1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
YORKSHIRE TOWERS COMPANY L.P., and
YORKSHIRE TOWERS TENANTS ASSOCIATION, Case No. 12-CV-
Plaintiffs,
-against-
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, RAY LAHOOD, in COMPLAINT
his capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of Transportation, FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, PETER M.
ROGOFF, in his capacity as Administrator of the
Federal Transit Administration,
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, FERNANDO J. FERRER, in
his capacity as Acting Chairman of the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, NEW YORK CITY
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, THOMAS F. PRENDERGAST,
JR., in his capacity as the President of the New York
City Transit Authority and METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CAPITAL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MICHAEL
HORODNICEANU, in his capacity as President of
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Capital
Construction Company.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Case No. 13- CV- 175 7 (JMF)
ECF Case
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Yorkshire Towers Company, L.P. and Yorkshire Towers Tenants Association,
by and through their attorneys, Ceccarelli Weprin PLLC and Anderson, Kill & Olick, P.C.
respectfully allege:
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
1. This case challenges Defendants’ failure to go forward with a limited scope
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“Limited Scope SEIS”) to evaluate the 86
th
2
Street Community’s one-entrance, three escalator, corner design solution at the northeast corner,
commercial corner intersection of Second Avenue and 86
th
Street for the north entrance to the
86
th
Street Station [less than 1% order of magnitude of total costs for the first of four phases of
the Second Avenue Subway (“SAS”)] (the “One-Entrance, Corner Solution”) without
suspending the rest of SAS project activities not directly affected.
2. As United States Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney and the entire Coalition of
Upper East Side Elected Officials have pointed out, this design solution is a decided “win-win”
for the 86
th
Street Community and Defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New
York City Transit Authority (“MTA NYCT”) in at minimum sixteen new and significant
respects, including safety, minimizing community disruption on a scale of five to one, and
avoiding violations of important City of New York laws, policies and standards regarding safety
and design. The case for Defendants to implement the One-Entrance, Corner Solution without
further delay becomes especially compelling, when the beneficial effects realized and adverse
impacts eliminated or substantially reduced in each of these sixteen categories, and the limited
variations in entrance siting and design that make the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance,
Corner Solution possible, are studied and evaluated, and compared in their entirety to the MTA’s
planned two-entrance, midblock scheme east of Second Avenue in the north sidewalk of
predominantly residential 86
th
Street (“Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme”).
3. Despite the environmental stakes, Defendants are proceeding with the building of the
Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme without preparing a Limited Scope SEIS while continuing
protracted delay in furnishing documented environmental analysis that would begin to
demonstrate why the Defendants should not be going forward with implementing the One-
Entrance, Corner Solution presented by the 86
th
Street Community’s multidisciplinary
3
architectural and engineering design team. In doing so, Defendants have violated the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4231, et seq.(“NEPA”); the Council of Environmental
Quality implementing NEPA regulations under 40 C.F.R. 1500.1 et seq; and United States
Department of Transportation implementing NEPA regulation, subparagraph (f)(3) of 23 C.F.R.
§ 771.130, as codified under 23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(2) governing the issuance of Limited Scope
SEISs for public transportation capital projects, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
§ 706.
4. Moreover, Defendants are poised to disregard MTA NYCT’s own standards, set forth
in the study especially commissioned for SAS entrances and the agencies’ related design policies
and guidelines never considered or evaluated in an environmental impact statement or otherwise
publicly disclosed, by beginning highly disruptive top down, cut and cover excavation of
300,000 cubic feet of soil and bedrock that relies on inherently dangerous blasting, and building
a shoring wall for the entire 270 feet length of the Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme east of
Second Avenue. This leads to all of the associated adverse impacts this type of midblock
entrance design and construction entails, and risks transforming Defendants’ midblock entrance
location in the north sidewalk of 86
th
Street into one of the most dangerous places in the New
York City for community residents, pedestrians and vehicular traffic alike.
5. The 86
th
Street Community therefore turns to the Court for relief.
THE PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Yorkshire Towers Company, L.P. is a domestic limited partnership and the
fee owner of the 698-unit apartment building known as Yorkshire Towers (“Owner”). Yorkshire
Towers is the single largest residential building impacted by the SAS. It consists of two 21- story
residential towers spanning an entire block on 2
nd
Avenue between 86
th
and 87
th
Streets and is
4
home to over 2,000 residents, many of whom are elderly or young families with children. The
main entrance is located on the north side of East 86
th
Street between 1
st
and 2
nd
Avenues at 305-
315 East 86
th
Street.
7. Plaintiff Yorkshire Towers Tenants Association (“YOTTA or “Tenants Association”)
is a voluntary unincorporated association duly organized and existing under the laws of the State
of New York.
8. YOTTA has its principal offices in Yorkshire Towers at 305 East 86
th
Street, New
York, New York, where its President, Doron Gopstein, resides.
9. Defendant United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is an Executive
Branch Department of the United States Government, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 102. DOT has its
principal offices at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590. DOT is ultimately
responsible for the actions of the FTA.
10. The Honorable Ray LaHood is the Secretary of the DOT.
11. Defendant FTA is an administrative agency of the DOT, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 107.
The FTA has its principal offices at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590.
12. The Honorable Peter M. Rogoff is the Administrator of the FTA.
13. Defendant MTA is a public benefit corporation operating pursuant to Article 5, Title
11 of New York State Public Authorities Law. The MTA has its principal offices at 347
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
14. The FTA and MTA are acting as joint lead agencies responsible for the preparation of
environmental impact statements for the SAS Project under the NEPA and its implementing
regulations pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.5, 1506 and 1508.16 (collectively, at times the
“Agencies”).
5
15. The Honorable Fernando J. Ferrer is Acting Chairman of the MTA.
16. Defendant New York City Transit Authority (the “NYCT”) is an affiliated agency of
the MTA, and a public benefit corporation operating pursuant to Article 5, Title 9 of New York
State Public Authorities Law. The NYCT has its principal offices located at 2 Broadway, New
York, New York 10004. The NYCT collaborated with the MTA in the preparation of a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and a Supplemental Environmental Assessment
(“SEA”) for the SAS.
17. The Honorable Thomas F. Prendergast is the President of the NYCT.
18. Defendant MTA Capital Construction Company (the “MTACC”) is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the MTA. The MTACC has its principal offices located at 2 Broadway, 8
th
Floor,
New York, New York 10004. The MTACC is responsible for the construction and management
of the SAS.
19. Michael Horodniceanu is the President of the MTACC.
20. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action.
21. Plaintiffs have the requisite personal stake in the outcome of the action upon which to
invoke federal court jurisdiction and to trigger the exercise of the Court’s remedial powers.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
it arises under the laws of the United States, including NEPA and the Act’s implementing
regulations and APA.
23. The Court also has also has original jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C.§
1361, because Plaintiffs seek relief in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee
of the United States or United States agency to perform a duty owed to Plaintiffs.
6
24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they each transact
business within the State of New York.
25. Venue in the Southern District of New York is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e),
because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred
there, and the property that is the subject of this action is situated there. Venue is also proper in
the Southern District of New York, since each Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the
Southern District at the time this action is being commenced. 28 U.S.C. §1391.
RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY INVOLVED
REGARDING ISSUANCE OF LIMITED SCOPE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS
A. Administrative Procedure Act
26. The Court’s review of this action is governed by the APA under 5 U.S.C. § 706. The
APA is the governing authority for the Court to “(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld
or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and
conclusions found to be– (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law;… (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short
of statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law; or (E) unsupported by
substantial evidence…..”
B. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
27. NEPA is the “basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. §
1500.1. Among the purposes of the statute are to “insure that environmental information is
available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken,”
and to “help public officials make decisions that are based on [an] understanding of
environmental consequences….” Id. at § 1500.1(b)-(c).
7
28. To achieve these purposes, NEPA requires all agencies of the federal government to
prepare and make public a “detailed statement” regarding all “major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); see also 40 C.F.R. §
1508.18. This statement–known as an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”)–must describe,
among other things: (1) the “environmental impact of the proposed action,” (2) “any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented”, and (3)
alternatives to the proposed action.” Id. at § 4332; see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16.
29. NEPA requires federal agencies to “develop” and “rigorously explore and objectively
evaluate all reasonable alternatives,” including those that are “not within the jurisdiction of…the
agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2) (E); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (a)-(c).
30. In addition, the agency “shall state how alternatives…will or will not achieve the
requirements of sections 101 and 102(1) of the Act….” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(d). This requires
agencies to “use all practicable means and measures” to “assure for all Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(2).
C. The Council on Environmental Quality Implementing NEPA Regulations
31. The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) promulgated regulations
implementing NEPA under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 4371(c)(2). See 40 C.F.R. pts. 1500-
1508.
32. The CEQ regulatory framework details an extensive environmental review process, in
which agencies are compelled to consider the environmental impacts of their actions and
formally release their findings in various NEPA documents, including environmental impact
statements. See 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1.
8
33. As such, the environmental impact statement is not merely a means of public
disclosure: its “primary purpose…is to serve as an action-forcing device….” 40 C.F.R. §
1502.1.
34. Pursuant to the CEQ regulations, an EIS must consider “environmental effects of
alternatives,” and “means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(d);
see 40 C.F.R. §1508.25(c). The section of an EIS analyzing alternatives is the “heart” of the
environmental impact statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.
35. According to “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations,”
46 18026-01 (March 1981) (“CEQ FAQ”), “[r]easonable alternatives includes those that are
practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint…rather than simply desirable
from the standpoint” of the agency. CEQ FAQ at Q2a.
36. An EIS must further include a “full and fair discussion” of the significance of all
“direct,” “indirect,” and “cumulative” effects of the action and inform decision makers and the
public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance
the quality of the human environment. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.1, 1502.16(a)-(b), 1508.25(c).
37. “Significance” as defined under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27, is determined by evaluating the
“context” and “intensity” of an agency’s proposed action.
38. Context involves considerations of whether an action’s effects are short- or long-
term, or “site-specific” or wide ranging.
39. Intensity requires evaluation of many factors, including A) whether the impacts are
“beneficial and adverse”; B) the degree to which “public health” and “safety” are affected; C) the
degree to which “the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly
controversial”; D) whether the proposed “action is related to other actions with individually
9
insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts”: and E) whether the action “threatens
violation of Federal, State, or local law….” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (a)(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(5), (7), (10).
40. Under 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d), an EIS must also discuss any inconsistency of the
proposed action with local law, and, where such inconsistency exists, an EIS must discuss the
extent to which the agency would reconcile its proposed action with the law.
41. The agency’s evaluation of these factors must be “concise, clear, and to the point,”
and be supported by evidence that the “necessary environmental analyses” have been made. See
40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. An agency shall also “insure the…professional integrity, including scientific
integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statement,” “identify any
methodologies used and…make explicit reference…to the scientific and other sources relied
upon” for its conclusions. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24.
42. The CEQ regulations emphasize the importance of agency cooperation early in the
NEPA process and the procedure for each agency’s proactive and productive participation in
environmental review. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.6.
43. If, after preparing an EIS, “[t]here are significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts,” the
agency must prepare an SEIS before proceeding with the project. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii).
44. As with an EIS, the purpose of an SEIS is “to serve as an action-forcing device to
insure that the policies and goals defined in [NEPA] are infused into the ongoing programs and
actions” of the government. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
45. Where a SEIS is required, the agency “shall prepare a concise public record of
decision” which “shall: (a) [s]tate what the decision was [;] (b) [i]dentify all alternatives
considered by the agency, specifying the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be
10
environmentally preferable…. [and] (c) [s]tate whether all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why
they were not.” See 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2.
46. The DOT may first elect to complete a supplemental environmental assessment
(“SEA”) as an action-forcing device to determine whether an environmental impact statement for
a public transportation capital project must be supplemented because “new information or
circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts would result in significant environmental impacts never evaluated before in the EIS.”
[40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b),(c) and 23 C.F.R §771.130 entitled “Supplemental environmental impact
statements”] If the new information or circumstances is “significant” as defined under 40 C.F.R.
§ 1508.27, then a SEIS is mandated in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii),(2).
47. CEQ advises that an EA (SEA) is a “concise public document,” which should be kept
to “not more than approximately 10-15 pages.” CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning
CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, 46 FR 18026-01 (March 1981) (“CEQ FAQs”), at Q36a. “. “In most
cases . . . a lengthy EA indicates that an EIS [or SEIS] is needed.” Id. at Q36b.
D. United States Department of Transportation’s Implementing NEPA
Regulations Governing the Issuance of Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statements
48. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (“SAFETEA-LU”) (enacted August 10, 2005), 23 U.S.C. § 139 includes provisions
governing the running of a six- month limitations period governing when the DOT is required to
prepare a SEIS for public transportation capital projects under Subparagraph 2(l).
49. Subparagraph 2(l) of 23 U.S.C. § 139 entitled, “New Information” provides that the
Secretary of the DOT is required to prepare a SEIS after the close of the public comment periods
11
involving prior environmental review such as the FEIS or SEA prepared for the SAS, if that
information satisfies the requirements for preparation of a SEIS under DOT SEIS regulations set
forth under 23 C.F.R. § 771.130.
50. The DOT SEIS regulations under 23 C.F.R. § 771.130 are implementing NEPA
regulations in accordance with the joint “Federal Highway Administration/Department of
Transportation’s Environmental Impact and Related Procedures.” See 23 C.F.R. §§ 771.101, et
seq.
51. Under these regulations, the draft [S]EIS must identify and consider “all reasonable
alternatives” and describe the “mitigation measures” that will be used in the proposed action.
See 23 C.F.R. § 771.123. (emphasis supplied)
52. Incorporated by reference into, and codified as federal law under 23 U.S.C. §
139(l)(2), are DOT SEIS regulations under 23 C.F.R. § 771.130 which provide in pertinent part
that [a]n EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that:
(1) [c]hanges to the proposed action would result in significant
environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS;
or

(2) [n]ew information or circumstances relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action
or its impacts would result in significant environmental
impacts not evaluated in the EIS.” 23 C.F.R. §
771.130(a) (emphasis furnished).
53. The DOT regulation regarding when a SEIS is required to be prepared by the agency
directly adopts the CEQ SEIS regulation in its entirety
1
and goes further by adding the clause,
“not evaluated in the EIS” to emphasize that mere internal review or the lesser, preliminary

1
If, after preparing an EIS, “[t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts,” the agency must prepare an SEIS before proceeding
with the project. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii).

