On Transit Map, All Roads Lead to Politics

[Kris]

January 25, 2004

On Transit Map, All Roads Lead to Politics

By MICHAEL LUO


Donald Dowler, a maintenance worker, in the Second Avenue subway line started in the 1970's, before the city ran out of money for the project.

Not since a legendary power broker named Robert Moses sketched his plans for the region's elaborate system of bridges and highways has New York City stood on the brink of so much change to its haggard transportation network.

After decades of neglect and deadlock, politicians and planners have begun to lay out a grand vision for the city's steel skeleton of subways and commuter trains, one that offers relief to residents of Manhattan's East Side, spurs growth on the far west, links Lower Manhattan to the region's airports and frees thousands of Long Island commuters from having to double back on their routes.

The plans would double the number of trains for New Jersey commuters heading into Midtown, create a transit hub in Lower Manhattan and construct a new Pennsylvania Station. A long-running proposal to dig a rail freight tunnel under New York harbor is also vying for federal money, spurred by worries of a terrorist attack on the George Washington Bridge.

"This is like a moon shot," said Peter Kalikow, chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, about the sudden confluence of blueprints. "The planets are lined up right. We can't let this opportunity drop."

But will this giant leap for New York City's overburdened infrastructure really happen?

The vision is expensive, some $50 billion for all its parts. Few believe there is enough money to go around, and everyone has a favorite. So a bare-knuckled political battle is expected in the coming year, as the transportation authority issues its new capital plan and Congress moves to reauthorize a mammoth federal transportation bill. The outcome could determine what is built and is not.

"It's definitely Darwinian," said Gene Russianoff, a lawyer for the Straphangers Campaign, a transit advocacy group. "It's definitely survival of the fittest."

Over the last 60 years, for a host of reasons, almost nothing significant has been done to expand the city's transit system. In a last paroxysm of spending before the fiscal crises of the 1970's, Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller built a rail tunnel under the East River at 63rd Street and segments of a subway line under Second Avenue before financing dried up.

By the early 1980's, the subway and commuter rail systems were in steep decline. Authorities realized that drastic measures were needed. A capital plan was issued to pay for restoration, but expansion had to wait.

"You couldn't have a conversation about expanding the capacity of the system," said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, an independent urban policy group. "The system was collapsing."

The restoration of the system remained the focus throughout most of the 1990's. In 1996, however, Gov. George E. Pataki ordered the transportation authority, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the city to begin studying projects that would lead to a seamless transportation network in metropolitan New York, permitting convenient travel through the entire region.

It soon became apparent, however, that politics would play a role in setting priorities. In what was widely seen as a nod to their suburban political bases, former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato and later Mr. Pataki locked onto East Side Access, a proposal to build a connector at Grand Central Terminal for the Long Island Rail Road that would allow commuters easier access to the East Side of Manhattan. With their support, East Side Access quickly became the leading megaproject.

Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani elbowed his way into that debate with a plan to connect the subway to La Guardia Airport, a benefit for business travelers and his political base in Queens.

And the abandoned Second Avenue subway found a powerful champion in Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who represents the Lower East Side. Mr. Silver vowed to hold up the state budget unless the Pataki administration committed to building the entire length of the project, as opposed to a small segment that was initially favored.

Eventually, all three projects, including a commitment to the full length of the Second Avenue subway, wound their way into the transportation authority's capital plan for 2000 to 2004, which had a record outlay of $19.5 billion.

As those proposals were being made, the Port Authority, after decades of false starts, began work on a rail link to Kennedy International Airport. The difference this time was a plan to use airport passenger fees to help pay for the AirTrain, which connects the airport to subway and Long Island Rail Road lines.

But then came the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. Rather than be content with simply rebuilding Lower Manhattan, politicians argued that the attack represented a rare opportunity to start anew and fix longstanding problems.

John E. Zuccotti, chairman of Brookfield Financial Properties, the largest downtown landlord, began promoting a "super shuttle" commuter rail that would connect Lower Manhattan to Kennedy Airport and the suburbs of Long Island. Under the plan, trains would use the tunnel for the A and C subway lines to go under the East River, requiring some rerouting and displacing tens of thousands of subway riders, but the alternative was a new tunnel, which could take decades and billions more dollars.

