, Raymond, Fairview, Saint Paul, University Avenue East
the project also is bringing increased public attention to (Hamline to Rice)
the entire corridor, plus greater-than-ever resources to aid Snelling, Hamline
5LWD5RGULJXH]651-602-1805 6LD/R651-291-8436
corridor businesses. sialo@ndc-mn.org
rita.rodriguez@metc.state.mn.us
Although many non-profit groups and government agen- University Avenue Business Association
cies offer free or low-cost services to help small business- Lexington, Victoria, Dale, Western,
Rice, Capitol East Business Information Center
es, you should know about the resources (included in /LQGD:LQVRU651-647-2276
6KRXD/HH651-602-1014

this packet) that are specifically focused on the Central 712 University Avenue, Suite 105
shoua.lee@metc.state.mn.us
Corridor and the challenges you face.
10th Street, 4th & Cedar, Union Depot Rondo Community Outreach Library
Daisy and Thomas Haung, owners of Shuang Hur 'DQD+DSSHO651-602-1954 Business Resources Center
Supermarket on University Avenue in St. Paul dana.happel@metc.state.mn.us 651-357-4620
Photo © Metropolitan Council 461 Dale Street (free parking in underground lot)
1RZLVWKHWLPHWRXQGHUVWDQGZKDW’VDKHDGDVVHVV
&+(&./,67 &+(&./,67
\RXUEXVLQHVVDQGWDNHDFWLRQ:H’UHKHUHWRKHOS
Meet your Outreach Coordinator and ask to receive Review the Business Resources available in your city
Construction Updates (see Small Business Support Services information sheet)
Find out when construction is scheduled for your block Attend small business workshops or request a one-on-
(see Construction Timeline) one consultation
2875($&+ %86,1(66 %86,1(66 Complete a street-view and in-store self-assessment
Watch for a local Construction Communication Committee
&225',1$725 &2168/7$17 25*$1,=$7,216 to form as construction date approaches Calculate and plan for a “worst case” financial impact of
Construction information Management, marketing, Joint action Make sure contractors understand your access issues — construction
and planning assistance customer access, loading, delivery Reduce overhead and operating costs in advance of
Liaison between businesses Corridor marketing campaigns
and construction crews Loans and matching grants construction
Referrals to business Make sure you have emergency contact information for
support services construction manager (see Construction Communication Consider staffing and scheduling adjustments before,
brochure) during, and after construction
Work with neighboring businesses to develop interim Schedule an energy audit
parking plans Consider replacing sewer connections if the roadway in
front of your building is excavated
Call the construction hotline with construction related com-
ments or to report an incident: 651-602-1404
%5&B55B[YB(QJOLVKLQGG $0
5HDG\)RU5DLOQHW
&RQVWUXFWLRQ7LPHOLQH
0,11($32/,6

6(*0(17 67$57 ),1,6+

The Metropolitan Council is committed to
Connection to 7REH
keeping you informed about construction Hiawatha LRT DQQRXQFHG 129
schedules throughout the project. (See the
“Construction Communication” brochure.) West Bank and
Washington Ave. Bridge
6(37 129
This map shows the planned construction
timeframes for the segments of the Line. Washington Avenue
Construction work on roadways is expected Transit Mall
0$< $8*
to begin by the “start” date and be substan-
tially completed by the “finish” date.
Oak Street 0$< 129
Within the overall schedule, the timing of
Oak Street to
work on a specific block within each
section will vary. As your construction start
Emerald Avenue
0$5 129
approaches, you will be notified:
Transitway
• 1 month before construction begins D reconstruction
0$< $8*
• 72 hours before scheduled utility
shutdowns +DYHDTXHVWLRQ"At any time, you can call your Metropolitan Council
• 72 hours before roadway or Outreach Coordinator.
driveway closures 1HHGWRUHSRUWDFRQVWUXFWLRQUHODWHGLQFLGHQW"Call the
• Weekly, with construction updates construction hotline at 651-602-1404.
%5&B55B7LPHOLQHLQGG $0
5HDG\)RU5DLOQHW
&RQVWUXFWLRQ7LPHOLQH
6$,173$8/