12
review of a [S]EA by the agency without public review and comment, and the action-forcing
device of an [S]EIS does not suffice under CEQ regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
54. The DOT SEIS regulations specifically provide for the preparation of a “limited
scope” SEIS to avoid needlessly delaying an entire project when only a small portion of it
requires further review. 23 C.F.R. § 771.130(f). Subparagraph f(3) of 23 C.F.R. § 771.130,
expressly contemplates that a SEIS of limited scope may be required: “to address issues of
limited scope, such as “the extent of proposed mitigation or the evaluation of location or
design variations for a limited portion of the overall project.” (emphasis supplied)
55. The preparation of a Limited Scope SEIS “shall not necessarily…require the
suspension of project activities; for any activity not directly affected by the supplement…. or
limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, until the [SEIS] is completed.” 23 C.F.R. §
771.130(f)(3). (emphasis furnished).
56. Under 23 U.S.C. § 139(l), there are two distinct limitations periods for claims seeking
judicial review of actions taken by a federal agency for public transportation capital projects like
the SAS.
57. The limitations period for a Limited Scope SEIS under DOT SEIS regulation, 23
C.F.R. § 771.130(f) does being to run pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(2) until “180 days after the
date of publication of a notice in the Federal Register” since “the preparation of a supplemental
environmental impact statement when required…is a considered a separate final agency action”
from the six month limitations period that applies under 23 U.S.C § 139(l)(1) to non-SEIS
environmental review, such as the FEIS and the less rigorous, preliminary review of the SEA
prepared for the SAS.
2


2
See fn 4 below.
13
FACTS
A. Introduction
58. The former lead architect for SAS entrances and ancillary facilities, Edward L. Cohen
is the architect for the multi-disciplinary design and engineering team for the Yorkshire Towers
Owner and Tenants Association, and the greater 86
th
Street Community through their elected
representatives, consisting of the entire Coalition of Upper East Elected Officials, led by United
States Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney and including State Senator Liz Krueger, State
Assemblyman Micah Kellner and City Councilwoman Jessica Lappin (collectively, the “86
th

Street Community”).
59. As a lead architect for SAS, Mr. Cohen was responsible for the planning and design
of 48 entrances and 32 ancillary buildings, the new 8.5 mile subway line on the east side of
Manhattan, an over $16 billion project on behalf of one of the largest international architectural
and engineering firms, the joint venture of DMJM Harris Arup from 2001-2002 (“DHA”).
3
An
important part of this planning and design work by Mr. Cohen was the preparation of a
comprehensive report, entitled SAS Station Entrances Study, dated February 2003 (the “SAS
Entrances Study”). He also actively participated in, and contributed to the drafting of the MTA
NYCT’s Planning and Design Guidelines for New Underground Stations, dated June 2004 (the
“New Design Guidelines”).

3
AECOM, a Fortune 500 company acquired DMJM Harris in January 2010. The company has 45,000 employees
worldwide ,and realized $8.3 billion in annual revenue through June 30, 2012 (http://www.aecom.com/
News/Fact+Sheet). “AECOM is the prime consultant for the engineering and design efforts for the new Second
Avenue Subway (SAS) project in Manhattan.” (http://www.aecom.com/What+We+Do/Transp
ortation/_projectsList/Second+Avenue+Subway). See also issue 3 of AECOM’S e-magazine showing timeline on
progress of SAS through 2012 (http://one.aecom.com/issue03/#!/second-avenue-subway). As the prime consultant
for the SAS AECOM continues to make design and engineering changes for the SAS with a team of at least 30
architects and engineers with offices for the completing this work located at 20 Exchange Place in close proximity to
MTACC headquarters in downtown Manhattan at 2 Broadway.

14
60. The New Design Guidelines for the building of new subway stations in the 21
st

Century such as the SAS are to be distinguished from the MTA New York City Transit Station
Planning and Design Guidelines for existing stations (the “Existing Guidelines”) for the rest of
the subway system built more than 75 years ago and largely dating back to the early part of the
20
th
Century. The New Design Guidelines take into account the many, new design, engineering,
urban and transportation planning best practices that have evolved and are involved in the siting
and construction of new subway tunnels, stations and entrances. The Existing Guidelines in
contrast generally involve rehabilitating the original stations within narrower confines of surface
and subsurface limitations dating back to when they were first built.
61. The Station Project Review Committee of MTA New York City Transit (“MTA
NYCT”), including the chief architect and structural engineer for NYCT (the “Station
Committee”), unanimously approved The New Design Guidelines for use in connection with the
SAS and other new construction for underground stations. Moreover, the then President of MTA
NYCT, Lawrence G. Reuter points out in the foreword to the Guidelines that it incorporates clear
design elements and principles; and that the document is evolving and will continue to be an
“essential” and “useful” design reference manual.
62. The New Design Guidelines have applicability and are being used not only for the
SAS but apply as well to any new underground subway that is being built such as the no. 7 line
extension to the Javits Convention Center at 34
th
Street.
63. Mr. Cohen’s experience before selection as the lead architect for SAS entrances and
ancillary facilities, includes further significant public service as the New York City Chief of
Urban Design for the Manhattan Office of the New York City Planning Department and Deputy
Director of Transportation Design Office for a period of seven years.
15
64. The 86
th
Street Community’s multidisciplinary design and engineering team led by
Mr. Cohen developed and presented, beginning January 5, 2012, new detailed and
comprehensive, design and engineering drawings, reports and related submittals (collectively at
times the “Design Submittals”), for review by the FTA and MTA as joint lead agencies
responsible for NEPA compliance (collectively, at times the “Agencies”), the 86
th
Street
Community’s, One-Entrance, Corner Solution with three escalators at the northeast, commercial
intersection of Second Avenue and 86
th
Street (the “Northeast Corner”) for the north entrance to
the 86
th
Street Station (at times the “North Entrance”). This design solution is a decided “win-
win” for the 86
th
Street Community and the MTA in at least sixteen new and significant respects
when beneficial effects realized and adverse impacts eliminated or substantially reduced are
studied and evaluated in their entirety, and compared to the MTA’s planned Two-Entrance
Midblock Scheme. The agency’s planned two entrances have two escalators one sited on the
Northeast corner and one at the midblock in the north sidewalk of predominantly residential 86
th

Street, east of the Northeast Corner.
65. The other members of Mr. Cohen’s design team are civil engineer, Peter S.
Schneidkraut, P.E; transportation planning engineer, Jerome M. Lutin, Ph.D., P.E, AICP; and
geotechnical and underground engineer, Ingo H. R. Fox, PE, MSc, DIC (collectively, the
“Design Team”).
66. Although the 86
th
Street Community’s, One-Entrance, Corner Solution for the north
entrance of the SAS 86
th
Street station
4
is of limited scope (less than 1% order of magnitude of

4
Prior environmental impact statement and supplemental assessment review for the SAS Project relating to the
north entrance for the 86
th
Street Station consists of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) published
in May 2004; and the Supplemental Environmental Assessment regarding the siting of midblock 72
nd
Street and 86
th

Station Entrances published in June 2009 (“SEA”) followed by the FTA’s Findings of No Significant Impact
(“FONSI”), dated October 29, 2009 regarding the SEA.
16
total costs for phase one of the project) and is further limited to the first of the four phases of the
SAS
5
, it nevertheless presents, for this limited scope, new and significant information and
circumstances regarding beneficial effects achieved and adverse impacts eliminated or
substantially mitigated, along with the limited entrance siting and design variations that make
them possible as set forth in Section G below. These beneficial effects and adverse impacts
eliminated or substantially mitigated have never been studied, evaluated and compared to the
MTA’s Two-Entrance Midblock Scheme in an EIS of any kind for the SAS, whether a limited
scope SEIS as advanced here or otherwise.
B. The MTA NYCT’s Essential Criteria for “Preferred” One-Entrance, Corner
Solutions over Multiple Entrances Sited Midblock Set Forth in the New
Design Guidelines and SAS Entrances Study, and Violation of Mayor’s
Executive Order No. 22 as Adopted by MTA NYCT

67. Section 10.3.2 entitled Entrance Placement of the Entrances Chapter to the New
Design Guidelines provides in pertinent part:
“Specific placement recommendations are as follows:
Corner entrances are preferred over mid-block entrances, as they are
highly identifiable in the urban context and encourage crossing at traffic-
regulated street corners. Station entrances should be located off sidewalks
and in existing buildings whenever possible, in order not to obstruct
pedestrian traffic and to minimize conflicting movements. Where
entrances must be located on sidewalks, they should not cause sidewalk

They respectively appear at: http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/feis.htm; http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/ea.htm.
http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/ea/FONSI%2010-29-09.pdf (March 15, 2013)
The SEA is 339 pages long, including 3 appendices totaling 95 pages. There is a de facto presumption that the SEA
is inadequate given its size, which is 22 times greater than standard set by the CEQ. The agency responsible for
preparing implementing rules for NEPA compliance for all federal agencies advises that an EA (SEA) is a “concise
public document,” which should be kept to “not more than approximately 10-15 pages.” CEQ, Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, 46 FR 18026-01 (March 1981) (“CEQ FAQs”), at Q36a. “. “In
most cases . . . a lengthy EA indicates that an EIS [or SEIS] is needed.” Id. at Q36b (emphasis furnished).

5
Phase Two is the expansion of the SAS into Harlem from 125
th
to 105
th
Streets and includes stations at 125
th
, 116
th
,
and 106
th
Streets (FEIS 3-48). Phase Three extends from 62
nd
to Houston Streets, and includes stations at 55
th
, 42
nd
,
34th, 23
rd
, 14
th
and Houston Streets (FEIS 3-49). Phase Four extends from Houston Street to Hanover Square, and
includes stations at Grand Street, Chatham Square, Seaport and Hanover Square (FEIS 3-50).
17
congestion, and should provide the minimum clear sidewalk passage
required by NYCDOT.” (emphasis furnished)

68. The Executive Summary of the SAS Entrances Study provides in pertinent part:
‘The study investigated options and alternatives at over 100 potential sites
for station entrances. The original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
process assessment was to place entrances at all four corners of a major
intersection and two at a minor intersection. It became apparent that there
was a need to reduce the number of entrances to improve station
identification; simplify passenger circulation; create efficiencies in VCE’s;
and reduce site acquisition, construction, maintenance, and operating
costs. For these reasons, the planning approach changed direction to
focus on “Step One”, one entrance at each recommended intersection;
and “Step Two”, two entrances at each intersection should demand
justifies.’ (emphasis furnished)

69. The SAS Entrances Study further provides:
“Consolidated street entrances (as opposed to multiple) entrances are
preferred to achieve greater efficiency and redundancy of VCE, reduce
operating, maintenance, security, property acquisition, and capital costs
while creating the opportunity for larger, more significant identifiable
entrances in the urban fabric. It is preferred that one entrance serve any
given EIS process intersection, but in no case more than two, depending
on patronage, to be located out of the public right-of-way in buildings,
plazas, and open spaces where they can serve the greatest number of
patrons.” (emphasis furnished)

70. The New Design Guidelines and the SAS Entrances Study represent the considerable
expertise of the MTA’s outside experts, DHA, one of the largest and most respected international
design and engineering firms. Further, the New Design Guidelines which followed the SAS
Entrances Study represent the highest level of MTA agency expertise, including the chief
architect, engineer, and the then President of MTA NYCT, Lawrence G. Reuter, who
independently studied and adopted the state of the art new subway design criteria is “essential”
and “useful” in evaluating the proper siting of new subway entrances in the 21
st
Century
(emphasis furnished). The “manual contains clear design principles,” that the agency continues
to rely upon and use for new subway construction in the 21
st
Century like the no. 7 line extension
18
to the Javits Convention Center.
71. Remarkably, the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Plan for the North Entrance to the
86
th
Street Station deviates from the standards set forth in the SAS Entrances Study and the New
Design Guidelines providing for building of one entrance at a corner instead of multiple
entrances at midblock locations.
72. In addition to the criteria set forth in the MTA NYCT’s New Design Guidelines and
SAS Entrances Study, of particular relevance regarding protecting the safety of the 86
th
Street
Community is the City of New York Mayor Executive Order no. 22, dated April 13, 1995 (the
“Executive Order”). The Executive Order establishes minimum sidewalk clearance areas
required to create unobstructed sight distances to protect pedestrians from vehicles turning at
intersections.
73. As more fully set forth in Section G(i) below, the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock
Scheme violates the Executive Order and the agency’s Existing Guidelines, which adopts the
local law, in a number of respects. The visual obstructions created by siting a midblock entrance
planned by the MTA on the north sidewalk of 86
th
Street east of Second Avenue, are well within
the proscribed minimum sidewalk clearance areas and sight distances required for the safety of
pedestrians, because of their proximity to the entry and exit roadways of an active 24/7 circular
driveway and the garage exit ramp in front of Yorkshire Towers.
74. In sum, the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution also meets and
exceeds environmental review standards by realizing substantial benefits and eliminating or
mitigating substantial adverse impacts in at minimum sixteen new and significant respects in
accordance with the design and safety standards contemplated by the New Design Guidelines,
19
the SAS Entrances Study, the Executive Order and the Existing Guidelines
6
adopting the
Executive Order, when these standards and the requirements of the Executive Order, are studied,
evaluated and compared to the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme.
C. Description of Relevant Physical Dimensions and Context for Siting of the
MTA’s Two-Entrance Midblock Scheme for North Entrance to the SAS 86
th

Street Station in the Middle of Sidewalk in Front of Main Entrance to
Yorkshire Towers and in Close Proximity to Active, 24/7 Circular Driveway
and Garage Exit Ramp for the Building
7