State and city officials eventually went to Washington with a wish list of more than a dozen projects, including the downtown commuter rail. Total price tag: $7.5 billion.

However, the package of transportation aid they received was barely half of what they wanted. Federal officials balked at several of the projects that clearly had little to do with Sept. 11. But they left the state to decide which projects to finance with the $4.55 billion award.

Gov. Pataki settled on three major initiatives: a grand hub centered on the rebuilt PATH station, the Fulton Street Transit Center and a revamping of the South Ferry subway terminal. He also approved an array of smaller ideas. A degree of consensus had coalesced around the big projects. More importantly, they were reasonably priced.

Notably absent from the list, however, was airport access. Its price, anywhere from $2 billion to more than $5 billion depending on the plan, made it prohibitive. Transportation groups also raised questions about how many riders it would serve.

With all the momentum in Lower Manhattan, proponents of the Second Avenue subway and East Side Access began fretting that their projects might be left behind. Strictly speaking, the downtown projects did not threaten theirs because they sprang from the $21 billion earmarked for post-9/11 relief. The other big-ticket projects depended on the federal transportation bill, reauthorized every six years. But advocates worried that without a unified voice, New York City would run into trouble.

Mr. Kalikow traveled to Washington to seek reassurances from important members of Congress and reiterate that East Side Access and the Second Avenue subway remained the top priorities.

"Of course they know they gave us $21 billion, and $5 billion was for transportation due to 9/11," he said. "But because we followed their guidelines about our downtown projects, we think they will have no effect on what we will or will not get on the other projects."

But the playing field was becoming more cluttered. With the city's pursuit of the 2012 Olympics, an old proposal thrust its way to the forefront under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, in charge of economic development and the Olympic bid, proposed extending the No. 7 subway line from Times Square to 34th Street and 11th Avenue, where a new Olympic stadium — and a possible home for the New York Jets — may be built.

"On the far west side, you have a unique opportunity," Mr. Doctoroff said. "That opportunity is to, in effect, fund a project out of the incremental revenues when you extend mass transit into more or less undeveloped territory. That opportunity doesn't really exist anywhere else."

Knowing he faced a battle if he took money from the other projects, Mr. Doctoroff suggested that the city, rather than the authority, pay for the $1.2 billion project entirely, issuing bonds that would be paid back with revenues from rising property values in the neighborhood. But after questions about the plan's feasibility, the city is now interviewing investment banks for other ideas.

What makes the No. 7 extension especially threatening to some is its drastically reduced timetable. For the line to be ready in time for the Olympics, work needs to start in 2005. Advocates of other projects worry that Mr. Doctoroff's alternative financing scheme will not materialize.

"They haven't announced their funding plan," said Representative Jerrold L. Nadler, whose district includes parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. "Until they do, we can't analyze it."

For 20 years, Mr. Nadler has been pushing a proposal to build a rail freight tunnel under New York Harbor, linking New Jersey to Brooklyn. He has commissioned a series of studies, wresting financing out of Congress. As his project has readied for construction, he has watched as other projects that have not been similarly scrutinized pushed their way to the front.

For proponents of the Second Avenue subway, worry turned to alarm in November when the Partnership for New York City, a leading business group, released a report that prioritized transit options according to economic development benefits. Under the group's analysis, the Lower Manhattan transit hub, the new Pennsylvania Station at the Farley Post Office site and the No. 7 line extension would provide the most return. In contrast, the report said the Second Avenue subway, in its full form, would not be worth its price.

"Unless we set a few priorities and relatively short-term priorities and allocate enough money to actually get them done, you'll have lots of planning and little getting done," said Kathryn S. Wylde, the partnership's president.

In response, the coalition behind the Second Avenue subway mobilized, releasing a study at a news conference on the steps of City Hall saying that the partnership's methodology was flawed and that the economic benefits for the Second Avenue subway were much greater.

