Comments on: DOB orders another 2nd Ave. evacuation

By: Lake Flaccid

Lake Flaccid — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:03:25 +0000

As a transcoaster, I should point out (although I suspect NY is far less susceptible) that these types of issues are responsible for the biggest mass transit heartbreak of the last 30 years: The discontinuation of the LA Metro underneath Wilshire Boulevard to Santa Monica (Subway to the Sea).

Construction caused gas explosions and cave-ins (proximity to the La Brea tar pits), and the despicable Henry Waxman (thankfully in the hospital) axed federal funding. Sadly useless to anyone but North Hollywood commuters, what remains of the system is truly stunning, especially the station at Vermont/Sunset.

I suspect the MTA is much more insulated from UES pols, but history leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

By: susan jones

susan jones — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:00:51 +0000

Alon, your a moron. Move to New Jersey

By: Tenants upset at Second Ave. evacuations :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:58:00 +0000

[...] afternoon, I reported on a building evacuation along Second Ave. near the Second Ave. Subway work zone. Due to a leaning structure, residents and [...]

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:11:57 +0000

Probably no less than the noise made by people sitting on stoops in Harlem. If the city doesn’t try to reduce nighttime noise in Harlem, it shouldn’t try to do it on the Upper East Side.

By: is it legal

is it legal — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:31:50 +0000

So are they now doing loud construction at NIGHT in front of the CVS at 72 and Second Ave??? They are running some incredibly loud rythymic drill right now, they have the lights on, and it’s 11:30 at night!

Is this legal?

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:01:36 +0000

I agree with this. While the 2nd Ave Subway may have been planned 1,000 years ago, it’s not being built until now. If there is a pre-existing condition shouldn’t it have to be rectified before someone makes it worse?

I’m not saying NYCT (or MTACC) should be responsible to fix the condition – just that it should have to be corrected before any digging makes the condition (that they knew about) worse.

By: Sally

Sally — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:04:41 +0000

The buildings on either side of 1768 were also issued vacate orders by the Dept. of Buildings. Around 6:00 this morning, the north-bound sidewalk in front of these buildings was closed off. If NYCT knew these buildings were stucturally unsound, then they shouldn’t have started construction without shoring them up.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:26:03 +0000

this is a PR disaster about to happen. Word has it owners of both buildings are about to file lawsuits on this one.

By: petey

petey — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:01:12 +0000

sorry, that should read “pre-existing problems”. i put it in quotes because it sounds like a technical term.

By: petey

petey — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:59:32 +0000

“The MTA has, in both cases, maintained that these buildings had existing structural problems, and based on my knowledge of the low-rise structures in that neighborhood, I’m inclined to believe them.”

i live in a low-rise structure in this neighborhood, and MTA could be correct. many of the buildings (inc. mine) were built in the 19th century and while still fundamentally sound have had lots of time to settle, sometimes into odd angles. of course it’s case-by-case (i don’t know the two buildings involved), and if there weren’t blasting any pre-existing problems might not by themselves be threatening.

which leads me to wonder, since “re-existing problems” can cover a wide range of structural weakness, some of it not dangerous in se but not good to have in the presence of blasting, how is the contribution of SAS work to any fault-finding in the case of a collapse measured?