75. Yorkshire Towers is the single largest residential building impacted by the SAS. It
consists of two 21- story residential towers spanning an entire block on 2
nd
Avenue between 86
th

and 87
th
Streets and is home to over 2,000 residents, many of whom are elderly or young families
with children. The lot dimensions for Yorkshire Towers are 201.42 feet which is the length of
Second Avenue frontage by 320.17 feet extending east from Second Avenue where the main
entrance is located to the adjoining building at 331 East 86
th
Street.
76. The main entrance to Yorkshire Towers is between Second and First Avenues bearing
the address 305-315 East 86
th
Street on north side of East 86
th
Street whose midpoint is about
160 feet from the Second Avenue building line (the “SA Building Line”) in a recessed area
behind a planter area and the entry roadway for the building’s active 24/7 circular driveway for
vehicles headed west on the north side of 86
th
Street. The straight line distance from the main
entrance to 86
th
Street through the planter area is more than 94 feet. The width for the circular
driveway at the 86
th
Street building line where vehicles cross the sidewalk and enter from 86
th

Street is 14’ 8” and is slightly larger where they exit, 14’ 10” and cross the sidewalk unto 86
th


6
The New Design Guidelines and Existing Guidelines were produced only after the 86
th
Street Community was
forced to commence a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Yorkshire Towers Company, L.P. and Yorkshire
Towers Tenants Association v. The Federal Transit Administration, S.D.N.Y. Case No. 10 Civ. 8973 (Griesa, J.).
7
With regard to this narrative description, the Design Team presented extensive design and engineering drawings,
reports and related submittals in support of the 86
th
Street Community’s one-entrance, northeast corner solution at
technical meetings eventually held with the MTA and FTA.
20
Street. The width of the entry roadway for the circular drive ends approximately 223 feet east of
SA Building Line.
77. Approximately 67 feet to the east of the entry to the circular driveway is the exit ramp
to the Yorkshire Towers garage, which is approximately 10 feet wide. The ramp is sandwiched
between the easterly end of Yorkshire Towers and the adjoining building at 321 East 86
th
Street.
It is set back approximately 5 feet from the Yorkshire Towers’ 86
th
Street building line. The 5
foot tall, eastern most planters for Yorkshire Towers approximately 5 feet in width behind the
86
th
Street building line, and spanning over 70 feet in length, extend, from the setback for the
exit ramp, as does the shared wall of the adjacent building. The garage exit ramp is thus hidden
by the surrounding buildings and is impossible to see when a pedestrian is approaching from a
distance on either side.
78. The MTA’s easternmost midblock entrance or kiosk flanks to the east of the circular
driveway. It begins 229 feet east of the SA Building Line. Only 6 feet to the west of this
midblock subway entrance kiosk is the entry roadway to the Yorkshire Towers circular
driveway. Approximately 20 feet to the east of the same kiosk oriented towards First Avenue is
the active 24/7 garage exit ramp with hidden views. The 41 feet length of this kiosk, where the
entry point for this entrance begins, is oriented toward First Avenue to the east. This is the same
270 foot point where the planned sidewalk bump-out abruptly comes to an end as well. This
restricts the amount of sidewalk space that would otherwise have been available between the
entry points for this new subway entrance and the hidden garage ramp had the bump-out been
extended beyond 270 feet to at least the 301 feet width frontage of Yorkshire Towers on East
86
th
Street. The frontage for the building encompasses the 10 foot-wide garage exit ramp at the
easternmost end of the apartment building.
21
79. Under the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme, there is a six-foot sidewalk
bump-out proposed for, among other significant matters, green space replacement and alleviation
of sidewalk overcrowding. This is in sharp contrast to using 100% of the available 10-foot bump-
out width that would coincide with the replacement of the 10 foot parking lane on the north side
of 86
th
Street as provided for under the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution.
D. Delays by the MTA and FTA in Furnishing Documented Environmental
Analysis to 86
th
Street Community’s Design and Engineering Submittals,
Dating Back to January 5, 2012

80. On January 5, 2012, Doron Gopstein, as President of the Yorkshire Towers Tenants
Association, met at the invitation of the President of the MTACC, Michael Horodniceanu, at his
office at 2 Broadway for the purpose of presenting for environmental review illustrative concept
drawings that Mr.Cohen developed and prepared with the Design Team in support of the 86
th

Street Community’s, One-Entrance, Corner Solution with three escalators on the northeast corner
instead of the MTA’s Two Entrance, Midblock Scheme with two escalators each flanking
Yorkshire Towers’ driveway. These preliminary drawings are presented as follows.
81. The first drawing, dated December 8, 2011 is a context plan showing that the 86
th

Street Community’s new One-Entrance, Corner Solution is a primarily underground mined
approach compared to the MTA’s two-entrance scheme, which is a top down, surface cut and
cover construction technique. This is not in keeping with the agency’s policy to avoid the
disruption to the community caused by this adverse impact wherever possible: “[B]ecause of the
disruption that cut and cover can cause, it would only be used in areas where there is inadequate
cover to allow safe and stable underground mining,” FEIS, at 3-1. The geotechnical and
underground engineering colleague, Ingo H.R. Fox for the Design Team demonstrated at
subsequent technical meetings with the MTA and FTA that there is plainly adequate cover to
22
support the One-Entrance, Corner Solution. The second drawing prepared by Mr. Cohen and the
Design Team is a cross-section of the one-entrance design, dated December 13, 2011. This
drawing highlights the significant, design aspect in having one entrance instead of over-
designing and over-building multiple entrances at midblock locations at odds with the policy and
standards adopted by the MTA in New Design Guidelines and the SAS Entrances Study
“whenever possible.”
82. The third drawing, dated January 9, 2012 is an additional context plan showing at
minimum more than 13 feet of available sidewalk width between the One-Entrance, Corner
Solution and the 86
th
Street building line, sufficient to meet acceptable levels of pedestrian
volumes (crowding). The fourth drawing, also dated January 9, 2012, is a cut and cover
excavation area comparison which shows the extent of this adverse impact, which is the stated
goal of the MTA to avoid or mitigate, wherever possible, being reduced on a scale of
approximately 5 to 1 in favor of the 86
th
Street Community’s predominantly mined approach.
This approach can be accomplished because the one-entrance scheme allows sufficient space to
go down deeper into the rock than the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme. This two-
entrance midblock scheme cannot achieve sufficient rock cover without pushing the midblock
entrance further eastward and would be in conflict with Yorkshire Towers’ garage entrance exit
ramp.
83. A professional engineer by training, Mr. Horodniceanu immediately recognized the
importance of the design element that 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team was introducing by
asking whether Yorkshire Towers would enter into an agreement for a permanent surface
easement in favor of the MTA behind the building’s property line where planters are presently
located in order to proceed with the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution.
23
When the answer to that question was yes, a follow-up meeting to explain the up to 15 feet of
sidewalk width that could be realized, eliminating any arguable issue regarding excessive
sidewalk crowding for pedestrians under the one-entrance plan, was scheduled for February 6,
2012 at 4 p.m. with Mr. Horodiceanu, his senior construction executive, William Goodrich, Mr.
Cohen, and community representative, Mr. Gopstein (the “Second Meeting”).
E. Development of Outline of Key Points and Support of Entire Coalition of
Upper East Side Elected Officials for the 86
th
Street Community’s One-
Entrance, Northeast Corner Solution; Protracted and Continuing Delays by
the MTA and FTA in Furnishing Documented Environmental Analysis and
Going Forward with Technical Meetings

84. When Mr. Horodniceanu’s office called to say that he needs to reschedule the
meeting for February 6, 2012 with his senior construction executive, William Goodrich, Mr.
Gopstein, and Mr.Cohen, Mr. Cohen took the opportunity to prepare an outline of key points,
dated February 15, 2012 summarizing how the 86
th
Street Community’s, One-Entrance Corner
Solution meets and exceeds environmental review standards in a variety of new and significant
respects compared to the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme both in terms of benefits
realized and adverse impacts eliminated or substantially mitigated. (“Outline of Key Points”)
85. When there was continued delay by the MTACC in rescheduling the Second Meeting
with the 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team to review the merits of the 86
th
Street
Community’s proposal, Angelo Grima, Director of Operations for Yorkshire Towers and Mr.
Cohen reached out to United States Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney’s office to ask if they
could go forward with the presentation on the merits that they were ready to make to Mr.
Horodniceanu and his senior staff before the cancellation of the February 6
th
meeting. The
Congresswoman and her staff graciously accepted and took the time to hear their presentation
and review the design and transportation planning submittals that Mr. Gopstein had previously
24
delivered to Mr. Horodniceanu’s office on January 5 and 12, 2012 for environmental review
together with the Outline of Key Points.
86. Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and the other members of the Upper East Side Coalition of
Elected Officials and their staff representing the 86
th
Street Community questioned Mr. Cohen
and Mr. Grima at length about the one-entrance, northeast corner solution during several
meetings in February and March 2012. After the meetings, the Congresswoman leading the
Coalition regarding the SAS Project corresponded with Mr. Horodniceanu by letter, dated April
5, 2012, adopting and fully supporting the One-Entrance, Corner Solution, enclosing the Outline
of Key Points (the “April 5
th
Letter”).
87. As Representative Maloney points out in the April 5
th
Letter, “the northeast corner,
single entrance solution involves less community disruption both during and after construction;
less MTA construction; less operating, maintenance and security costs initially and over the 100-
year useful life of the facility; and more passenger convenience, reliability, safety and security.
The owners of Yorkshire Towers make the proffered design possible by stipulating that they
would give the MTA a permanent surface easement behind the building’s property line.” The
Congresswoman concludes her letter by urging Mr. Horodineanu and his technical staff “to meet
with Mr. Cohen and his technical team, community representatives and my office, to take a
“serious look at his solution” and that she is “persuaded that this would be a ‘win-win’ for the
community and the MTA.”
88. When Mr. Horodniceanu and the MTACC continued to delay in re-scheduling the
Second Meeting with the Design Team and representatives from the 86
th
Street community in
response to Congresswoman Maloney’s April 5
th
Letter, the entire Coalition of Upper East Side
Elected Officials (the “Coalition”) joining in with Representative Maloney corresponded with
25
the CEO of the MTACC’s parent public authority, the MTA, Joseph Lhota, by letter dated April
16, 2012, adopting the Outline of Key Points, and unanimously urging the MTA CEO to meet
with the Design Team and me, and community representatives “to take a serious look” at one-
entrance, northeast corner solution. The entire Coalition concludes that “We are persuaded that
this would be a “win-win” for the community and the MTA, and that the cost-savings from a less
intrusive design make this proposal financially worthwhile.”
F. Agency Straw Man Errors Following Conclusory Remarks and Prejudgment
of 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution

89. Despite the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution meeting and
exceeding environmental review standards in at minimum sixteen new and significant respects
when the beneficial effects realized and adverse impacts eliminated or substantially mitigated are
studied, evaluated, and compared to the MTA’s Two-Entrance Midblock Scheme as more fully
set forth in Section G below, the MTACC President Michael Horodniceanu and his staff
continued to delay meeting with the 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team for a follow up
technical meeting of transportation planning architects and engineers after the initial January 5,
2012 meeting with the President of the Yorkshire Towers Tenants Association, Doron Gopstein
and the follow up design and engineering submittals delivered by him to Mr. Horodniceanu’s
office at 2 Broadway on January 12, 2012.
90. It was only after the MTACC let four more months pass before there was any
response regarding the merits of the One-Entrance, Corner Solution. It came in the form a letter
from the MTACC President Michael Horodniceanu, dated April 18, 2011 (sic), in response to the
letter by United States Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, dated April 5, 2012, with the
following enclosure: Outline of Key Points by the MTA’s former lead architect for SAS
Entrances, Edward L. Cohen, dated February 15, 2012. The April 5
th
Letter by Representative
26
Maloney calls for the MTACC to proceed with a technical meeting with the Design Team and to
take a “serious look” at the 86
th
Street Community’s proposal without further delay, because the
Congresswoman is “convinced that it is ‘win-win’ for the 86
th
Street Community and the MTA.”
91. The April 18 Letter by the MTACC is striking for three reasons.
92. First, it is does not respond in substance with documented environmental analysis to
any part of the Outline of Key Points, which is an enclosure to Representative Maloney’s letter
of April 5
th
, and is at odds with what the design and engineering submittals that were delivered to
the MTACC on January 12, 2012 show. This, at minimum, required that a detailed presentation
by the Design Team at technical meetings go forward, as Mr. Gopstein specifically requested and
as Mr. Horodniceanu originally agreed to do on February 6, 2012.
93. Second, for virtually the entire April 18 Letter, the MTACC discusses a different
design solution at a different location, which is not the subject of the 86
th
Street Community’s
one-entrance, three escalator, northeast corner solution to the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock
Scheme: most of the letter (except for a few conclusory remarks in the first two paragraphs on
the last unnumbered page) refers to an entirely separate and independent five-elevator design
solution presented for the southeast corner of 86
th
Street and Second Avenue (the “Conclusory
Remarks”). This separate design solution was presented by the 86
th
Street Community as a viable
option mirroring the identical solution achieved by the 72
nd
Street Community after that
community was forced to commence a federal environmental lawsuit that resulted in the MTA
changing the location of the only other midblock entrance that the agency had planned to go
forward with for the entire four phases of the SAS project, to the southeast corner of 72
nd
Street.
8



8
325 East 72

Street Corp and 315 East 72 Street Owners Corp v. United States Department of Transportation et al.,
S.D.N.Y.Case No. 08 Civ. 1127 (Lynch, J.)
27
94. Third, the Conclusory Remarks that the MTACC is relying upon regarding the 86
th