The La Guardia proposal fell off the radar screen after its principal backer, Mr. Giuliani, exited the scene. But the Lower Manhattan commuter rail proposal, long seen as a pipe dream, is re-emerging.

Senator Charles E. Schumer pushed the idea during a December speech and insisted that the project could be paid for out of the city's post-Sept.11 money. A few weeks later, Gov. Pataki announced in his State of the State address that he would soon unveil four options for the airport rail link and select a final design in April.

M.T.A. officials say they believe a mixture of post-Sept. 11 and transportation authority money would help pay for the project, but because the timeline for the project is further down the road, it should not interfere with other plans. Others, however, doubt it will be so simple.

Still another project agitating for attention is a decade-old New Jersey Transit proposal for a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River into Midtown, known as Access to the Region's Core. If transportation decisions were truly made on a regional basis, advocates said, the project would be at the top of the list because New Jersey is the city's fastest-growing commuter market. But the $4.5 billion project has largely been labeled a New Jersey issue.

Much of the jockeying that is going on now stems from paranoia, advocates from several groups said. Confusion reigns over which projects are actually in danger. The three Lower Manhattan projects — PATH, South Ferry and the transit center — clearly have their financing. After delays, the new Pennsylvania Station should also finally go forward with money already earmarked for it.

Significant money has already been spent on preliminary construction for East Side Access, although the need to clean up toxic areas of the Sunnyside rail yard in Queens may cause delays. Years of work have gone into securing recommended status from the Federal Transit Administration for both Second Avenue and East Side Access.

But the reality is that the last M.T.A. capital plan was paid for in large part by issuing bonds that are projected to cause yawning deficits in coming years. It is unclear how much more debt the authority can afford to issue for its new plan, which is expected to exceed $20 billion. On top of the new projects, the authority also needs to make sure that it continues to maintain the existing system. Some have pushed for reinstating the commuter tax, charging tolls on the East River bridges, raising the statewide gas tax or closing various tax loopholes.

"We need to go find the money," said Mr. Yaro, of the Regional Plan Association. "Our grandparents did this. We need to do it again."



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

March 28, 2004

Bumps Along the Rails

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA


Disputes delayed the first digging by more than a decade.

AS you ride the A train or the 2 train or any other line on the New York subway, you may want to mull an essential but mostly forgotten fact, one that could be posted aboard every train as a civics lesson.

It is this: Many of the lines exist because eight decades ago, a mayor and a newspaper publisher despised the existing transit companies. The city built those lines not to complement the older ones, but to compete with them - in fact, to bankrupt them. It worked, which is why New Yorkers ended up with overlapping transit service in some areas, and no service in others.

While the subway is rightly praised as the life force of the city, it is equally true that its past and present have been shadowed by politics, rivalries, grudges, accidents, demagoguery and decisions that were just plain dumb.

Most squabbles were about money, and they go a long way toward explaining the subway's central failing: wide swaths of the city have no service. With a few small exceptions, the system has not been expanded since 1941; the demolition of elevated lines means the city has less transit rail service now than it had then.

"If you go to any of the major European systems, or Tokyo or Seoul, historically, they have not just kept the system in good order, they have expanded it to keep pace with the city's growth," said Peter Derrick, a historian and the author of "Tunneling to the Future: The Story of the Great Subway Expansion That Saved New York" (New York University Press, 2001). "What sets New York apart is the failure to do that, the failure at times to even keep it in good order, the inability to come to terms with who will pay for things over the long run."

More than any of the systems abroad, he added, New York's is expected to pay for itself through passenger fares, rather than government investment.

The dark side of the subways predates the system itself. Construction of the first tunnel was delayed by more than a decade - Boston beat New York to it as a result - by disputes over what would get built, by whom, where and with whose money.

"Transit is political," said Gene Russianoff, who, as staff lawyer for the Straphangers Campaign, has spent more than two decades lobbying public officials for money. "It's been as bare-knuckles as any aspect of life in New York, going back to Boss Tweed."

The original subway planners also became combatants in one of the defining economic struggles of the industrial age, over the future of a new commodity, electricity. Thomas Edison championed direct current electricity, while George Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla promoted alternating current, and they battled for years to win adherents.