6(*0(17 67$57 ),1,6+

The Metropolitan Council is committed to
University Avenue:
keeping you informed about construction Emerald to Hamline
0$5 129
schedules throughout the project. (See the
“Construction Communication” brochure.) University Avenue:
Hamline to Robert
0$5 129
This map shows the planned construction
timeframes for the segments of the Line. Robert to12th,
Construction work on roadways is expected 12th to Cedar
$8* 129
to begin by the “start” date and be substan-
tially completed by the “finish” date.
D Cedar Street -81 129
Within the overall schedule, the timing of
4th and Cedar block:
work on a specific block within each
section will vary. As your construction start
E limited demolition and
skyway reconstruction
$35 129
approaches, you will be notified:
• 1 month before construction begins 4th Street $8* 129
• 72 hours before scheduled utility
shutdowns +DYHDTXHVWLRQ"At any time, you can call your Metropolitan Council
• 72 hours before roadway or Outreach Coordinator.
driveway closures 1HHGWRUHSRUWDFRQVWUXFWLRQUHODWHGLQFLGHQW"Call the
• Weekly, with construction updates construction hotline at 651-602-1404.
%5&B55B7LPHOLQHLQGG $0
5HDG\)RU5DLOQHW
0LQQHDSROLV6PDOO%XVLQHVV
6XSSRUW6HUYLFHV
&DOORQXVWRKHOS\RXJHW\RXUEXVLQHVVUHDG\IRUWKH
&HQWUDO&RUULGRU/LJKW5DLO7UDQVLW/LQH
,)<281(('+(/3:,7+ &217$&7
&RQVWUXFWLRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ -HVVLFD+LOO
We can connect you with the most up-to-date information on light rail Metropolitan Council
construction plans. Central Corridor Outreach Coordinator
651-602-1840
jessica.hill@metc.state.mn.us
%XVLQHVV&RQVXOWLQJDQG7HFKQLFDO$VVLVWDQFH 1DWDOLD3UHWHOW
To help ensure your business foundation is sound before construction, Metropolitan Consortium of
we can refer you to free online resources, one-on-one consultations, Community Developers
workshops, and specialists in: 612-789-7337 ext. 10
• Accounting, bookkeeping, and tax preparation npretelt@mccdmn.org
• Financial counseling and credit repair
• Retail and restaurant management
• Small business management training
• Business and financial planning
• Marketing and business development
• Legal advice and services related to leases and business incorporation
• Translation and interpretation services are available on construction
and business issues.
%XVLQHVVDQGUHDOHVWDWHGHYHORSPHQWORDQV (PLO\6WHUQ
DQGDVVLVWDQFH City of Minneapolis
Business loans are available through the City of Minneapolis: 612-673-5191 ext. 10
• Working capital guarantees, up to $75,000 emily.stern@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
• Below market loans for tenant improvements and equipment, www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/
up to $75,000 business_assistance.asp
• Below market loans for energy efficiency investments, up to $75,000
• Below market loans for commercial and industrial real estate develop-
ment, from $100,000 to $10 million.
Façade improvement matching grants are available through the City of
Minneapolis Great Streets program in Cedar Riverside/West Bank (WBBA and
ADC) and the 29th Avenue Station area (Prospect Park/Seward Redesign).
We want your business to thrive in Minneapolis, whether on the corridor or
off it. If you find that you need more space, are ready to expand, or simply
want to find another location within the city, we can help.
%5&B55B6XSSRUWB0SOVLQGG $0
0LQQHDSROLV6PDOO%XVLQHVV6XSSRUW6HUYLFHV
,)<281(('+(/3:,7+ &217$&7
3DUNLQJ +DLOD0D]H
We are working to mitigate the loss of on-street parking by: City of Minneapolis
• Evaluating parking conditions to assess current and future needs 612-673-2098
• Working with businesses on maximizing use of remaining parking haila.maze@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
• Retaining some high-turnover spaces near consumer-oriented
businesses on University Avenue
• Exploring options for parking on side streets that support both
businesses and neighborhoods.
(QHUJ$IILFLHQF\ (PLO\6WHUQ
You can reduce your monthly operating costs by improving the energy City of Minneapolis
