To Reduce Transit Pain, Rethink Capital Projects

Various rescue plans for a Metropolitan Transportation Authority budget gap, initially set at $1.28 billion, call for painful cures likely to offset the potential good New York's economy could receive from President Obama's stimulus assistance. Suggested transit relief proposals, most prominently one designed by former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch, include payroll taxes, subway and bus fare increases of 8 percent and toll bridge fees. Somewhat more drastic remedies require 30-percent fare hikes, transit worker layoffs and service reductions involving elimination of some routes.

None of the rescue proposals appear to recommend any scaling down of billions of borrowing, requiring considerable annual debt service costs, by the MTA to finance capital spending projects. In this regard, two Manhattan megaprojects, the $4.65-billion, 1.7-mile Second Avenue Subway and the $7.38-billion East Side Access deep cavern tunnel bringing Long Island Railroad trains directly into Grand Central Station stand out. They are significant because substantially less-costly alternate blueprints for both are available.

Feds Pay Less Than 30%

That the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access have not been more thoroughly studied may be because of the impression that the Federal Government is paying the full cost. In this respect, in 2007 Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who represents the area covered by both projects, praised former President Bush "for the biggest infusion of Federal cash yet for the Second Avenue Subway."

But President Bush only pledged $1.3 billion of the $4.65 billion total cost of the Second Avenue Subway. An additional $450 million is committed from the 2005 New York State Bond Issue. Therefore, the remaining $2.9 billion must be financed by the MTA through taxes, subway, bus and tollbridge fares and bonds which place heavy pressure on the transit authority's annual operating budget. Similarly, the Bush administration pledged $2.7 billion for East Side Access, which also receives an infusion of $450 million from the 2005 State Bond issue. East Side Access's residual cost of $4.3 billion, like that of the Second Avenue Subway, is being financed by the same combination of taxes, subway, bus and toll bridge fares plus bonds necessitating constantly increasing annual debt service cost in the MTA operating budget.

Accordingly, it is logical that light rail should be seriously considered as an appreciably less-costly alternate for Second Avenue. Since 1999, there has been an engineering study available revealing the feasibility of light rail on Second Avenue. The cost would not exceed $500 million and, consequently, could be paid for from the Washington money alone, with considerable Federal funds left over to finance desirable transit projects in the North and West Shores of Staten Island, Douglaston-Little Neck in Queens and Mill Basin in Brooklyn.

'A Model for the Nation'

Cities throughout the world—Portland, Oregon, Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, Seattle, San Diego, Denver to name a few in the U.S.—are employing light rail rather than subways to solve their transit problems. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray La- Hood recently told a national television audience that Portland's light rail and streetcar systems are "a model for the nation."

Toronto is spending $400 million each year to build approximately 75 miles of light rail. Toronto Transit Commission Chairman Adam Giambrone says there is still talk about building subways for the future but that in the long run, subways are about 10 times more expensive than light rail. The Toronto transit plan "was just not doable in terms of subways. They're expensive to operate and light rail also allows you to re-invigorate the street and pump more money into street improvement."

Delcan Corporation, which does work for the MTA, made a study of East Side Access. Delcan's review revealed that by scrapping digging a deep cavern and bringing the trains directly into the upper level of Grand Central Station, the potential cost savings "appears to be in the order of at least $1.2 billion."

These less-expensive options for solving the MTA financial dilemma should be carefully examined, particularly by unions, especially the Transport Workers Union, consumer and community groups and elected officials prior to a final decision. If, as seems likely, the alternatives are feasible, transit riders, businesses and the overall economy of New York City and suburban counties could be spared a painful blow.

George Spitz was formerly an auditor for the New York State Department of Social Services, a Public Employees Federation Shop Steward and a board member of the Civil Service Merit Council.