The Interborough Rapid Transit Company, the IRT, sided with Edison, a mistake that New Yorkers are still paying for. Within a few years, alternating current became the world's standard. So to this day the subway system buys power from the grid, available only as alternating current, and must convert it to direct current before pumping it into the third rail.

Early business and political rivalries led to another fundamental blunder. The subway today remains two separate systems - the numbered lines in one, the lettered lines in the other - whose trains, tunnels and platforms are incompatible.

But it is money, or its lack, that has shaped the system for much of the last century. The system lives in a constant state of tension among three sets of expenses: daily operations, regular replacement of old equipment, and expansion. The debates over balancing these expenses, involving fare increases and government subsidies, often become political brawls.

In the late 19th century, the fare on the elevated and street-level trains that plied the city was a nickel. When the subway came along, the fare was a nickel, too. And for decades after, through wars and inflation, the political leaders who controlled the fare refused to raise it.

By the end of World War I, the city's two transit rail companies, the IRT and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, were losing money and seeking a fare increase, and the BRT entered bankruptcy, emerging a few years later as the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Company, or BMT. Yet the city's populist mayor, John F. (Red Mike) Hylan, rebuked "grasping transportation monopolies" and defended the nickel fare as a birthright. Mr. Hylan's principal backer, William Randolph Hearst, blared this view from his newspapers. (They were less than impartial. Decades earlier, the BRT's forerunner had fired Hylan from his job as a train engineer; Hearst saw attacks on the transit companies as a good way to sell papers.)

Hylan called for a new, city-owned system to be named the Independent, or IND, which is the origin of many of today's lettered lines. Rather than push the system into fresh terrain that needed service, like eastern Queens, he placed lines where they would compete with the IRT and BMT.

By World War II, both of the older companies had collapsed and the city had taken them over and merged the three systems. But city control was no panacea, especially with the fare still a nickel. The first fare increase, to a dime, did not occur until 1948, 44 years after the subway opened. By then, the country was in thrall to the automobile, and investment in mass transit dwindled. Basic maintenance was neglected; ridership and revenues plummeted, and transit strikes in 1966 and 1980 did not help matters. Anyone who lived in the city in the early 80's remembers when the subways meant derailments, fires, graffiti and crime.

New York State came to the rescue with billions of dollars starting in 1982, but in the last decade the state and the city have retreated from capital spending. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has an ambitious list of projects under way, including work for the long-delayed Second Avenue subway, but the agency's heavy reliance on borrowing, in the absence of government aid, has some financial watchdogs worried.

Politicians have always promised new service that nobody could or would finance. Both the 1913 plan that greatly expanded the system, and Hylan's 1922 IND initiative, were never completely realized. But the Second Avenue subway reigns as an icon of noncompletion, like the Cathedral of St. John the Divine or Gilbert Stuart's portrait of George Washington. Voters approved bonds for it in 1951, and demolition of the Third Avenue el in Manhattan a few years later was justified partly by arguing that a Second Avenue line was imminent. New York City Transit spends millions of dollars each year just to maintain the unused bits of tunnel it has dug.

So what will become of the Second Avenue line? Mr. Russianoff, 50, replies with a question of his own: "In my lifetime? Depends on the politicians."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

April 2, 2004

As Pork Barrel Halts at Subway, New York Feels Cheated Again

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON, April 1 - As Congress attempts to finish an extensive spending bill for road, highway and mass transportation projects around the nation, New York finds itself in a bleakly familiar spot: on the sidelines.

On Thursday, the House took up a spending package that would give the city and state hundreds of millions of dollars less in transportation aid than some New York officials had been counting on.

The House measure sets aside about $15.8 billion for New York over the next six years, or about $1.6 billion less than the amount that the Senate had earmarked for the city and state in a similar measure that it had approved several weeks back.

New York's situation is not entirely surprising, given the strong impulse by Congressional leaders to keep a lid on spending at a time of growing budget deficits.

But it is still a reminder of New York's declining power in a Congress increasingly dominated by Republicans from other regions of the country. Their agenda includes, among other things, changing complex financing formulas that have long helped places with large transit systems, like New York, Chicago and Boston.