efficiency of your building, with the help of: 612-673-5191
• Below-market loans through the City and the Center for Energy emily.stern@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
and Environment
• Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy rebate programs.
$GYRFDF\,QIRUPDWLRQDQG5HIHUUDOV :HVW%DQN
These business organizations are good sources for information about a %XVLQHVV$VVRFLDWLRQ
variety of issues affecting businesses and property owners in the Central www.thewestbank.org
Corridor. They provide informational programs, referral networks, and
opportunities to work with other owners on issues of common interest.
$IULFDQ'HYHORSPHQW&HQWHU
www.adcminnesota.org
6WDGLXP9LOODJH
&RPPHUFLDO$VVRFLDWLRQ
www.stadiumvillage.com
6RXWKHDVW%XVLQHVV
$VVRFLDWLRQ
www.southeastminneapolis.com
8QLYHUVLW\$YHQXH
%XVLQHVV$VVRFLDWLRQ
www.universityavenuebiz.com/BIC
%5&B55B6XSSRUWB0SOVLQGG $0
5HDG$RU5DLOQHW
6DLQW3DXO6PDOO%XVLQHVV
6XSSRUW6HUYLFHV
&RQQHFWWRWKHSHRSOHZKRFDQKHOS\RXJHW\RXUEXVLQHVV
UHDG\IRUWKH&HQWUDO&RUULGRU/LJKW5DLO7UDQVLW/LQH
:+2&$1+(/3
$GYRFDF\,QIRUPDWLRQDQG5HIHUUDOV
We’ve made it easy for you to find
African Development Center 612-333-4772 www.adcminnesota.org
information about services and
resources — in multiple languages — Asian Economic Development
that can help you prepare your Association (AEDA) 651-222-7798 www.aeda-mn.org
business or property for the Central
City of Saint Paul Planning
Corridor Light Rail Transit Line.
and Economic Development
We’ll connect you to the answers Ellen Muller 651-266-6605 ellen.muller@ci.stpaul.mn.us
to any light-rail-related question
University Avenue Business
or concern. Just contact your
Association (UABA) 651-641-0334 www.universityavenuebiz.com
Metropolitan Council Central
Corridor Outreach Coordinator — UABA Business
or any one of the organizations Information Center 651-647-2276 www.universityavenuebiz.com/BIC
listed here.
University Avenue Business
Preparation Collaborative (U-7) www.universityseven.org
Marilyn Porter 651-230-1020 marilyn@aurorastanthony.org
Sia Lo 651-291-8436 sialo@ndc-mn.org
+2::(&$1+(/3
%XVLQHVV&RQVXOWLQJDQG Call or drop in at these locations to find free on-line resources and hands-on
7HFKQLFDO$VVLVWDQFH assistance to strengthen your business.
• Rondo Community Outreach Library Business Resource Center
• UABA Business Information Center at 712 University Avenue, Suite 105
• Saint Paul Small Business Administration Business Planning Center
at 2324 University Avenue West, Midtown Commons Building, Suite112
Attend free workshops on many business related topics, including accounting,
marketing or website design.
Ask for individual consultations with specialists in marketing, merchandizing,
accounting, credit repair, intellectual property rights, trademarking, and retail
management.
We want your business to thrive in Saint Paul, whether on the corridor or off it.
If you find that you need more space, are ready to expand, or simply want to find
another location within the city, we can help.
%5&B55B6XSSRUWB6W3LQGG $0
6DLQW3DXO6PDOO%XVLQHVV6XSSRUW6HUYLFHV
+2::(&$1+(/3
&RQVWUXFWLRQ,QIRUPDWLRQ We can connect you with the most up-to-date information on light rail construc-
tion plans.
(QHUJ\(IILFLHQF\ You can reduce your monthly operating costs by improving the energy efficiency
of your building, with the help of:
• Below-market loans through the City and organizations such as the Center
for Energy and Environment
• Xcel Energy rebate program
)LQDQFLDO$VVLVWDQFH You may be eligible for a variety of financial assistance aimed at helping busi-
nesses and property owners in the corridor, including:
• Working capital and real estate loans
• Matching Marketing and Matching Façade Improvement grants
/HJDO$GYLFHDQG6HUYLFHV Visit the UABA Business Information Center for legal information, consultation,
and extended representation on a variety of issues (business/construction miti-
gation rights, property tax/property rights, landlord/tenant rights, leases and sales).
0DUNHWLQJ Take advantage of an extensive offering of free or low-cost marketing and

