Not In The Middle Of My Upper East Side Block

Isn’t the point of building a subway to “change the lifestyle”? No, never mind the people who live past First Avenue:

The MTA will re-evaluate a planned entrance to the Second Avenue subway slated for East 72nd Street in the wake of two lawsuits filed by area residents, their lawyer said yesterday.

In suits filed last month, four co-ops are seeking to have the entrance, now set to be built between First and Second avenues, moved to a corner or scaled down.

The residents also want the MTA to redo an environmental review.

“Before we make any final determination to proceed with an entrance . . . we will complete the additional evaluations,” agency lawyer Anthony Semancik told a community meeting last night.

The project would “change the lifestyle of the people who live there,” said Susan Chandler, who lives in one of the buildings affected.

Of Course Congestion Pricing Is Worth It — Who Can Argue With 6.3% Less Traffic* And 15% More Transportation Funding!

But really, doesn’t the concept of a dedicated funding stream take the state off the hook for transit improvments? That’s a good thing when New York City is trying to recoup more of the money it sends to Albany? And then there’s the question of how much of an impact 15% would even have:

Supporters of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to charge people who drive into the busiest parts of Manhattan have promoted it as a way to provide a steady flow of money to pay for improvements to public transportation for decades to come.

Trains would be less crowded. Stations would be spruced up. A new subway line would be built.

But under a new spending plan released Wednesday by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, so-called congestion pricing would cover a relatively small portion — 15 percent — of money needed for transit improvements. That would leave the authority still scrambling for money.

The authority said that it would need $29.5 billion from 2008 through 2013 for system improvements (like thousands of new buses and modernized subway signals) and expansion (like work on the Second Avenue subway).

It tentatively identified $20 billion in potential sources of funds, including $4.5 billion that could be raised by borrowing against congestion pricing revenue. But officials were unable to say where the remaining $9.5 billion would come from at a time of city and state budget tightening. They planned to ask the governor’s office and the State Legislature to come up with a financing formula to make up the shortfall.

Elliot G. Sander, the authority’s chief executive, said that unless its plan is financed in full, the transit system risked sliding back into the disrepair of the 1970s and 1980s.

. . .

Under the plan, the $4.5 billion in borrowing that would be made possible by congestion pricing accounts for just 15 percent of the authority’s infrastructure needs through 2013.

. . .

Mr. Bloomberg, who first proposed congestion pricing in April, said in a statement that it provided “one of the only reliable sources of funding” for the authority’s capital program “and without it, the projects in this plan will not happen.”

But the spending plan also exposed lines of tension between the authority and City Hall over how congestion revenues would be used.

Aides to Mr. Bloomberg said revenue from the system should allow for a total of $6 billion in borrowing — $1.5 billion more than the authority proposed.

The authority said it came up with a lower number because some congestion revenue should be set aside to cover operating costs, which would rise as it adds service to accommodate people who switch from cars to public transit once the system goes into effect.

The mayor has said that all congestion revenue should go to support capital spending.

The majority of money under the plan would go for the upkeep and modernization of the current system. It calls for the purchase of 590 subway cars, 2,976 buses and 440 commuter rail cars. It includes rehabilitation plans for 44 subway stations and the modernization of signals in parts of the subway system.

*As per PlaNYC 2030 Transportation Report (.pdf)

March Of Progress Slows Down Or Stops Like Rush-Hour Traffic At The Holland Tunnel

Now that he’s a lame duck, other initiatives seem to be stalling:

A growing number of Assembly members say it’s extremely unlikely their house will support a revised congestion plan backed by Mayor Bloomberg, with at least two dozen now backing a different alternative that doesn’t charge to drive into parts of Manhattan.

“It’s not going to happen,” said Assemblyman Mark Weprin (D-Queens) of the Bloomberg-backed congestion pricing plan.

Assemblyman Joseph Lentol (D-Brooklyn) added, “I never say never, but I think it’s pretty unlikely given the feeling of the [Democratic] conference.”

For The Assignment Desk . . .

The question remains how you get trains off an island:

They were a vision in disco-era orange and yellow when they debuted in the 1970s, subway cars to put a smile on the face of the most jaded New York straphanger.

A bunch were delivered in 1973 to Staten Island, where they became the workhorses of the railway.

They’re still reliable and mechanically sound. But all this time later, the cars are as dowdy as leisure suits and as passe as The Hustle.

To buy more time before new cars are purchased some five to eight years from now, the 64-car Staten Island Railway fleet is scheduled for an upgrade.

An $11 million mini-overhaul is planned to spruce up the floors and seats, repair leaky ceiling panels to prevent soaked bottoms, and beef up the climate-control system.

Later this year, the cars will taken two at a time to New York City Transit’s Coney Island maintenance shop in Brooklyn. Each pair will stay in the shop for about a week, and the entire fleet should be rehabbed over 12 months.

But Is It A Highly Sensitive Strategic Asset Or Could It Be Just An Office Building?

At some point it may make more sense just take your chances:

Law enforcement officials have major concerns about security weaknesses in the planned World Trade Center complex, a Daily News investigation has found.

The potential problems expressed to the Port Authority and others involved in the most high-profile development project in New York City history include:

* A row of three mostly glass towers positioned too closely to city streets, increasing their vulnerability to attack.

* Difficulties in inspecting some 2,000 delivery trucks and sightseeing buses that will enter or leave the site daily.

* A vehicle security center that hasn’t been fully designed and relies on vehicle inspection technology that hasn’t even been developed yet.

. . .

Towers 2, 3 and 4 — which will rise between Greenwich and Church Sts. to 79, 71 and 64 stories, respectively — contain too much glass, sources familiar with the issues said.

They also are not set back far enough from the two streets — where uninspected trucks will whiz by — to meet the most rigorous security standards, the sources said.

. . .

Another concern: The buildings do not meet Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security blast standards. That means they can withstand certain types of explosions – but not more powerful blasts.

The DOD blast standards — rarely applied to U.S. skyscrapers — are typically used in U.S. embassies and missions abroad, sensitive government facilities and military bases.