Even New York Republicans had a hard time hiding their dismay on Thursday.

Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, a Republican from upstate New York, took to the floor to detail the state's plight. He pointed out that New York's transit system carried about a third of the nation's mass transit riders last year, but will receive only about 14 percent of all federal transit aid.

He then dragged out an old chestnut of New York politics to drive home the point: each year, New Yorkers send $20 billion more in tax payments to Washington than the state gets back in federal aid.

"But we don't complain," noted Mr. Boehlert, who supports the bill. "It's all about what is fair."

The $15.8 billion for New York was part of a spending package that the House took up calling for $275 billion to pay for highway and mass transit projects around the nation.

The Senate passed its own version of the bill several weeks ago that calls for spending $318 billion, with $17.4 billion specifically earmarked for New York. (The last time Washington approved a major transportation bill, in 1997, the amount specifically earmarked for New York was $13.5 billion.)

It is anyone's guess how much New York will get this time around. House and Senate negotiators still must sit down and reconcile the differences between the two bills, assuming the House bill is approved.

Neither bill is particularly generous to New York. Though New York would get increases in highway aid and mass transportation aid under both bills, those increases are lower than the national average for each of those categories.

At the same time, President Bush, who wants to mollify fiscal conservatives worried about the federal deficit, is warning that even the House version is too expensive.

From the perspective of New York City and State officials, the transportation bill is one of the most important measures that Congress will take up this year. Budget analysts for Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican, estimate that the state needs at least $1.65 billion annually over the next six years to pay for highway projects alone.

But with the White House threatening a veto, New York officials are beginning to concede that it seems unlikely that New York will get the amount that either the Senate bill ($1.7 billion a year) or the House bill (about $1.5 billion) allots to it for highway projects.

Many New York officials are concerned that the kind of figures being considered by Congress could delay or jeopardize projects intended to upgrade the state's buses, subways and commuter rail lines.

New York politicians are especially concerned about a proposal that was tucked into the spending package that was approved by the Senate several weeks ago. It would eventually require that all states receive a larger percentage of what they pay in in gas taxes, which are in turn used to finance the nation's transportation needs. Under the existing formula, New York and other states with heavily used mass transit systems draw a larger share of these funds. But the provision would ensure that all states got a greater percentage of the total amount they pay in gas taxes.

Many New Yorkers complain that the proposal, if adopted, would reward gas-guzzling states, where people commute largely by car, at the expense of states like New York.

The reaction from City Hall bordered on indignation. "New Yorkers shouldn't be penalized for using mass transit," said Jordan Barowitz, a spokesman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York City Democrat, went further, taking a poke at relatively heavy gas-consuming states.

"New York has invested huge sums in mass transit," he said Thursday on the floor. "Therefore, we are more energy efficient. And apparently, because we are more energy efficient, because we save on sending money to the Middle East, we must be punished by getting less."

New Yorkers have not lost hope completely, noting that Mr. Pataki and Mr. Bloomberg have courted powerful Washington Republicans like Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, who is chairman of the Banking Committee. That included raising money for Mr. Shelby, who will have a strong say in the final bill the two houses agree upon.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20040426/202/960

BUILDING TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NEXT CENTURY: WE CAN DO IT ALL

by Charles Schumer

April 04, 2004

Every 40 years or so New York sheds its skin with a burst of public and private investment in transportation infrastructure.

At the turn of the last century, New York built much of its remarkable subway system, which helped make the city one of the world's greatest. In the 1940s, '50s and early '60s, Robert Moses was responsible for a massive expansion of New York's transportation infrastructure until New Yorkers finally rebelled against his refusal to address the human costs of his projects. Nevertheless, Moses helped further build the New York region into an economic powerhouse.

Now, as the 21st century dawns, New York must once again make major investments in its transportation system which will fuel the region's economic growth for the coming decades.

Between 1990 and 2000, New York City's population grew by about 800,000 people and the metropolitan area grew by over 1 million people - more growth than our region had seen in decades. And that growth is being fueled largely by two dynamic groups of people - new immigrants from all over the world and creative, well-educated, young people flocking to New York from all over the country.