Street Community’s “newest” One-Entrance, Corner Solution: (a) not improving safety; (b) not,
at minimum, equaling standards for accommodating projected ridership; (c) increasing
pedestrian congestion; (d) not having significant time and cost savings; and (e) causing delay
claims, do not begin to withstand independent design and transportation planning engineering
study and analysis presented by the 86
th
Street Community as set forth in Section G below.
95. Upon jumping to the Conclusory Remarks without first having heard any technical
meeting presentations by the 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team followed by furnishing
documented environmental analysis regarding new, detailed and comprehensive, design and
engineering drawings, reports and related submittals that we developed, including the delivery of
preliminary Design Submittals on January 5 and January 12, 2012 to Mr. Horodniceanu, the
MTACC ends the April 18 Letter by saying that “further consideration” of the 86
th
Street
Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution “is simply not an option for the MTA.”
96. After the MTACC made up its mind that there would be no “further consideration” of
the One-Entrance, Corner Solution, it then scheduled a technical meeting for
“further consideration” of the 86
th
Street Community’s design solution for June 14, 2012, but
only after further agency delay of eight weeks. This is the technical meeting that had been
originally scheduled by the President of the MTACC, Michael Horodniceanu, more than five
months earlier on February 6, 2012 (the “MTACC Technical Meeting”).
97. The MTACC Technical Meeting was remarkable in a number of respects.
98. First, instead of the 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team having a full and fair
opportunity to present the complete set of design and engineering submittals and related
materials we had developed for review by the MTACC executives and technical staff, they were
28
cut off after a few minutes into their presentation by a rhetorical question by Mr. Horodniceanu
showing that the MTACC was close-minded and was prejudging the merits of the One-Entrance,
Corner Solution before it was ever technically presented. “What is wrong with the MTA’s Two
Entrances?” he said. “We like our plan.” The issue the Design Team was attempting to explain
before having their presentation cut off is not what is “wrong” with the Two-Entrance, Midblock
Scheme in isolation, but does the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution realize
beneficial effects and eliminate or substantially mitigate adverse impacts in at least sixteen new
and significant respects when studied, evaluated and compared to the MTA’s Two-Entrance,
Midblock Scheme as set forth in Section G below.
99. Second, before the Design Team could present the details of why building the MTA’s
Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme in the middle of a sidewalk in close proximity to an active
24/7 circular driveway and garage exit ramp: (a) is a violation of local safety law in a number of
respects as adopted by the MTA in the agency’s design guidelines; (b) does not adhere to the
agency’s New Design Guidelines regarding minimizing conflicting movements between
pedestrians and vehicles and transportation planning engineering principles regarding sufficient
sight triangles; and (c) at minimum, poses a safety hazard for 86
th
Street Community Pedestrians
who are not MTA ridership, Mr. Horodniceanu interrupted the Design Team by asking another
rhetorical question, drawing a conclusion, and then being cavalierly dismissive with respect to
the important core value of safety: “What is not safe about the MTA’s two entrances? I went
down to the site myself and I looked around and I saw nothing unsafe.” He added, “What proof
do you have that it is unsafe? Do you have any studies? What you think is not good enough. I
need proof.”

29
100. The Design Team were ready to respond to each of the three points that MTACC
President Horodniceanu raised regarding safety summarized in the preceding paragraph before
being cut off. With regard to conducting new safety studies, there already had been considerable
study leading to issuance of the Executive Order mandating sufficient sidewalk clearance areas
and sight distances for vehicles turning where they must pass pedestrians. The MTA adopted the
Executive Order which was the subject of considerable independent study by representatives
from a cross-section of City agencies in its own guidelines. It therefore makes little sense for the
MTACC to insist that new and further study is required regarding the conflicting movements
between pedestrians and vehicles under the agency’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme; it is
enough that the MTA follow its own guidelines which require compliance with the baseline of
safety standards codified under the Executive Order.
101. Furthermore, even if the MTACC believed such new and additional safety study was
required, for the sake of discussion, it is unreasonable for the MTACC to shift that burden unto
the 86
th
Street Community with the limited resources that they have. It is the MTA that should be
moving forward with such new and additional study in the first instance, if at all, in light of the
considerable $4.5 billion in public funding the agency raised to build Phase One of the SAS.
102. Before the 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team could begin to respond to the
above comments and questions in any detail and finish their presentation, Mr. Horodniceanu said
that he had to leave. He then left the MTACC Technical Meeting in less than ten minutes and
turned the rest of the meeting over to his senior construction executive, William Goodrich.
103. Third, the Design Team then resumed and made the presentations of the following
extensive design and engineering drawings, reports and related submittals.

30
104. The Design Team’s civil engineer, Peter Schneidkraut prepared three separate
reports which were prepared for and circulated at the MTACC Technical Meeting. The first
report supports the common sense notion that the building of one entrance instead of two
entrances significantly accelerates construction by at least 11 months; it takes six months to build
one entrance and 17 months to build two entrances. The second report supports that,
conservatively, tens of millions of dollars in savings can be realized over the short and long term.
The third report shows how the MTA is insulated from the risk of substantial delay claims and
other increased project costs for exercising the agency’s explicit contractual rights to downscale
the Limited Portion of Phase One of the SAS Project involved here.
105. The Design Team’s transportation planning engineer, Dr. Lutin prepared two
separate reports which were circulated at the technical meeting with the MTACC. The first
report sets forth the results of his new and independent study and analysis showing that the 86
th

Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution significantly improves convenience for
MTA projected ridership compared to the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme.
106. The second report by Dr. Lutin, with supporting engineering calculations, shows
how the 86
th
Street Community’s design solution meets and exceeds standards for pedestrian
sidewalk congestion compared to the MTA’s two entrance midblock scheme. A third report by
Jerome M. Lutin was also prepared that supplements the first two reports. It further supports the
conclusions reached in the first two reports with supporting engineering calculations based on
new information regarding an expanded area of projected ridership by the MTA and that there is
more than enough sidewalk width under the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner
Solution to meet and exceed standards for pedestrian volumes (crowding).

31
107. The Design Team’s geotechnical and underground engineer, Ingo H.R. Fox,
prepared a report that was circulated at the MTACC Technical Meeting as well. His report
concludes that not only is the One-Entrance, Corner Solution plainly constructible based on the
use of rock bolts and other related techniques, but beyond mere technical feasibility, offers
decided advantages in at least seven new and significant respects when studied, evaluated and
compared to the MTA’s Two-Entrance Midblock Scheme.
108. Mr. Cohen prepared and developed the following design drawings and related
submittals in support of the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution which were
circulated at the MTACC Technical Meeting in collaboration with the rest of the 86
th
Street
Community’s Design Team:
(1) Axiom three-dimensional drawing showing the 5 times larger extent of
excavation involved under the MTA’s Two-Entrance Midblock Scheme;
(2) Three drawings consisting of: (a) the composite utility plan; (b) the street
mezzanine plan; and (c) the longitudinal section graphically illustrating
the massive extent of overbuilding and overdesigning involved with the
MTA’s planned two midblock entrances in marked contrast to the building
of one corner entrance. The four drawings presented or delivered by Mr.
Gopstein to Mr. Horodniceanu on January 5 and January 12, 2012;
(3) Pertinent Sections of MTA NYCT’s New Design Guidelines; and
(4) Level of Service Illustrations for sidewalks showing pedestrian volumes
(crowding).
109. Remarkably, no one who stayed at the MTACC Technical Meeting after Mr.
Horodniceanu left early was familiar with the design and engineering submittals that had been
32
presented and delivered to the MTACC President on January 5 and 12, 2012. This became
apparent when the MTACC presented a survey of what they characterized as the dimensions for
the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution. The survey was prepared by the
MTACC’s builder, Skanska, and not the architects and engineers of record for the SAS,
AECOM.
9

110. Skanska erroneously concludes in its survey that there is only seven feet of sidewalk
width but actually there is 13’ 2¾” of available sidewalk width by bumping out the sidewalk
another four feet, using the entire exist parking lane, and removing the Yorkshire Towers’
sidewalk planter. If additional sidewalk space is needed, 15 feet of available sidewalk width can
be achieved by replacing Yorkshire Towers’ non-weight bearing masonry wall and relocating it
1’ 9¾” northward and installing a 6” wide glass and metal storefront for the Food Emporium
under the 86
th
Street Community’s One Entrance, Northeast Corner Solution. The proposed
three-escalator scheme results in an entry kiosk that is 19’ 11¼” wide and requires that it be set
back from the curb by two feet.
111. Since the Skanska survey was completed before the Design Team for the 86
th
Street
Community ever made their presentation, the MTACC had plainly prejudged the merits of the
one-entrance design solution before it was ever presented at the technical meeting. The survey
also amounts to little more than a straw man that the agency has no difficulty knocking down.
The MTACC already knew or should have known from the January 2012 design and engineering
submittals received by Mr. Horodniceanu’s office that there is more than sufficient sidewalk
width to meet acceptable standards, and that the design solution that Skanska survey is reviewing
is not the one entrance, design solution advanced by the 86
th
Street Community at the MTACC

9
See fn 3 above.
33
Technical Meeting.
112. The dimensions thrown out in the Skanska survey regarding review of the One-
Entrance, Corner Solution are riddled with agency errors in at minimum five major categories
which Mr. Cohen details in redline drawings and a summary of findings in this regard.
113. At the same MTACC Technical Meeting the 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team
were handed to two sketches from MTACC in-house operations planners which according to
them show only seven feet of sidewalk width, over two feet less than the Skanska survey for the
one-entrance, corner solution. Based on this further straw man exercise, the agency concludes
that the One-Entrance, Corner Solution does meet minimum pedestrian crowding standards and
that the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme does, when precisely the opposite is the case.
114. Once Mr. Cohen explained that the MTACC’s builder and planners was operating
off erroneous dimensions regarding the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution,
some progress appeared to be made with the Design Team regarding at least narrowing
remaining issues arguably standing in the way. For example, regarding the below-ground and
subsurface constructability of the One-Entrance, Corner Solution, Mr. Goodrich, after
observations made by Richard Paubst, an AECOM design project manager, regarding the design
said “we can build that.” The meeting ended with the MTACC saying that, assuming that there
are no technical hurdles to building the One-Entrance, Corner Solution, as the 86
th
Street
Community’s Design Team demonstrated is the case, the primary concern of the agency is that it
would take “too long” for the FTA, as a joint lead agency for NEPA compliance, to review and
sign off on the One-Entrance, Corner Solution for the North Entrance to the 86
th
Street Station
without impacting their latest projected completion date of December 2016 for Phase One of the
SAS in its entirety. To this end, the 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team was invited to make
34
the same presentation to the FTA that the Design Team just finished making to the MTACC to
expedite that agency’s review.
115. Another eight weeks lapsed before the meeting with the FTA and the 86
th
Street
Community’s Design Team went forward on August 2, 2012. In the meantime, the Design Team
received no documented environmental analysis from the MTACC regarding the design and
engineering drawings, reports and related materials that they presented at the MTACC Technical
Meeting on June 14, 2012.
116. The Design Team learned when the FTA meeting began that the MTA was not
cooperating with the FTA by forwarding the extra copies of the 86
th
Street Community’s Design
Submittals that they had left for the FTA at the MTACC Technical Meeting as one would
reasonably expect one joint lead agency to do with another joint lead agency responsible for
NEPA compliance. The Design Team nevertheless went forward with the same presentation of
Design Submittals that they presented at the MTACC Technical Meeting and fielded any
technical questions from FTA officials and staff. When the meeting was over, they were
surprised to hear the FTA say that the agency would not complete any documented
environmental analysis unless the MTA forwarded the 86
th
Street Community’s Design
Submittals in the proper “form.” The MTA is required to do this, the FTA said, in accordance
with the terms of the FTA’s full funding grant agreement under which the MTA has received
over $1.3 billion in public funding for Phase One of the SAS.
117. The net result of the foregoing lack of cooperation by the MTA with the FTA has
led to an impasse which in turn has served to compound chronic agency delays in furnishing
documented environmental analysis dating back more than a year when the first meeting was
held by MTACC President Horodniceanu to review the One-Entrance, Corner Solution on
35
January 5, 2012. To date, no one on the 86
th
Street Community’s Design Team has received any
documented environmental analysis from either the MTA or FTA in response to the new design
and engineering drawings, reports and related submittals that they developed and presented at the
MTA and FTA technical meetings that begin to demonstrate why the Agencies should not be
going forward with implementing the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution
without further delay.
118. The one area of apparent progress made at the FTA technical meeting is the time the
FTA said it would need to complete their environmental review. Regional Deputy Administrator
Anthony Carr for the FTA said that environmental review by the FTA, contrary to the MTA’s
professed concerns about the FTA taking “too long” could be completed in as little as one
month, if the MTA did what it was required to do in furnishing documented environmental
analysis in the proper “form” under the terms of the FTA’s full funding grant agreement with the
MTA. This is especially the case given the limited scope of the SEIS that is involved in
implementing the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution.
G. The 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution Meets or
Exceeds Environmental Review Standards in at Minimum Sixteen New and
Significant Respects when Beneficial Effects Realized and Adverse Impacts
Eliminated or Substantially Mitigated are Studied, Evaluated and Compared
to the MTA’s Two-Entrance Midblock Scheme

i. Elimination of Safety Hazards Created by Inadequate Sidewalk
Clearances for Conflicting Movements Between Pedestrians and
Vehicles in Proximity to Active, 24/7 Circular Driveway and Garage Exit
Ramp in Violation of Mayor’s Executive Order, as Adopted by MTA
NYCT

