$100 Million for a Tunnel. What Tunnel? - New York Times
The New York Times
August 3, 2005
$100 Million for a Tunnel. What Tunnel?
By SEWELL CHAN
Hours after the House of Representatives approved a big transportation bill on Friday morning, Representative Jerrold L. Nadler informed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that it would get a $100 million federal grant to design and engineer a freight tunnel under New York Harbor.
Usually, news of such largesse would be cause for celebration. But the Port Authority did not ask for the $100 million, says it did not know about the grant, and is not very interested in the project.
"For us to say that we're committed at this point in time and can commit any funds to it would be premature," the authority's executive director, Kenneth J. Ringler Jr., said this week.
The unusual circumstances surrounding the $100 million grant - which dwarfs all other individual appropriations for New York - reveal much about the peculiarities of federal transportation spending, in which huge appropriations are approved every few years in a manner that some deride as a pork opportunity for individual lawmakers.
In contrast to other projects in the $286.4 billion transportation spending bill, the cross-harbor tunnel is viewed by many planners as a worthy endeavor that could sharply reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution and improve the movement of goods throughout the region.
But no agency has agreed to build the tunnel, which could cost $4.8 billion to $7.4 billion, depending on its width. Under the most optimistic estimates, construction would begin in 2009 and last at least four years.
To complicate matters, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in a sharp reversal, has come out against the project, citing the objections of residents in and around Maspeth, Queens, where a freight terminal would be built.
The tunnel has been the dream of Mr. Nadler, one of the most prominent Democrats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and it would run from Jersey City, N.J., to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. From there, trains would continue on to Queens using existing tracks that connect with the Long Island Rail Road and CSX, the giant freight railroad.
A cross-harbor freight tunnel was discussed as early as 1893, and building it was an early goal of the Port Authority. Indeed, the authority was created in 1921 to reduce the cost and uncertainty of freight shipments, said Prof. Jameson W. Doig, a political scientist at Princeton University who has written extensively about the Port Authority; a cross-harbor tunnel was identified as an important solution.
Lack of cooperation from the railroads, which were fiercely competing with each other, crippled the plan, Professor Doig said, and by 1940 the Port Authority had abandoned the project.
It was Mr. Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who gave it new momentum. Under Mr. Giuliani, the city's Economic Development Corporation, working with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, began a major study of the need for the tunnel in 1998. That study, and an environmental study completed last year, endorsed the project.
But Mr. Bloomberg, speaking at a community meeting in March, abruptly withdrew support for the project and the Economic Development Corporation, which has worked on the project for seven years, does not plan to complete the environmental impact statement, which would be required for the project to proceed.
"The administration has said numerous times that we do not support the cross-harbor tunnel because it would have adverse effects on many neighborhoods throughout the city," said Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the corporation. The completion of the draft study "ends our role in the project," she said.
Perhaps the biggest barrier to the project is its low place on the agendas of the two people who control the Port Authority: Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey of New Jersey.
Mr. Codey wants the authority to focus on a new passenger-train tunnel under the Hudson River, to be used by New Jersey Transit. Mr. Pataki has called on the authority to build a different tunnel - one that would allow a "one seat" train ride from Lower Manhattan to Kennedy International Airport.
"There are competing priorities for limited resources," Mr. Ringler of the Port Authority said in a telephone interview. "We have to figure out and determine which projects we should be investing in. That said, the governors of our two states have been very clear where they feel our priorities should be."
Mr. Ringler said he appreciated Mr. Nadler's dedication to the project, but added that there was a gap of billions of dollars "between what Congress appropriated and what this project is going to cost."
Meanwhile, the project has been in a state of limbo and will probably remain so until the Port Authority begins the planning and engineering work. A coalition of business, labor and environmental groups has created a Web site - www.moveny.org - to support the tunnel, but its opponents also have been speaking out.
"We're going to make central Queens the truck capital of North America if this occurs," said Mitchell L. Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University.
The $100 million is one of dozens of appropriations for New York City in the spending bill, some with seemingly tenuous connections to New York's transportation needs. Other projects include $15 million to begin ferry service between the Rockaways and Lower Manhattan; $3 million each for improvements around the New York Public Library and the Metropolitan Museum of Art; and $1 million to build a greenway on the Manhattan waterfront between East River Park and the Brooklyn Bridge.
Mr. Nadler maintained that the $100 million grant was a major accomplishment. "It's a great step forward in the long-term fight for this absolutely necessary project," he said. "It represents a recognition by Congress that this is indeed a project of national significance."
However, he conceded that it would probably take the election of new governors - in New Jersey this year and in New York next year - before the Port Authority would commit to realizing the project.
"Politicians change, priorities change, governors change," Mr. Nadler said. "This project is very long term."
