Chairman Ravitch, Honorable Commissioners
It appears obvious from previous testimony and examination of documentation submitted by the MTA for its capital spending program including new projects and system upgrades that a resolution of your mandate is unlikely without substantial city and state aid increases involving tax hikes, including congestion pricing, and/or higher fare and toll bridge rates. These could have a detrimental effect on New York’s economy at a critical time because consumers would consequently have less money to spend in stores and restaurants.
CONSIDER ALTERNATE METHODS FOR MANHATTAN MEGAPROJECTS
Yet New York’s transit expansion needs are desirable and to cancel them absent availability of less costly alternatives would not be good for New York City. That being said, all three Manhattan megaprojects are unfairly absorbing virtually all capital monies from the city state and federal government despite serious needs in the outer boroughs and, consequently should be re-examined. There are feasible substitutes for all three Manhattan megaprojects offering considerable savings, thus, freeing up money not only to avoid harmful tax and fare increases but also to make available monies for equally needed transportation projects, such as light rail in Staten Island and Eastern Queens.
MANHATTAN MEGAPROJECTS REQUIRE HIGHER TAXES AND FARES
The Second Avenue Subway, the Extension of the #7 Line on 42nd St. and East Side Access are the three Manhattan megaprojects that although substantially underfunded as far as completion is concerned are, as noted, absorbing, virtually all capital expansion monies. The higher taxes and subway, bus and toll bridge fares for the megaprojects will be paid for by all New York City and Suburban residents.
ALTERNATE PLANS OFFER $6.7 BILLION IN SAVINGS
But, there are alternate plans devised by skilled engineers offering savings totaling in the vicinity of $6.7 billion that are available. The approximate breakdown of these savings are: (1) $1.2 billion in construction cost and a completion date three years earlier by halting construction of MTA Deep Cavern Station by linking Long Island Railroad East River tunnels with five existing platform tracks at Grand Central Terminal. (www.irum.org); (2) $1.5 billion by substituting for the $2.1 billion 1 mile one station, #7 line extension on 42nd St. with a a 2.5-mile surface light rail line running river-to-river in a landscaped 42nd Street, with 16 pairs of stops, conservatively costing $600 million. {www.vision42.org/about/studies.php#cost; (3) $4 billion by replacing the $4.65 billion, 1.7 mile Second Avenue Subway with light rail (LRT) on 1st, 2nd and 3rd avenues at a cost of $500 million. Denver LRT costs were $27.6 million per mile (Rocky Mountain News, 11/17/06) but construction in New York City is generally, often substantially, higher
COMMISSION SHOULD RECOMMEND MTA HALT EXCAVATION IMMEDIATELY
Since George Haikalis, a professional engineer with high standing in transportation groups around America and also the President of the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility (IRUM) has also been invited to testify before this Honorable Commission and is more knowledgeable about these projects that I am, I will focus on the financial and deleterious political aspects of the Second Avenue Subway. I’m also recommending that the Honorable Commission persuade the MTA to cease construction in the 91st to 96th St. areas where eight stores and restaurants have ceased operation with many more anticipated in the future and certainly not start excavation in the 69th to 72nd St. area threatened for the end of the month (The INFORMER, , September 15, 2006, page 1 attached) until the Honorable Commission is convinced that the subway project is desirable and should continue regardless of current apparent financial problems. There is an excellent comprehensive study of the advantages of light rail (LRT) for the Second Avenue Subway on the IRUM web site (www.irum.org)
MTA MAY VIOLATE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTS
Honorable Commissioners the MTA appears to have casually discarded light rail (LRT) in what may be violations of the federal government’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), formerly known as the Intermodal Service Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The Second Avenue Subway SDEIS (Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement) lists in Table B-1 (page B-7) an alleged “Long List of Alternatives”. Alternative 5A is described as “Light Rail Service on Dedicated Avenue and 5B is labeled Light Rail Service on Paired Avenues. In, Table B-3, Item 6 (page B-12) the aforementioned two LRT alternatives are dismissed “because of substantial potential traffic impacts.”
MTA IGNORES LRT BUT PROMOTES BRT
This rationale for LRT dismissal is preposterous because obviously to be worthwhile, light rail (LRT) requires dedicated lanes which cannot be shared with auto traffic. Yet, the website of DMJM HARRIS reveals it received from MTA a $2.8 million contract “to see which corridors present the best opportunities for a BRT [Bus Rapid Transit] demonstration” (appended). Similar to light rail, BRT needs dedicated lanes to make an investment feasible. The difference is that enforcement of dedicated lanes is much cheaper and easier for light rail because LRT lanes can be real or artificial grass requiring minimal enforcement because autos and buses including BRT cannot run on other than a paved surface. Moreover, New York City’s PlaNYC also completely ignores light rail (LRT), which is excellent for seniors and the disabled because of its street level boarding capacity, while promoting bus rapid transit (BRT).

George N. Spitz, http://www.georgespitz.com, gnspitz1@msn.com. 212 348 2225 or 646 210 6170

That makes sense, but I still think that the city and state should contribute. We should make it clear that it’s the city and state budget cuts that have put the MTA in this position.

The real value of DiNapoli’s report is that it discredits the often repeated claim that the MTA has hidden billions, or that it just needs to trim the fat somewhere, and that “they shouldn’t get a dime more from us.” DiNapoli is saying that there are no hidden billions, and not much fat left to trim.

The LIRR disability swindle is a liability, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t bring taxpayer contributions to the MTA back up to the levels they used to be at.