branding services — including print and Web-based.
3DUNLQJ You have a number of options if you are concerned about the loss of on-street
parking. We can direct you to City staff who can assist you with solutions like these:
• Sharing parking with your neighbors
• Improving parking off the alley
• Reconfiguring existing parking lots to add spaces
• Eliminating multiple curb cuts
You can see detailed examples in Parking Solutions for the Central Corridor
available at http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=10892.
7UDQVODWLRQDQG Translation and interpretation services are available on construction or

,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ business issues.
%5&B55B6XSSRUWB6W3LQGG $0
0\2XWUHDFK
&RRUGLQDWRU
0\%XVLQHVV

&RQVXOWDQW
t
-RH\%URZQHU
eld r ic
Fi ist e
et s eD t e r
om
rg ou l l en trod
Ta eh
a C
ar t M ent M
e
ge
W lle m t/ lla
co rn s35W Vi
Ni ve Ea nk
Go nt
n
Ba ium 280
Dw an
k
st ad 6LD/R
tB Ea St
es
W
29th Ave 5LWD5RGULJXH]

Westgate
-HVVLFD+LOO Raymond Ave w6KRXD/HH
y
EMERALD
Av
e e ve Pk Av
e
Av eA on St
i ew ing lin gt or
ia St te
rn St
ir v ell m xin ct le es ce 35E
Fa Sn Ha Le Vi Da W Ri
94

t
po
t De
as io
n
lE Un
to St
1DWDOLD3UHWHOW pi

Ca 10
t h
r
da

Ce
0DULO\Q3RUWHU h
&
'DQD+DSSHO
4t
/LQGD:LQVRU
5HDG\)RU5DLOQHW
%5&B55B&RQWDFWYLQGG $0
Downtown Minneapolis Lexington, Victoria, Dale,
)RU&RQVWUXFWLRQ (Connection to Hiawatha Line)
,QIRUPDWLRQ Western, Rice, Capitol East
-RH\%URZQHU651-602-1953 6KRXD/HH651-602-1014
Outreach Coordinators will work joey.browner@metc.state.mn.us shoua.lee@metc.state.mn.us
with you on LRT construction and
West Bank, East Bank, 10th Street, 4th & Cedar,
operation issues. They are assigned to
Stadium Village, 29th Avenue Union Depot
neighborhoods along the corridor. You
-HVVLFD+LOO651-602-1840 'DQD+DSSHO651-602-1954
can also provide construction related
jessica.hill@metc.state.mn.us dana.happel@metc.state.mn.us
comments or report an incident
24 hours a day on the Construction Westgate, Raymond, Fairview,
Hotline at 651-602-1404. And for Snelling, Hamline
construction news and information 5LWD5RGULJXH]651-602-1805
online, visit www.centralcorridor.org. rita.rodriguez@metc.state.mn.us