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Link to Article Source
August 3, 2005
$100 Million for a Tunnel. What Tunnel?
By SEWELL CHAN
Hours after the House of Representatives approved a big transportation bill on Friday morning, Representative Jerrold L. Nadler informed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that it would get a $100 million federal grant to design and engineer a freight tunnel under New York Harbor.
Usually, news of such largesse would be cause for celebration. But the Port Authority did not ask for the $100 million, says it did not know about the grant, and is not very interested in the project.
"For us to say that we're committed at this point in time and can commit any funds to it would be premature," the authority's executive director, Kenneth J. Ringler Jr., said this week.
The unusual circumstances surrounding the $100 million grant - which dwarfs all other individual appropriations for New York - reveal much about the peculiarities of federal transportation spending, in which huge appropriations are approved every few years in a manner that some deride as a pork opportunity for individual lawmakers.
In contrast to other projects in the $286.4 billion transportation spending bill, the cross-harbor tunnel is viewed by many planners as a worthy endeavor that could sharply reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution and improve the movement of goods throughout the region.
But no agency has agreed to build the tunnel, which could cost $4.8 billion to $7.4 billion, depending on its width. Under the most optimistic estimates, construction would begin in 2009 and last at least four years.
To complicate matters, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in a sharp reversal, has come out against the project, citing the objections of residents in and around Maspeth, Queens, where a freight terminal would be built.
The tunnel has been the dream of Mr. Nadler, one of the most prominent Democrats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and it would run from Jersey City, N.J., to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. From there, trains would continue on to Queens using existing tracks that connect with the Long Island Rail Road and CSX, the giant freight railroad.
A cross-harbor freight tunnel was discussed as early as 1893, and building it was an early goal of the Port Authority. Indeed, the authority was created in 1921 to reduce the cost and uncertainty of freight shipments, said Prof. Jameson W. Doig, a political scientist at Princeton University who has written extensively about the Port Authority; a cross-harbor tunnel was identified as an important solution.
Lack of cooperation from the railroads, which were fiercely competing with each other, crippled the plan, Professor Doig said, and by 1940 the Port Authority had abandoned the project.
It was Mr. Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who gave it new momentum. Under Mr. Giuliani, the city's Economic Development Corporation, working with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, began a major study of the need for the tunnel in 1998. That study, and an environmental study completed last year, endorsed the project.
But Mr. Bloomberg, speaking at a community meeting in March, abruptly withdrew support for the project and the Economic Development Corporation, which has worked on the project for seven years, does not plan to complete the environmental impact statement, which would be required for the project to proceed.
"The administration has said numerous times that we do not support the cross-harbor tunnel because it would have adverse effects on many neighborhoods throughout the city," said Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the corporation. The completion of the draft study "ends our role in the project," she said.
Perhaps the biggest barrier to the project is its low place on the agendas of the two people who control the Port Authority: Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey of New Jersey.
Mr. Codey wants the authority to focus on a new passenger-train tunnel under the Hudson River, to be used by New Jersey Transit. Mr. Pataki has called on the authority to build a different tunnel - one that would allow a "one seat" train ride from Lower Manhattan to Kennedy International Airport.
"There are competing priorities for limited resources," Mr. Ringler of the Port Authority said in a telephone interview. "We have to figure out and determine which projects we should be investing in. That said, the governors of our two states have been very clear where they feel our priorities should be."
Mr. Ringler said he appreciated Mr. Nadler's dedication to the project, but added that there was a gap of billions of dollars "between what Congress appropriated and what this project is going to cost."
Meanwhile, the project has been in a state of limbo and will probably remain so until the Port Authority begins the planning and engineering work. A coalition of business, labor and environmental groups has created a Web site - www.moveny.org - to support the tunnel, but its opponents also have been speaking out.
"We're going to make central Queens the truck capital of North America if this occurs," said Mitchell L. Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University.
The $100 million is one of dozens of appropriations for New York City in the spending bill, some with seemingly tenuous connections to New York's transportation needs. Other projects include $15 million to begin ferry service between the Rockaways and Lower Manhattan; $3 million each for improvements around the New York Public Library and the Metropolitan Museum of Art; and $1 million to build a greenway on the Manhattan waterfront between East River Park and the Brooklyn Bridge.
Mr. Nadler maintained that the $100 million grant was a major accomplishment. "It's a great step forward in the long-term fight for this absolutely necessary project," he said. "It represents a recognition by Congress that this is indeed a project of national significance."
However, he conceded that it would probably take the election of new governors - in New Jersey this year and in New York next year - before the Port Authority would commit to realizing the project.
"Politicians change, priorities change, governors change," Mr. Nadler said. "This project is very long term."
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Link to Article Source
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 at 10:49.