Both groups of newcomers have spurred a fantastic renaissance of so many of our city's neighborhoods - Harlem, Green Point, Williamsburg, DUMBO, Red Hook, Bedford-Stuyvesant and even the South Bronx.

To make sure these newcomers succeed, our city must grow and must create new jobs. And I believe that we cannot grow without significant new investments in transportation, without which we will literally and economically stand still. And in today's competitive economy, to stand still is to die.

I believe we have a rare moment here in New York - we have strong political consensus on a number of key projects needed for our region, including East Side Access, Second Avenue Subway, linking Lower Manhattan with Kennedy Airport, extending the number 7 Line to the far west side, and the cross-harbor freight rail tunnel.

And now in a moment of great serendipity, there are a number of federal pots of funding that we can access. I believe that, if we all work together, we can succeed in this unique moment in securing the funding needed to build all these important transportation projects, without tapping too deeply into city or state coffers.

REBUILDING LOWER MANHATTAN’S TRANSPORTATION

After September 11, one of my top priorities in my negotiations with the White House was to ensure that we could radically remake the transportation system of lower Manhattan.

Initially, there were strict rules about the use of federal disaster funds for transportation projects. Those funds are to be used only to restore the affected transportation infrastructure to its pre-disaster condition.

And while that may make sense in the case of a hurricane, it made no sense at all for lower Manhattan, with its maze of disconnected and antiquated and sometimes-redundant subway lines, lack of a centralized concourse linking the subways and PATH, and its lack of a connection to Kennedy Airport.

To just rebuild to a pre 9-11 state would be a wasted opportunity.

I was able to help convince the Bush administration and my colleagues in the Congress to change the rules for New York and provide us with an unprecedented total of $4.55 billion to be spent on new transportation projects.

The permanent PATH station at the World Trade Center site, the Fulton Street Transit Center, and the South Ferry station rebuild are all on track for completion between 2006 and 2007. These projects, which will cost about $2.85 billion, will significantly improve access and mobility in Lower Manhattan. And, we still have approximately $1.7 billion left for other transportation projects. We also have approximately $1.2 billion in unspent Community Development Block Grant funds available that the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has set aside for the JFK rail link.

Additionally, we are working hard in Congress to convince our colleagues to provide New York with additional transportation funds to make up for the portion of post-9/11 tax benefits that we did not fully utilize.

Downtown Manhattan has not grown like midtown, or even downtown Brooklyn, in part because of its inadequate transportation infrastructure. Without easy connections to the major transportation hubs - Penn Station and Grand Central - or to the airports, downtown has suffered seeing many of its businesses migrate to midtown or out of the city.

We must improve its transportation links to the rest of New York, with a connection to Kennedy Airport and the labor pool of Long Island, which is especially important to businesses considering staying or moving to Downtown. To thrive in today's global economy, businesses must be able to draw from a wide, highly-educated labor pool and Long Island represents an essential source of workers for downtown's businesses.

I believe we have a once-in-a-generation chance to connect downtown to Kennedy Airport and Long Island, which will spur new business development, create jobs in downtown, and ensure the entire New York City region's economic growth for generations to come.

The governor intends to announce his proposal to provide a rail link from Kennedy Airport into Lower Manhattan, however, the funding of their proposal is still under consideration. Governor George Pataki supports using those remaining $1.7 billion in 9/11 transportation funds to build a $900 million tunnel under West Street and a bus facility and related infrastructure.

I share the long-standing desire to knit together downtown with Battery Park City and the World Financial Center. And I wholeheartedly agree that we must create a fitting site and design for the memorial for the fallen heroes and victims of 9/11.

But I believe that dedicating $900 million of our remaining federal dollars to burying four blocks of West Street cannot be a higher priority than linking downtown to Kennedy Airport.

DON’T FORGET THE 7 TRAIN

I also am convinced of the absolute importance of connecting the far west side of Manhattan with the city's subway system. It is the key to opening the area up to successful residential and commercial development.