119. A basic point to be made at the outset regarding pedestrian safety is that it is
disingenuous for the MTA to say that placing the large visual obstructions of two entrances
flanking the circular driveway of Yorkshire Towers in the north sidewalk of 86
th
Street would
36
actually improve pedestrian safety at the circular driveway since passengers entering and exiting
the eastern most midblock kiosk would not have to cross the driveway. FONSI at A-24 to A-25.
The Agencies never studied and evaluated in an EIS, the consequences of not every pedestrian
walking on this sidewalk will be MTA ridership. Projected pedestrian volumes for the 86
th
Street
Community on East 86
th
Street east of Second Avenue without MTA ridership alone are
significant: 1,100 during the a.m and 1,330 during the p.m. peak hours (SEA 5-26) (the
“Community Pedestrians”). Putting aside for the sake of discussion that the MTA projected
ridership coming east from First Avenue to access the planned easternmost midblock kiosk are
not subject to their own independent safety hazards in violation of local law, as demonstrated
below, a safety hazard is created separately for these pedestrians by the MTA’s Two-Entrance
Midblock Scheme.
120. Where once Community Pedestrians had 19’ 9” of clear sidewalk, they are now left
with 53% less sidewalk space when walking between each of the MTA’s two subway entrances
and Yorkshire Towers’ 86
th
Street building line, or merely 9’ 7”. Each subway entrance is 41-
foot long, 14-foot wide and 16-foot high, with the roof sloping to 6’ leaving an enormous
footprint and visual obstructions in the middle of what once was 19’ 9” of clear sidewalk
compounded by severely compromised sightlines given the large size of the two entrances’
dimensions.
121. The safety hazard posed by the siting of the MTA’s easternmost kiosk occurs
because the Community Pedestrians are emerging from behind the blind spot created by this
entrance before walking the 6-foot distance to, and then crossing the circular driveway for
Yorkshire Towers where westbound vehicles on the north side of 86
th
Street will be turning into
and entering the driveway. This is at odds with the standards set forth in the MTA NYCT’s New
37
Design Guidelines, which provide that conflicting movements between pedestrians and vehicles
such as is occurring here, because of a siting of the entrance midblock instead of at a corner
where there are sufficient sidewalk clearances and sight distances, are to be avoided whenever
possible.
122. Moreover, in preparing the SAS Entrances Study, Mr. Cohen specifically designed
every corner sidewalk entrance to be in accordance with the standards set forth in the New
Design Guidelines and for compliance with the City of New York Mayor Executive Order no.
22.
123. The Executive Order is the product of independent study by the Streetscape Task
Force comprised of City agency representatives who found that “structures and objects” on
sidewalks such as “subway entrances…create pedestrian gridlock….” and “raise serious traffic
and safety concerns” for pedestrians who “spill out into the street and are in danger of being hit
by passing vehicles….” This, the City of New York Task Force concludes requires the adoption
of a uniform sidewalk corner clearance policy not to place structures and objects such as subway
entrances in the “corner” and “corner quadrant” “to the maximum extent possible.”
124. In simple transportation planning design terms, a “corner quadrant”
10
as
contemplated under the Executive Order is the square area created by extending building lines to
the end of the sidewalks where sidewalks intersect with streets or roadways. To this square area
of sidewalk clearance any “structures or objects” such as subway entrances must be kept at least
another 10 feet away from where they are sited. This is the minimum sidewalk clearance area

10
The MTA NYCT refers to the “corner quadrant” as the “corner zone or the corner off-set zone extension of
building lines” in the Existing Guidelines. These terms are the design functional equivalent description of ‘corner
quadrant” as contemplated under the Executive Order.

38
that is required to ensure that pedestrians have sufficient sight distances to have enough time to
see vehicles turning into the “street” or roadway that they must pass or walk across. In this
regard, it bears emphasis that the Executive Order does not define or delimit the term “street” to
intersections only formed with “public” avenues or streets, such as the corner intersections
formed by Second Avenue and 86
th
Street.
125. The Executive Order applies with equal force to sidewalk corner clearance areas
formed with private driveways or roadways that cross over sidewalks and intersect onto public
streets, given the harm that the local law was designed to prevent: turning vehicles hitting
pedestrians because of “structures and objects” impairing drivers and pedestrian sightlines. For
this reason, “street” is not a defined term under the Executive Order but is discussed in the
context of setting minimum standards for pedestrian safety in its broadest, dictionary sense.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “street” is defined as “a thoroughfare especially
in a city, town or village that is wider than an alley or lane and that usually includes
sidewalks.”
11

126. The Executive Order also provides that state and federal governments are asked to
cooperate in meeting minimum safety requirements for sidewalk clearance areas and sufficient
sight distances for pedestrians to protect them against turning vehicles at intersections where
they must pass other. In accordance with this stated policy, the MTA NYCT acted to implement
and adopt the Executive Order as the agency’s own governing standard under the Existing
Guidelines without exceptions.
12
They provide in pertinent part:

11
Common synonyms in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for “street” include roadway, thoroughfare, motorway
and way: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/street (February 28, 2013).
12
In adopting the Executive Order, the MTA NYCT refers to the “corner quadrant “as the “corner zone or corner
off-set zone extensive of property lines.” These are functionally equivalent descriptive design terms for the “corner
quadrant” contemplated under the Executive Order.
39
Pursuant to the Mayor’s Executive Order No. 22 dated April 13,
1995, no new fixed streetscape elements, including subway
entrances, signs and stanchions may be constructed or installed
within 10’-0” of the corner zone or corner off-set zone extension of
property lines.” (emphasis furnished) (Existing Guidelines,
Entrances Chapter, p. 10.7).

127. Moreover, the Executive Order providing for minimum sidewalk safety clearances
and sight distances to protect pedestrians from turning vehicles in substance represents New
York City’s codification of the transportation design engineering standard known as the “sight
triangle” required to protect pedestrians emerging from behind blind spots created by placing
visual obstructions in the middle of sidewalks, which the MTA’s Two-Entrance Midblock
Scheme violates.
128. The minimum standards for sidewalk clearances in the Executive Order also
supports what the 86
th
Street Community has intuitively known all along, and one of the
fundamental reasons why the entire Coalition of Upper East Elected Officials have opposed the
MTA’s Two Midblock Entrances and Community Board 8 passed a resolution voting against it.
Locating two midblock entrances in the middle of a sidewalk in close proximity to an active,
24/7 circular driveway and garage exit ramp for the single largest residential building impacted
by the SAS, Yorkshire Towers, where large volumes of pedestrians and vehicles must pass each
other creates serious safety hazards.
129. The MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme violates the Executive Order setting
forth minimum safety requirements for sidewalk clearance areas and sufficient sight distances for
pedestrians to protect them against turning vehicles at intersections with roadways where they
must pass other
13
, in the following significant respects.

13
In this regard, see Facts, Section C above for full description of relevant physical dimensions and context for
siting of the MTA’s Two-Entrance Midblock Scheme in the middle of sidewalk in front of main entrance to
Yorkshire Towers and in close proximity to active, 24/7circular driveway and garage exit ramp for the building.
40
130. The first violation of the Executive Order occurs because the MTA is siting the
Midblock Subway Entrance Kiosk merely six feet from the entry to the circular driveway to
Yorkshire Towers. At minimum, the sidewalk clearance area to create sufficient sight distances
to protect pedestrians from turning vehicles, needs to be more than a three times greater distance
away, or a minimum of 19’ 7” between the siting of the Second Midblock Kiosk and the entry to
the circular drive.
131. The design measurements required to arrive at the 19’ 7” minimum sidewalk
clearance area must take into account the following: the 86
th
Street building line to the circular
driveway entrance is 9” 7”; and to this distance must be added another 10 feet of clear sidewalk
with sufficient unobstructed sight distances for both pedestrians and vehicles between the
Midblock Subway Entrance Kiosk “structure” in the sidewalk, and the entry to the circular drive
where they must pass each other.
132. The second far greater safety hazard regarding the siting of the Midblock Kiosk is
the structure itself which is an obstruction to pedestrians passing behind the structure. The
granite base of the entry kiosk is 3’ 6” tall and the metal and glass entry kiosk is 6 feet high in
the back facing the circular driveway. This obstruction will block the sight lines of a driver
entering off of East 86
th
Street to the Yorkshire Towers’ circular driveway and risk serious
accidents occurring on the 86
th
Street sidewalk. Approximately 20 feet further to the east to the
same MTA Midblock Kiosk, which extends approximately 270 feet from the Second Avenue
building line, is the exit ramp from the garage for Yorkshire Towers. The exit ramp is set back
about 5 feet from the 86
th
Street building line and hidden from view by Yorkshire Towers’ 5 foot
tall planters.

41
133. At minimum, the sidewalk clearance area to create sufficient sight distances to
protect pedestrians from vehicles exiting the hidden garage ramp is problematic.
134. The 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution in marked contrast to
the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme does not violate the Executive Order to any extent.
It is well outside the minimum required sidewalk clearance area to prevent pedestrian-vehicular
accidents, which is the other basic harm that the Executive Order was designed to protect
against.
135. In light of the foregoing safety violations by the MTA under the Executive Order
regarding minimum sidewalk clearances and sight distances for pedestrians and turning vehicles
that must pass each other, the failure of the MTA to follow its own standards in this regard, and
violation of transportation planning engineering standards regarding sufficient sight triangles, it
is not an overstatement to say that were the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme to go
forward, the north sidewalk of 86
th
Street in front of Yorkshire Towers would be at risk of
becoming one of the most dangerous places in New York City.
ii. Far Less Community Disruption

136. The 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution substantially mitigates
extended disruption to the community that surface cut and cover, top down construction causes
during several years of construction is reduced on a scale of approximately 5 to 1 (300,000
versus 60,000 cubic feet) in favor of a predominantly mined approach in accordance with the
Agencies’ stated goals for the SAS: construction predominantly through mining, and cut-and-
cover construction limited to the ends of a station area. FEIS at 6-37. The SAS project will use
cut-and cover techniques only if a mining approach is not constructible since this method is
“disruptive.” Mining is quicker and more cost-effective than other methods. Id. at S-19; 3-1–2;
42
id. at 3-4, id. at 18–17-18. The foregoing does not include the substantial community disruption
and associated adverse impacts that continue after construction for the 100-year useful life of the
SAS resulting from the MTA’s two-entrance, midblock scheme as discussed below.
iii. Meeting and Exceeding Standards for Pedestrian Sidewalk Volumes

137. The Agencies have already approved a one-entrance, three-escalator solution for the
north entrance to the SAS 86
th
Street station at the northeast corner of 86
th
Street. This was the
subject of the SAS Entrances Study and FEIS (FEIS at 5F-5), and was in keeping with the
standards set forth in the New Design Guidelines. The previously approved design is described
as the “No-Action” or “Food Emporium” alternative in the SEA and is sited off the sidewalk
facing Second Avenue inside Yorkshire Towers. It would have required the acquisition of a
substantial portion of the Food Emporium store with primary frontage on Second Avenue and
frontage on 86
th
Street at the northeast corner. (SEA at Figure 2-7 to 2-8) The MTA was
ultimately forced to abandon this proposal after several years of delay in completing an
engineering feasibility study. The study led the agency to conclude that it would substantially
increase the project’s construction cost and schedule, primarily because of the major structural
work that would be required to build underneath the foundations of Yorkshire Towers (SEA at S-
1 to S-2).
138. After several years of delay by the Agencies in deciding that a one-entrance, three-
escalator solution on the northeast corner off the sidewalk inside Yorkshire Towers was not
constructible, they believed that a similar design solution could not go forward on the sidewalk at
the northeast corner, because there would be only six feet of sidewalk width between Yorkshire
Towers’ 86
th
Street building line and a one-entrance, three-escalator design. The Design Team
agrees that six feet is insufficient to handle pedestrian volumes and would lead to unacceptable
43
levels of crowding under transportation engineering standards and calculations. In order to
determine if this problem could be solved, the Design Team studied the structural drawings for
Yorkshire Towers together with the final design and engineering drawings developed by DHA
for the Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme eventually produced in response to a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit by the 86
th
Street Community
14
and made several visits to Yorkshire
Towers and the planned construction area for the siting of the north entrance.
139. What the Design Team learned through new study and investigation, was that
Agencies were not limited to only six feet of sidewalk width, but had as much as 15 feet or more
between the siting of the one-entrance, three escalator design and Yorkshire Towers, if new
design elements previously not developed are introduced. The design elements that Mr. Cohen
developed include Yorkshire Towers furnishing a permanent surface easement by agreement in
favor of the MTA behind the building’s property line of 5’ 5” by removing the existing planters
presently located, adding another 1’ 9 ¾”” replacing a non-weight bearing masonry wall with a
6” glass curtain wall, and an additional 4’ sidewalk bump-out width using the whole 10’ wide
existing parking line, instead of the 6-foot bump out the MTA has planned for the Two-Entrance
Midblock Scheme. As discussed in greater detail below, the additional bump-out area realizes
significant benefits and mitigates adverse impacts in a number of important ways in accordance
with the most current policies and standards of the New York City Department of Transportation
(“NYC DOT”) regarding using expanded sidewalk area to improve safety for pedestrians and
vehicles and to seize opportunities for greening.