Minneapolis UABA Business Information Center
)RU6PDOO%XVLQHVV
1DWDOLD3UHWHOW612-789-7337 ext. 10 /LQGD:LQVRU651-647-2276
6XSSRUW,QIRUPDWLRQ
npretelt@mccdmn.org 712 University Avenue, Suite 105
Business Consultants provide
Saint Paul, University Avenue West Rondo Community Outreach Library
support services and resources to
(Emerald to Hamline) Business Resources Center
small businesses along the corridor.
0DULO\Q3RUWHU651-230-1020 461 Dale Street (free parking in
These consultants will either work
marilyn@aurorastanthony.org underground lot) 651-357-4620
with you directly or refer you to
others providing business consulting Saint Paul, University Avenue East Saint Paul SBA
along the corridor. (Hamline to Rice) Business Planning Center
6LD/R651-291-8436 2324 University Avenue West
sialo@ndc-mn.org Midtown Commons Building, Suite112
651-209-1884
%5&B55B&RQWDFWYLQGG $0

Second Avenue Subway:Lessons Learned

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Second Avenue Subway:Lessons Learned

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned

Spring 2011 Studio Project

Studio Advisor: Richard Bass

Carolyn B. Maloney, United States Representative

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Tim Gianfrancesco, Program Manager, MTA Capital Construction

Claudia Wilson, SAS Community Liaison, Sam Schwartz Engineering

Robin Caufman, Manager of Public Involvement, Metropolitan Council

Robert Esnard, President, Zucker Organization

Cynthia Nikitin, Vice President, Project for Public Spaces

Jonathan Sage-Martinson, Director, Central Corridor Funders Collaborative

Stakeholders and Elected Officials

Curtis Archer, President, Harlem Community Development Corporation

Hunter F. Armstrong, Executive Director, Civitas

Elizabeth H. Berger, President, Downtown Alliance

Jonathan Bing, New York State Assembly Member

Geoffrey Eaton, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of Congressman Charles Rangel

Daniel Garodnick, New York City Council Member

Pastor Logan Gentry, Pastor of Community Justice, Apostles Church

Robert Harvey, Executive Director of Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center

Lolita Jackson, Manhattan Director, Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit

Micah Z. Kellner, New York State Assembly Member

Tom Lunke, Director of Planning, Harlem Community Development Corporation

Joe Pecora, President, Second Avenue Business Association

Nancy Ploeger, President, Manhattan Chamber of Commerce

Yvonne Przybyla, Chief of Staff, Office of State Senator José M. Serrano

Anne Purdy, Assistant Principal, Vanguard High School

Charles Rangel, United States Congressman

George Sarkissian, District Manager, Community Board 11

José Serrano, New York State Senator

Sam Schwartz, Founder, Sam Schwartz Engineering

Sheldon Silver, New York State Assembly Speaker

Scott M. Stringer, Manhattan Borough President

Kevin Walters, President, East Harlem Bar and Restaurant Association

Jeffrey M. Zupan, Senior Fellow, Transportation, Regional Plan Association

II. History and Overview

III. Research Methodologies

IV. Issues and Recommendations

This page: Ben Heckscher, The Launch Box

2 Hunter College Spring 2011 Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned

Subway construction will halt without continued political support

MTA and other agencies fail to adequately engage the community

East Harlem is threatened with displacement

Second Avenue stores face a difficult business environment

Residents are displeased with non-contextual ancillary structure designs

Construction corridor is visually unappealing and unsafe

MTA has no funding plans for future phases of the SAS

Hunter College Spring 2011 Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned 3

Other elected officials

4 Hunter College Spring 2011 Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned

This page: Courtesy of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority

6 Hunter College Spring 2011 Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned

Hunter College Spring 2011 Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned 7

The east side of Manhattan has not always lacked

In 1940, the Second Avenue El was demolished, leaving

District in New York. Before her election to the

The Second Avenue subway will run almost entirely

Congresswoman Maloney has spent her career working

Hunter College Spring 2011 Second Avenue Subway: Lessons Learned 9

Public feedback from the EIS indicated that a subway

Proposed SAS Alignment for Phases 1-4

Manhattan’s East Side also suffers from poor transit

The current lack of an accessible form of public transit

For the SAS, MTA Capital Construction (“MTACC”),