14
See fn 6 above.
44
140. 15 feet or greater is more than sufficient sidewalk width to meet and exceed the
MTA’s own stated transportation engineering planning standards at LOS C.
15
Moreover, the 15
feet is in marked contrast to the 36% less, or 9’ 7” in sidewalk width that the MTA plans
between each of the agency’s two entrances and the 86
th
Street building line for Yorkshire
Towers. The shorter sidewalk width that the MTA provides for both of its midblock entrances
under the agency’s scheme results in excessive levels of pedestrian crowding at substandard LOS
E for the MTA’s Two-Entrance Scheme if the MTA takes into account an important factor that it
never studied or evaluated in the FEIS or a limited scope SEIS, or even mentioned in the SEA: at
least one of the four escalators for the Two-Entrance Scheme can be expected to be taken out of
service periodically for maintenance and repair resulting from mechanical failure, accidents and
short- and long-term scheduled upkeep.
16

141. It is error for the Agencies, and at odds with urban planning best practices to assume
that all four of the escalators in the two-entrance scheme will be continuously operating 24/7 for
the next 100 years. The MTA’s oversight agency, the MTA Office of the Inspector General
(“OIG”) has concluded after a detailed study, dated July 2011, that escalator outages are
realistically expected to occur about once every four weeks, on average, as a result of periodic
mechanical failure, accidents and short- and long-term scheduled upkeep. When this happens the
MTA’s two-entrance scheme will significantly restrict access and inconvenience riders seeking

15
“[L]evel of Service (LOS) D condition or better is considered acceptable for sidewalks, corner reservoirs, and
crosswalks within intensely developed urban locations.” Final Environmental Impact Statement, dated April, 2004
(“FEIS”) at 5F-1; SEA at 5-3.
16
In this regard, it is a mistake by the MTA to assume that if one of four planned escalators are taken out of service
that passengers will walk down or up the out of service escalator over 35 feet down to the landing as is currently
planned under the Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme. The MTA’s assumption is contradicted by the agency’s current
policy and practice to detour passengers away from the out of service escalator. What underlies this policy and
practice is the safety of passengers. Risers for the escalators are too steep to serve as a substitute for conventional
stairs without exceeding limits proscribed by local law.
45
to use either of the two-entry, two-escalator kiosks at substandard LOS E, while the 86
th
Street’s
One-Entrance, Corner Solution will provide unrestricted access in the event one out of the bank
of three escalators goes out of service at two levels above the MTA’s LOS E, or above standard
LOS C. Further, the three escalator solution proposed by the 86
th
Street Community from the
street to a midlevel landing is consistent with three escalators that the MTA plans to build from
the landing to the station mezzanine under the Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme.
iv. Accelerating Construction Schedule by Building One Entrance Instead
of Two

142. Intuitively, the initial reaction is that building one entrance instead of two
necessarily accelerates the MTA’s construction schedule for the North Entrance on the order of
at least 2 to 1, and fundamental civil engineering and construction bid and contract analysis more
than bears this out.
143. The amount of direct time savings in building this Limited Portion of phase one of
four phases of the SAS is significant: at least 11 months (one-entrance takes approximately 6
months to build; two entrances takes nearly 3 times as long to build or 17 months). Moreover,
the MTACC’s express contractual rights to downscale the agency’s two planned entrances to one
without further delay are significant. This means that work for the one entrance could be
extended by more than a year, due to the shortened schedule duration to build one entrance, and
can be done without suspending the rest of SAS project activities, or affecting the “critical path”
for the scheduled completion of the balance of the greater than 99% order of magnitude of costs
for entire phase one of the SAS. According to the MTA, the latest schedule for completion is
still, at minimum, approximately four years away in December 2016.
17


17
The FTA is far less sanguine than the MTA about the ultimate completion date for Phase One of the SAS. After
completing their own independent analysis regarding the length of time required to complete the SAS, the federal
46
144. Further, a primarily mined approach as opposed to an above ground, top down, cut
and cover construction approach affords the further opportunity to accelerate building on the
order of two to one. This is so because under local law above ground work may only proceed 12
hours a day while below ground mined work, which is the vast majority of the work involved in
the One-Entrance, Corner Solution may go forward with continuous 24/7 shifts.
v. Eliminating Speeding Hazard of 12-foot, Highway-Size Traffic Lanes
and Misalignment of 86
th
Street in Violation of New York City
Department of Transportation Policies and Guidelines

145. The 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution eliminates the
speeding hazard and the misalignment of 86
th
Street traffic lanes between Second and First
Avenues and associated adverse impacts in violation of NYC DOT and New York City policies
and guidelines created by the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme in the following material
respects.
146. First, under the MTA’s plan there is only a 6-foot sidewalk bump-out proposed
instead of a full 10-foot width that would coincide with the replacement of the 10 foot parking
lane on 86
th
Street. The direct consequence of the MTA aggressively truncating the extent of the
sidewalk bump-out area for pedestrian use from 10 to 6 feet or by 40% is to create oversize 12-
foot traffic lanes for vehicles next to the planned north entrance for 86
th
Street. A new 48 foot
wide roadway is being created between Second and First Avenues (four 12 foot lanes, two on the
north and two on the south side of 86
th
Street, where once there was 40 foot of roadway for
vehicles traversing (four 10 foot lanes). This is two feet wider than the standard width of traffic
lanes for streets in New York City as NYC DOT Manhattan Borough Commissioner Margaret
Forgione points out: 12-foot travel lanes are overly wide, two feet wider than normal streets,

agency concluded that a more realistic end date is February 2018 based in part on the history of delays for
construction of the project beginning in 2007.
47
resulting in the kind of driving “you would expect to see on the F.D.R. It encourages people to
speed…it feels wide open.”
18

147. Commissioner Forgione’s comments reflect the policy and guidelines set forth in the
NYC DOT Street Design Manual (at times, the “Street Design Manual”). The Street Design
Manual provides in pertinent part:
“At over a quarter of the city’s land area, streets are a critical part of
the New York City’s infrastructure. They provide the bulk of its
public space and have wide-ranging impacts on both its
environmental health and the quality of life of its neighborhoods.
Accordingly, it is the policy of the NYC DOT that the following
goals and principles be adhered to when designing city streets.”

148. The predominant roadway design (streets with sidewalks) “generally emphasizes
motor vehicle access and flow, but “leaves significant flexibility to calm traffic and enhance the
public realm.” To this end the NYC DOT design policy is to “[m]inimize roadway width and
maximize sidewalk (and planting strip, if applicable) width maximized to the greatest extent
possible.” Augmenting the NYC DOT Design Manual in this regard is the City of New York’s
Active Design Guidelines (2010 ed.). These guidelines specifically complement the NYC DOT
Design Manual and are endorsed by the New York Chapter of the American Institute of
Architects.
149. The essential purpose of the Active Design Guidelines is to implement
environmental design policies that promote “public health and well-being.” The Active Design
Guidelines “address all who have a role in the design and construction of the built
environment…” including “project sponsors such as government agencies.” Project Sponsors are
encouraged to incorporate “at least some strategies into every project” and should “meet initially
to set goals and to assess which potential active design strategies can be incorporated in the

18
See Kia Gregory, Changes Planned to Calm Flow of Traffic on Harlem’s ‘Boulevard of Death’, available at
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFD8123DF931A35754C0A9649D8B63 (February 27, 2013).
48
project.”
150. The Active Design Guidelines provide in relevant part:
Objective
Promote walking and improve the overall pedestrian experience through
traffic calming measures. Slowing traffic helps to maintain the human scale—
and pace—of city streets.

Strategies
Design roads to be the minimum width and to have the minimum number of
lanes practical.
Minimize road width to reduce traffic speeds and pedestrian crossing distances.
Shorter crossing distances are especially beneficial to the elderly and people with
physical disabilities, who may require more time to cross the street.

Incorporate street additions that have been shown to effectively calm traffic,
such as curb extensions….

151. In order for the MTA not to place itself in direct conflict with the foregoing plainly
articulated design policies and standards by the City of New York and NYC DOT, never
previously evaluated in an EIS, the last thing that the agency should be proposing and the FTA
should have any part of in approving, is expanding the 86
th
Street roadway to have 12 foot lanes,
and shortening the extent of the sidewalk curb extension to 6 feet instead of the full 10 feet of
available parking lane. Wider sidewalks and narrower roadways are safer for pedestrians,
especially the elderly and people with physical disabilities. They also support the traffic calming
effect which discourages vehicles from speeding. Last, extending the curb to 10 instead of 6 feet
offers an important greening and planting opportunity, for the 86
th
Street Community, and
expanded, non-congested sidewalk space for people to enjoy.
152. It is no answer for the Agencies to say that NYC DOT previously approved a curb
extension limited to 6 feet by letter, dated May 18, 2007, dating back to the first of what is now a
total of 10 years of construction for Phase One of the four phases of the SAS, based on the
MTA’s latest projections. The DOT Letter pre-dates the new and significant change in policy
49
and guidelines under the NYC DOT Design Guidelines of 2009 and the NYC’s Active Design
Guidelines of 2010 by more than two to three years. Further, the DOT Letter is careful to reserve
the rights of the city agency regarding “no further comments…at this time” and the “right to
submit revised comments.”
153. There is therefore no reasonable basis to believe that City of New York and NYC
DOT would do anything other than act to approve a design, such as the 86
th
Street Community’s
new one-entrance, northeast corner solution, that is directly in keeping with, and supports
implementation of the design policies and guidelines explicitly set forth in New York City’s
Active Design Guidelines and the NYC DOT Guidelines (collectively, the “NYC Design
Guidelines”).
154. Underscoring that that the City of New York would have every interest to
implement the plain standards specified in the NYC Design Guidelines with respect to replacing
the entire 10 foot length of the parking lane in question instead of merely 6 feet of it, are some
recent examples of NYC DOT approvals. They include eliminating the parking lanes on both
sides of Broadway to build a new subway entrance for the station at West 96
th
Street, eliminating
the parking lane on the west side of 72
nd
Street and all three moving lanes to build the new
subway entrance at Broadway and West 72
nd
Street.
155. Second, the 12-foot traffic lanes planned by the MTA between Second and First
Avenues on 86
th
Street, would put this heavily-trafficked cross-town street out of alignment with
the rest of 86
th
Street, which otherwise has 10-foot traffic lanes spanning the entire cross-town
distance of 86
th
Street from East End Avenue through the Upper West Side. The plain safety
hazard this presents is the disorientation to drivers that results from rapidly going from typical 10
foot traffic lanes to 20% larger ones, 12 foot lanes between Second and First Avenues
50
immediately back to 20% smaller, 10 foot traffic lanes when traveling west of Second Avenue.
Bad or heavy weather conditions would contribute aggravating circumstances to this driver
disorientation, exacerbating the risk posed by this hazard for drivers and pedestrians alike.
156. It makes no sense for the Agencies to maintain that they require 12 foot instead of
10 foot lanes between Second and First Avenues because of the width of MTA buses. This is not
an issue for these same buses when traveling the rest of the entire cross-town length of 86
th

Street.
157. Furthermore, the standard width for MTA buses is 8’ 6” wide. The widest cars are 6’
6” wide. Therefore, under the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution, where
the design provides for two moving lanes, 20 feet to the center line of the 86
th
Street roadway,
together the bus and such a car take up to 15 feet of width. This still leaves 5 feet of clearance
width for the moving vehicles. Even if there are two buses lined up at a Second Avenue traffic
light, there is still 3 feet of clearance. At any rate, there is no demonstrable need for oversized 12
foot lanes at this point of 86
th
Street between Second and First Avenues because of traffic
volume. At this point 86
th
Street only picks up a few blocks to the east and dead ends at East End
Avenue, Carl Shurz Park.
vi. Cost Savings Conservatively Estimated in the Tens of Millions

158. Tens of millions of cost savings can be realized over the short and long-term , and is
a particularly significant opportunity that the FTT and MTA should be seizing given the history
of cost overruns and delays experienced from the beginning for phase one of the SAS
19
and the

19
When tunneling for Phase One of the SAS first began in earnest in 2007, the MTA officials said that the line
would open this year, 2013, at a cost of $3.8 billion. The latest cost is about $4.5 billion despite the historic
downturn in the economy since 2008 which gave the MTA the opportunity to competitively bid the project at
substantially reduced construction costs. Completion according to the MTA is not expected at the earliest until
approximately more four years later in December 2016.
51
MTA’s recently announced policy that the “agency is in an era of cost-containment and–control
unlike anything in its history, and in 2012 and beyond, we’ll continue to slash costs while
looking for creative ways to bring in revenue.
20

159. The long-term maintenance and operating cost savings by building the 86
th
Street
Community’s one entrance with three escalators instead of the MTA’s planned two entrances
that need to be taken into account and evaluated for the 100-year useful life of the SAS are based
on many fundamental transportation planning considerations. They include the following
seventeen specific categories of long-term maintenance and operational costs:
(1) Extra electrical cost to run a heavy duty, extra wide, high demand
escalator descending and rising 32.5 feet needs to be operating 24/7 under
the New York City Building Code

(2) Maintaining and servicing escalator every one and half to two months
each year based on a recent study and report by the MTA’s oversight
agency, The Office of the MTA Inspector General. This includes
replacement of parts to keep the extra escalator in good working order

(3) Tightening handrails and keeping them in synch to prevent a falling
accident by a passenger

(4) Periodically running the escalators alternatively up and down to keep the

The FTA based on independent analysis does not share the MTA’s optimism regarding meeting the agency’s latest
self-imposed deadline of December 2016 and estimate of final costs. By letter dated June 18, 2010, from FTA
Commissioner Peter Rogoff to Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, the then Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs, the FTA after conducting its own independent risk analysis projected the completion date at
February 2018 and that costs were projected at the time to be approximately $5 billion regarding amending the
federal funding agreement for the SAS. Mr. Rogoff concludes, “Clearly, however, the news regarding the cost
overruns and schedule delays is grim… Most importantly, I want to assure you that not a single penny of additional
Federal Section 5309 New Starts dollars will be used to fund these delays and cost overruns.”
Further independent financial analysis is even more critical of the MTA than the FTA is. In a recent financial news
report, dated August 26, 2012, Bloomberg news reported that U.S Taxpayers are gouged on mass transit costs and
agrees with the FTA that the ultimate price tag for the SAS will likely be $5 billion when inevitable amendments to
construction contracts for added costs such as change orders for unanticipated field conditions and other additional
work not part of the original bid contracts are taken into account. The article concludes that American taxpayers will
shell out many times what their counterparts in developed cities in Europe and Asia would pay and that in the case
of the SAS it is five times as much.
20
See editorial by former Chairman and CEO for the MTA, Joseph J. Lhota in the New York Post, posted online
June 18, 2012.
52
parts from breaking down prematurely and the added cost of using MTA
Personnel to do so

(5) Every 20 to 25 years each escalator will need to be overhauled and
modernized to replace major parts such as the motor, belts, chains, worn
out treads, and related equipment

(6) Replacement of steel trusses that support the escalator due to fatigue
approximately every 50 years which entail considerable cost

(7) An extra entrance will require shoveling snow and ice in the winter to
prevent an accident

(8) An extra entrance will periodically require replacement and cleaning of
enclosure glazing materials and granite base because of wear and tear and
vandalism

(9) The metal structure of the extra entrance will need to be painted every five
to seven years to prevent deterioration

(10) The roof glazing of the additional entrance will periodically require fixing
leaks and clogged drainage

(11) Lighting will periodically need to be replaced over the escalators

(12) Maintaining the fire suppression, ventilation smoke removal and alarm
systems

(13) Periodic Cleaning of the wall finishes and extra landing area floor finishes
with floor scrubbers and power washers

(14) Periodically updating signage and communication systems

(15) Closing of the additional entrance in the event of electrical blackout, strike
or other emergency

(16) Additional security policing for the extra entrance

(17) Periodically inspecting and testing fire stand pipe

vii. Mitigating the Above-Ground Blasting Hazard

160. It is hard to imagine a more graphic example of the inherent dangers of blasting,
especially combined with the adverse impacts of top to bottom cut and cover construction (See
53
Section G(ii) above), than the above-ground effects of the blasting that occurred on August 21,
2012 captured in photographs by an engineer visiting New York City. A similar incident was
reported in connection with the building of the entrance at the southeast corner of 72
nd
Street a
few weeks earlier and was under investigation at the time the larger explosion occurred on the
northwest corner of 72
nd
Street.
161. While thankfully there were no fatalities or serious injuries reported, there were still
significant above-ground effects, including the adverse impacts of shutting down at least one
local business after the New York City Department of Buildings issued a vacate order as a result
of damages the business sustained by the MTA blast, and construction debris and dust billowing
eight stories high into the air.
162. While the MTA never publicly released the results of the reported investigation
regarding the earlier blasting incident regarding the building of the entrance for the southeast
corner, it did publicly release a copy of its report for the August 21 Blast on September 13, 2012.
The report is revealing for two reasons.
163. First, it underscores how inherently dangerous the nature of blasting is. There were
at least two levels of human error which led to the August 21 Blast. Not only did the agency’s
contractor for the building of the entrance default in its obligations to follow New York City
FDNY blasting protocols, but the agency’s construction manager was determined to be at fault
supervising the builder as well.
164. Second, the MTA response has been to implement corrective actions at no doubt
considerable taxpayer expense to mitigate the blasting hazard by hiring a safety consultant,
reorganizing and strengthening the construction manager’s ability to inspect and monitor blasting
activities–the same construction manager found at fault under the MTA’s internal investigation.
54
Aside from calling into question the wisdom of rewarding the same construction manager
previously found at fault with more work to “inspect and monitor” blasting activities of the
MTA’s contractors, the larger, overarching point to be made here is that while new and
significant corrective measures are certainly required, it is far better to substantially mitigate the
need to have to take them in the first place.
165. Under the One-Entrance, Corner Solution the amount of soil and bedrock from cut
and cover excavation is reduced on a scale of 5 to 1, from 300,000 to 60,000 cubic feet.
Therefore, aside from substantial mitigation of the scale of the blasting hazard, there is further
mitigation achieved. Any blasting for the predominant mining work is underground where
effects of any blasting would be entirely or largely diffused and kept below ground without
imperiling the safety of the 86
th
Street Community above ground.
viii. Mitigation of Structural Hazards to Pool and Greater Residential
Towers, and Related Conflict with Local Law Regarding Suspending
Required Essential Services to Tenants Under New York City Rent
Stabilization Code
166. Further outsized, significant adverse impacts created by building the MTA’s Two-
Entrance, Midblock Scheme in the sidewalk in front of Yorkshire Towers are that the Agencies
are required to the come as close as 5 feet to the building’s south foundation wall. On the other
side of this wall is one to the largest pools in New York City, containing over 80,000 gallons of
water. The original construction of the pool dates back over 42 years ago to 1970.
167. Any loads or stresses that can be mitigated to reduce the risk of the pool structure
from cracking and causing leakage and potential flooding, because of the extensive cut and cover
construction and blasting required to build the MTA’s Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme needs to
be pursued. Water escaping from the pool can lead to soil erosion, and water becoming trapped
in the foundation. This puts not only the structural integrity of the building’s two residential
55
towers at risk, but the MTA’s planned SAS excavations in close proximity to Yorkshire Towers
as well.
168. Like the inherently dangerous, above-ground blasting hazard generally, even costly
mitigation measures such as building a large underground shoring wall extending the entire 270-
foot length of the extensive cut and cover excavation for the MTA’s two midblock entrances
provide no assurances that serious risks to the pool structure and ultimately the greater building,
especially considering its size, are eliminated. As with the blasting hazard, the decidedly stronger
mitigation measures for the Agencies to be taking are to eliminate or substantially reduce the
extent of these structural hazards in this first instance as achieved under the 86
th
Street
Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution.
169. One aggressive mitigation measure that the MTA could potentially consider in
building the two entrance midblock scheme, but never studied or evaluated in any EIS, is to
empty the pool of water for the next four years of planned construction, or for a substantial
period of this time as a precaution. However, this leads to yet further adverse impacts.
170. Since the majority of the tenants in Yorkshire Towers qualify for rent-stabilization
status, they have a right to use the pool as an essential service as a matter of right under local
law. Upon the MTA being required to shut down the pool for any length of time, these tenants
would be entitled to compensation under local law for the loss of this service. The extent of this
adverse impact has never been studied or taken into account by the Agencies. Moreover, it is
important to emphasize that for many residents, such as the elderly and those with physical
disabilities, the pool does far more than promote general health and well-being in accordance
with the City of New York’s Active Design Guidelines; it has important therapeutic and
rehabilitative value as well.
56


ix. Mitigating Jaywalking Safety Hazard in Accordance with MTA
NYCT’s New Design Guidelines

171. One of the last things the MTA and FTA should be encouraging is jaywalking. As
the Agencies acknowledge, it is illegal and dangerous to jaywalk, especially on a heavily-
trafficked major cross town street like 86
th
Street, as is expected with the siting of the eastern
most kiosk as far as 270 east of the SA Building line. However, the Agencies cavalierly dismiss
this as a concern because they believe “most” ridership will be coming from the corners of
Second Avenue and First Avenue (SEA at 5-25).
21
In marked contrast, the 86
th
Street
Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution substantially mitigates this hazard by placing its
one entrance at the northeast corner where it belongs in accordance with the MTA NYCT
standards set forth in the New Design Guidelines. The New Design Guidelines provide, in
relevant part, that it is “preferred” for entrances to be sited at corners, “whenever possible”
instead of midblock locations, to “encourage crossing at traffic-regulated street corners.”
x. Increasing Ambulance and FDNY Response Times

172. Building one entrance at the corner instead of the MTA’s planned two entrances
flanking east and west of the circular driveway to the main entrance of Yorkshire Towers,
presents an important opportunity to decrease ambulance and FDNY response times for residents
in emergencies by, among other things, not eliminating the important drive-through feature of
the circular driveway that leads to the front entrance of the building, and creating a large
construction work zone in front of the building by digging a 300,000 cubic foot trench required
to build two midblock entrances during the approximately next four years of construction

21
See Section G (xiii) below: Agencies’ conclusions regarding projected ridership do not withstand outside,
independent scientific and transportation engineering planning scrutiny and analysis.
57
projected by the MTA.
173. The MTA acknowledges under its two entrance plan that the best it could do to
mitigate the adverse impact of eliminating the drive-through circular driveway that leads to, and
exits from, the building’s main entrance during construction, is to create a staging area on the
street in the work zone in proximity to the cut and cover trench of 300,000 cubic feet in
connection with yet another unstudied, outsize impact never evaluated in an EIS: third party
interference with ongoing safety façade repair and improvement program contracts and
construction work mandated by local law (See section G(xi) below). The scale of the adverse
impacts regarding ambulance and FDNY response times is especially significant for an
apartment building like Yorkshire Towers with over 2,000 residents many of whom are elderly
or are young families with children.
xi. Elimination of Third Party Interference by MTA with Ongoing Façade
Repair and Improvement Safety Program Mandated Under Local Law
and Associated Adverse Impacts of Community Disruption, Delay and
Increased Costs

174. Further outsized adverse impacts of building two entrances in front of Yorkshire
Towers, is that the Agencies never took into account or planned for the MTA’s Two-Entrance,
Midblock Scheme directly conflicting with building-wide repair and improvements at Yorkshire
Towers mandated under New York City’s Façade Inspection and Safety Program (“FISP”).
Sidewalk bridges to complete this new and significant work have been in place pursuant to plans
approved by the NYC Department of Buildings (“DOB”) shortly after it was first permitted last
September and overlap the same sidewalk site where the MTA would commence excavation for
the two midblock entrances.
175. In light of this conflict with local law by the MTA, a discussion about whether to go
forward at this point with building the MTA’s two entrances overlapping the same site is
58
academic unless the MTA interferes as a third party in the ongoing professional and construction
contracts to complete the ongoing FISP project at Yorkshire Towers, which is presently not
scheduled for completion until the third or fourth quarter of 2014.
176. Notwithstanding that the safety of the 86
th
Street Community, as the MTA professes,
is a number one priority, and the direct conflict with local safety law that the Agencies never
studied or evaluated in an EIS, the MTA has asked Yorkshire Towers to sign a third party
agreement authorizing interference by the agency with the prior, ongoing mandated local law
FISP project by Yorkshire Towers to the end of halting work for this safety work, and jumping
ahead to begin excavations required for building of the two planned entrances (the “MTA Third
Party Agreement”).
177. However, the MTA Third Party Agreement creates only further associated adverse
impacts for the 86
th
Street Community that is new and significant. These include added
interference costs for the professionals and contractors for the FISP project and the extra costs by
MTA contractors who would be building the two entrances causing delays to the completion of
the prior ongoing FISP project and the related adverse impacts of shutting down the circular
driveway to and from the main entrance for over 2,000 residents.
178. Instead of offering to interfere with, delay and increase the costs of the completion
of the ongoing FISP project and delaying and increasing the cut and cover construction costs of
building two entrances, the Agencies can seize the important opportunity to avoid these and
related adverse impacts by going forward with the 86
th
Street Community’s One Entrance,
Northeast Corner Solution.
179. The limited area where cut and cover construction from the surface is required under
the one-entrance solution can be done last while the MTA builds the underground mezzanine
59
starting from the 86
th
Street Station cavern to the ancillary spaces and the ADA elevator. This is
underground work that would have to be done in any event whether leading to the 86
th
Street
Community’s one entrance at the northeast corner or the MTA’s two entrances. It can be
coordinated without impacting or delaying the completion of the current above ground
compliance with FISP local law work while at the same time without delaying completion of the
construction of the 86
th
Street Community’s one entrance solution while staying within the most
current Contract B schedule in the second half of 2014 for the build-out of entire 86
th
Street
Station, including the station cavern, one entrance for the south entrance for the station at the
northeast corner of 83
rd
Street and the 86
th
Street Community’s one entrance plan for the north
entrance at 86
th
Street. The essential reasons for this are twofold.
180. It takes six months to build one corner entrance instead of two entrances, which
takes 17 months, and the predominantly mined underground work for the 86
th
Street
Community’s one entrance solution can be done together with the rest of the underground project
activities for the build-out of 86
th
Street Station on a 24/7 basis while above ground cut and cover
construction and blasting associated with building the MTA’s two entrances is generally limited
to 50% of that time for compliance with FDNY blasting protocols and other local law
requirements. (See Section G(iv) above).
xii. Improving Air Quality

181. The extent to which construction dust generated by building the SAS negatively
impacts the Community’s air quality, commonly known as the Second Avenue Cough, has been
well-publicized. Independent of whether any serious health effects are ultimately proven, or
health conditions are merely exacerbated by breathing in this dust, it is plainly an adverse impact
for the MTA to generate, and for people to have to breath in, any construction dust at all in the
60
first place. In this regard, it is a decided improvement to mitigate the scale of this adverse impact
by substantially reducing the amount of surface, cut and cover, dust generated by excavating soil
and bedrock being released into the air from 300,000 to 60,000 cubic feet under the 86
th
Street
Community’s primarily underground mined One-Entrance, Corner Solution.
182. The MTA’s approach thus far has been limited to adding the expense and delay
involved in using air-filtration systems. The MTA has never maintained, nor could they that the
air filters completely eliminate the construction dust problem: at best they can help mitigate the
extent of it. However, when the use the air filters are combined with eliminating substantial
volumes of dust that would otherwise be released into the air, air quality for the 86
th
Street
Community generally, and particularly in front of the single largest residential building impacted
by the SAS, Yorkshire Towers, cannot help but significantly improve.
183. Air quality is also substantially improved under the 86
th
Street Community’s One-
Entrance, Corner Solution by reducing the pollution that idling trucks generate when removing–
on a scale of 5 to 1–the much larger area of top down cut and cover excavation of soil and
bedrock compared to a primarily mined approach.
xiii. Meeting and Exceeding Standards for Accommodating Projected
Ridership (Passenger Convenience)

184. The other basic question raised by MTACC President Michael Horodiceanu with the
President of the Tenants Association, Doron Gopstein, at the meeting of January 5, 2012 is how
does the 86
th
Street Community One-Entrance, Corner Solution compare to the Two-Entrance
Midblock Scheme in terms of accommodating passenger convenience.
185. A preliminary point to be made regarding the one-entrance, northeast corner
solution more than adequately accommodating projected ridership is the parallel design siting of
the north and south entrances for the 86
th
Street Subway Station. The south entrance was
61
designed to be at a parallel location to the north entrance. It is a one-entrance, three-escalator
design located in a building at the northeast corner of 83
rd
Street and Second Avenue. The north
entrance was also designed to be a one-entrance, three escalator solution inside a building,
Yorkshire Towers at the northeast corner of 86
th
Street.
186. Projected ridership volumes for the south entrance during a.m. peak hours are
projected at 2,945 entering and 979 exiting. These are greater than the a.m. peak projections for
the north entrance: 2,900 entering and 700 exiting (SEA, at S-3). The ridership volumes for the
parallel south entrance for the 86
th
Street Station were never studied or evaluated in the FEIS, or
a limited scope SEIS, and compared to the ridership volumes for the parallel north entrance.
187. Since ridership volumes for the south entrance are greater than the volumes for the
north entrance, it would be at best inconsistent and arbitrary for the Agencies to say that the 86
th

Street Community’s northeast corner solution for the north entrance is not at least as good, if not
better than the same design solution for the parallel south entrance being built at 83
rd
Street
regarding adequately accommodating projected ridership.
188. Furthermore, the south entrance at 83
rd
Street has a much larger catchment area with
longer walking distances than the north entrance at 86
th
Street. The next entrance to the 96
th

Street Station is at 94
rd
Street, only eight blocks away, compared to the next entrance at the 72
nd

Street station which is 11 blocks away from the 83
rd
Street entrance. There is therefore no
reasonable basis for the Agencies to have placed disproportionate and selective emphasis on
passenger convenience as the justification for having two entrances for the north entrance for
86
th
Street, one at the midblock, while finding that one 83
rd
Street entrance at the northeast
corner is sufficient to meet projected passenger demand. This is especially so because, the 86
th

Street entrance has the benefit of an intermodal bus connection for MTA projected ridership,
62
while the 83
rd
Street entrance does not.
189. Of larger significance regarding whether the one-entrance, northeast corner solution
better accommodates projected ridership is that the Agencies arrive at a conclusion that 68% of
projected ridership for the north entrance will use the second eastern most midblock kiosk, (SEA
at S-4), without the benefit of any study that could independently withstand scientific and
transportation planning engineering scrutiny and analysis.
22

190. Faced with the inability to determine the validity of the 68% conclusion under
fundamental transportation planning engineering standards independently, because of the
inherent limitations on the face of the data and information furnished in the SEA,
23
Dr. Lutin
conducted new and independent study to test whether there was any reasonable, scientific basis
to continue to rely upon it. What he discovered is that the Agencies have it backwards. The
predominant percentage of projected ridership, 69%, would find it more convenient to access the
North Entrance by using 86
th
Street Community’s new one-entrance, three escalator, northeast
corner design as compared to virtually the other way around under the 68% figure that the
Agencies are relying upon for the easternmost, midblock kiosk.
191. In marked contrast to the outdated and incomplete data regarding accommodating
projected ridership that appears in the SEA, the new study and analysis completed by Dr. Lutin
was more comprehensive, using a block-by-block analysis and including a recent field survey of
the construction site. Dr. Lutin’s studies were also new and significant from a basic methodology

22
Supporting the conclusion reached by Dr. Lutin in his new study and analysis demonstrating that 69% of projected
ridership find it more convenient to access the North Entrance under the 86
th
Street Community’s one-entrance,
three-escalator, northeast corner solution, is the Agencies’ conclusion in the FONSI at 10 which states that the
MTA’s Two-Entrance Scheme “will bring additional pedestrians…but this number will not differ noticeably from
the No Action Alternative….” This is the same one-entrance, three escalator design sited at the northeast corner,
previously approved by the Agencies for the North Entrance to the 86
th
Street Station (FEIS at 5F-5), and which was
the subject of the SAS Entrances Study. See also Section G(xiii) above.
23
See Section C regarding CEQ Regulations above at ¶¶ 46-47.
63
point of view, since they took into account updated 2010 census data compared to the outdated
2000 census data relied upon by the Agencies, as well as riders with trip origins and destinations
in all four quadrants of the station’s catchment area: that is, riders accessing and exiting the north
entrance from all four directions, northwest, southwest, southeast as well as the northeast, to
which the Agencies mistakenly limited their focus on the face of the SEA.
192. Moreover, Dr. Lutin demonstrates through the report he prepared for the MTACC
and FTA Technical Meetings that the One-Entrance, Corner Solution constitutes a significant
improvement with respect to accommodating projected ridership over the MTA’s Two-Entrance,
Midblock Scheme in at least eleven separate and material ways in addition to the two respects
discussed above.
xiv. Promoting Economic Development on Second Avenue

193. The 86
th
Street Community’s one-entrance, three-escalator, northeast corner solution
encourages passengers to walk down Second Avenue from the northeast quadrant catchment area
rather than down 86
th
Street in front of Yorkshire Towers. Additional pedestrian traffic benefits
retail stores on the avenue and promotes its future economic development. This is an important
benefit because it helps redress the continuing adverse impact of lost business that the last five
years of construction has caused to Upper East Side retail stores on Second Avenue with at least
approximately four more years still to go.
xv. Reduction of Surveillance and Monitoring Requirements

194. A single station entry point as the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner
Solution reduces surveillance and monitoring requirements. It is a mistake for the Agencies to
squander this important opportunity, especially from the point of view of local policing and
Homeland security considerations, which is important to New York City, generally, and
64
particularly for the 86
th
Street Community, including the single largest residential building
impacted by the SAS, Yorkshire Towers.
xvi. Mitigating Severe Storm Hazard of Northeasters
195. One of the specific placement considerations that the New Design Guidelines take
into account in siting new subway entrances is the adverse impact of “prevailing winds” to
protect pedestrians against the hazard of severe storms.. The importance of this factor was
brought home by the recent severe storm, Hurricane Sandy in late October 2012. It flooded many
lines of the subway system, including the 86
th
Street Station of the Lexington Avenue line, which
is designed to alleviate overcrowding on the SAS.. The adverse impacts of Hurricane Sandy were
then further compounded by another Northeaster which soon followed on November 7, 2012.
196. In planning for new realities of severe storms, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo perhaps
summarized it the best: “100-year storms” seem to hit New York every two years now. “For us
to sit here today and say this is a once-in-a-generation and it’s not going to happen again, I think
would be short-sighted,” he said. “I think we need to anticipate more of these extreme weather
type of situations in the future and we have to take that into consideration in reforming,
modifying, our infrastructure.”
24
To this end, the One-Entrance, Northeast Corner Solution
mitigates the increased frequency of severe storm hazards that the 86
th
Street Community must
face in two important respects.
197. First, by downscaling the building of two entrances to one, the amount of surface
penetrations involved in over-building and removing 300,000 cubic feet of soil and rock instead
of 60,000 cubic feet and having its one entrance directed away from harm’s way, that is oriented
toward Second Avenue instead of into the “prevailing winds” of Northeasters as planned under
24
Josh Dzieza, Hurricane Sandy’s Lesson for Flood-Proofing a Subway, The Daily Beast (2012), available at
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/04/hurricane-sandy-s-lesson-for-flood-proofing-a-subway.html.
65
the MTA’s second easternmost kiosk, the extent of the exposure to flooding and associated costs
involved in remediating this condition are at minimum substantially reduced on a scale of
roughly 2 to 1.
198. Second, by placing two entrances opposite each other under the MTA’s plan, there
is the risk of creating a wind-tunnel effect during Northeasters with associated negative pressure
forces. This adverse impact allows wind to travel at Northeaster-force velocities through the
large open air square area to the midblock entrance and into the station and coming out of the
other large open air area at the entry point to the MTA’s corner entrance. This generally puts any
passenger at risk of getting blown away when trying to enter or exit the station. Further, the wind
tunnel effect would be especially destabilizing for any passenger who is vulnerable to losing
their balance when entering or exiting a subway entrance and stepping unto or off an escalator
such as the elderly and disabled. In decided contrast, the One-Entrance, Northeast Corner
Solution presents the important opportunity to mitigate this adverse impact substantially by
having the back of the one entrance together with the protection of the large kiosk measuring 41-
foot long, approximately 20-foot wide and 16-foot high oriented toward Second Avenue,
buffeting the prevailing winds of Northeasters instead of oriented directly into them as the
MTA’s easternmost midblock kiosk oriented towards First Avenue and the east does.
199. Significantly, despite recent events which underscore the severity of the risks posed
by severe storms, the Agencies have never taken into account and studied this important
consideration under their Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme in any EIS and how it can be
mitigated under the 86
th
Street Community’s One Entrance, Corner Solution in accordance with
the New Design Guidelines.


66
H. The 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Northeast Corner Solution
Meets Each of the MTA’s Stated Goals and Objectives as Well

200. In addition to meeting and exceeding environmental review standards in at
minimum sixteen new and significant respects when compared to the MTA’s Two-Entrance
Midblock Scheme (See Section G, above), the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner
Solution meets each of the MTA’s stated goals and objectives for subway entrances and satisfies
the minimum requirements in the SEA for alternatives to the “No Action” alternative as well
(SEA at S-6-7):
(1) “Entrances must be large enough to accommodate the projected ridership
anticipated at the north end of each station.” (See Section G(ii) above).

(2) “Entrance locations should be sited as to be constructible in accordance
with good engineering practice” (See accompanying declarations of civil
engineer, Peter S. Schneidkraut, P.E; transportation planning engineer,
Jerome M. Lutin, Ph.D., P.E., AICP; and geotechnical and underground
engineer, Ingo H.R. Fox, PE, MSc, DIC).

(3) “Maintain overall Second Avenue Subway project construction schedule.”
(See Section G(iv) above).

201. The 86
th
Street Community’s One Corner Entrance also meets the MTA’s stated
goals and objectives: “entrances must be located at the north end of the 72nd Street and the 86th
Street Stations at locations that allow for a connection to the stations’ mezzanines without major
redesign of the stations.”
202. Minimal redesign is involved with the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance,
Corner Solution for a number of reasons. It involves a minor design variation of enlarging the
MTA’s corner entrance, from two to three escalators, widening the sidewalk, removing the
Yorkshire Tower planter and non-weight bearing masonry wall, if necessary, and extending the
escalators down further to a landing to allow for adequate rock cover. The midblock entrance
could be eliminated and the second bank of escalators to the mezzanine could be shortened to the
67
mezzanine. The northeast corner location has already been approved in the FEIS; the Food
Emporium Alternative, for which a set of design drawings have already have been completed by
DHA.
25

203. In addition the Design Team has furnished a complete set of illustrative concept
drawings at the MTACC and FTA technical meetings for the One-Entrance, Corner Solution,
which is in close proximity to the Food Emporium location on the northeast corner of 86
th
Street
and Second Avenue (See Section F above). Therefore, it would be a simple task for even junior
level designers and engineers from AECOM to build on the existing body of work and complete
the minimal redesign involved in the limited change in location and connections to the
mezzanine levels.
26
Given the extensive international credentials of the firm, and their ongoing
work for Phase One of the SAS, they certainly have more than sufficient resources and the
ability to do so in as short order as the FTA has said that limited scope supplemental
environmental review has the potential to be completed, approximately 30 days.
27

204. Moreover, the minimal redesign involved in the 86
th
Street Community’s one-
entrance, three escalator, northeast corner solution is, if anything, less involved than the redesign
that resulted in the MTA changing the location of the only other midblock entrance that the
agency has planned to go forward with for the entire four phases of the SAS project, to a five-

25
See fn 2 above.
26
See also discussion in Section G(xi) above.
27
See Id. It is no answer for the MTA to say that redesign would take at least several months because they would
need to rebid design services when the agency continues to use AECOM for services of precisely this nature
regarding changes to the SAS. However, even if this were not so, for the sake of discussion, the MTA would still
have at least two ways to expedite the minimal redesign involved in the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance,
Corner Solution. First, the MTA could exercise rights under the agency’s existing contract with its builder to
complete the redesign on a design/build basis which does not require bidding and saves time by redesigning as
construction is underway as the MTA has done in the past. Second, MTA NYCT could also choose to expedite the
minimal redesign involved through use of the agency’s more than qualified in-house architectural and engineering
departments.
68
elevator, one entrance solution on the southeast corner of 72
nd
Street. This involved an analogous
federal environmental case brought by the 72
nd
Street Community in which the MTA NYCT
consulted with me as former lead architect for the SAS entrances to help expedite the change
from a midblock to a corner location design solution.
28
The redesign from a midblock to a corner
entrance involved in the 72
nd
Street case involved building acquisition and tenant relocation. The
86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution, in marked contrast, does not.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of NEPA and APA)
205. Defendants have refused or been unwilling to furnish documented environmental
analysis in response to the new, extensive Design Submittals prepared on behalf of the 86
th

Street Community, the authorities and calculations upon which they are based, and the
presentations made regarding them at subsequent MTA and FTA technical meetings, that begins
to demonstrate why the Defendants should not be going forward with implementing the 86
th

Street Community’s, One-Entrance Corner Solution without further delay.
206. The One-Entrance, Corner Solution meets and exceeds environmental review
standards in at minimum sixteen new and significant respects when the beneficial effects realized
and adverse impacts mitigated are studied evaluated, and compared to the MTA’s Two-Entrance
Midblock Scheme. This includes the core value of pedestrian and vehicular safety for the 86
th

Street Community, which the MTA regularly emphasizes is the agency’s number one priority.

[The Balance of This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank]



28
See fn. 7 above.
69
207. By failing to prepare a Limited Scope SEIS under the new and significant
information and circumstances presented by the 86
th
Street Community that fully studies,
evaluates and compares the One-Entrance, Corner Solution, to the Two-Entrance, Midblock
Scheme, Defendants have violated NEPA and its implementing regulations, abused their
discretion, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of APA.
208. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment issue pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4231, et seq.(“NEPA”); the Council of Environmental
Quality implementing NEPA regulations under 40 C.F.R. 1500.1 et seq; and United States
Department of Transportation implementing NEPA regulation under subparagraph (f)(3) of 23
C.F.R. § 771.130, as codified under 23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(2) governing the issuance of Limited
Scope SIESs for public transportation capital projects, and the Administrative Procedure Act 5
U.S.C. § 706:
(1) Declaring that Defendants’ failure to prepare a Limited Scope SEIS evaluating
the 86
th
Street Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution violates NEPA and
APA;
(2) Directing Defendants to prepare a Limited Scope SEIS evaluating the 86
th
Street
Community’s One-Entrance, Corner Solution;
(3) Enjoining the Defendants, their employees, agents and contractors from taking
any steps to commence, accelerate, or proceed with the limited portion of the
entire SAS project, pertaining to, or in furtherance of the construction of the
north entrance to the 86
th
Street station, the Two-Entrance, Midblock Scheme
without suspension of the far greater SAS project activities not directly affected,
unless and 1mtil the Defendants fully comply with the requimments of NEPA
andAPA;and
(4) Granting such other and further relief as is just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
March I5, 2013
70

By:
e_tcj .
Jos h J. Cec elli
Joseph P. Leo
Two Wall Street
New York, New York I 0005
(2I2) 227-4848
iceccarelli@ceCW§l.COlll
Jeffrey E. Glen
Rene F. Hertzog
ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.
I25I Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York I 0020
(2I2) 278-IOOO
j glen@andersonk:11l.com
rhertzog(a),andersonkill.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Yorkshire Towers Company L.P.
and Yorkshire Towers Tenants
Association