That is why I am a zealous and passionate advocate on extending the number 7 subway line. It is my number one goal for the development of the far west side and, to me, the most important part of the mayor's entire proposal.

Perhaps most indicative of the importance growing the number 7 line westward is the experience of Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf, London's largest new office complex languished until the London government built a new underground subway line to it. After the tube connected Canary Wharf to the rest of the city the complex took off, it is now one of London's most successful.

This should be a stark lesson to all of us: build the 7 line west and the far west side will flourish; don't build it and very little else will happen.

Yet, I fear it is the part of the proposal least likely to get built.

The mayor's far west side proposal relies upon approval by the City Council for the zoning changes needed for the new commercial and residential development and the extension of the number 7 Line. Approval by the State Legislature is needed to expand the boundaries of the Javits Center and to levy the hotel tax needed to fund the expansion. And the mayor, governor and comptroller must all approve the use the $350 million in Battery Park City funds for the Javits Center expansion.

In truth, and by design, the only part of the proposal that does not require additional approvals is the New York Sports and Convention Center.

There are many obstacles that could stand in the way of the 7, the rezoning proposal and even the expansion of the Javits Center.

The City Council, which must approve any zoning changes, will no doubt have their own ideas about how much development they want on the Far West Side and may not want as much commercial real estate. They may decide to scale down the amount of space - commercial, residential or both - so that the revenue streams from the new taxes those buildings bring in are insufficient to pay the bonds that finance the number 7. Or the economy could slow, reducing the revenues the city receives from the development. And certainly the legislators in Albany will want to put their own ideas into the proposal.

I want to be sure the number 7 goes forward, even if other parts of the proposal change or falter. Even if it means the MTA has to reexamine their capital plan.

I think the financing plan for the commercial and residential portions of the plan seems promising and I credit the city with looking at creative financing mechanisms. However, I do think the plan requires a thorough debate and testing of its economic and financial assumptions.

If the level of real estate tax revenues fails to materialize, how with city adjust its vision for the area? And how will plans for the number 7 be affected?

I see such potential with extending the number 7 to further connect the major transportation facilities - Grand Central Station, Penn Station, the new Farley Building Station and the Port Authority Bus Station. Unfortunately, the MTA and the city report that it appears operationally difficult and expensive to extend the number 7 from Times Square down Eighth Avenue to Penn Station and then over the Javits Center, although they have not provided detailed cost estimates.

But I would like to propose that we take another look at this element of the proposal.

The benefits of connecting Grand Central and Penn Station to the far west side strike me as very significant and potentially worth the higher price tag.

I am reserving judgment on the proposal to build a New York Sports and Convention Center. I stand ready to listen to the passionate public debate that will no doubt ensue on this most controversial element of the proposal.

Given that the New York Sports and Convention Center appears ready to move ahead with any further public action, I intend to devote my energies to the number 7 and the Javits Center. I want to make sure that those projects get adequate discussion and attention, because thus far all eyes have been far more focused on the much more controversial stadium.

If any element of this plan proceeds without a strong commitment to extending the number 7 subway, I will not be able to support the plan overall.

THINKING BIG FOR THE FUTURE

We must think big. Rarely does a city have the chance to remake itself, to make fundamental and long-lasting changes. We can continue to use our funds to pursue small, but worthy projects, or we can do something grand keep our City competitive for the next generation. I believe we can and must make significant investments in New York's infrastructure in the next 20 years to create those jobs. This is crucial time to take stock of our post 9/11 recovery efforts and then look to New York's future. If we join together we can create jobs and build the necessary transportation infrastructure to ensure our city and region's long-term economic growth and competitiveness. We are potentially facing a once-in-a-lifetime chance to expand our city and create something of lasting value for generations of New Yorkers to come.

Adapted from an address delivered at the Regional Planning Association conference on April 16, 2004.

[tmg]

MTA Preliminary 2005-2009 Capital Program

http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/c...rogram0509.pdf

This is the complete list of projects that will receive MTA funding over the next five years.

Warning -- Big file!
[/img]

[Kris]

The current network:



http://www.urbanphoto.net/forum/view...hp?p=1038#1038

[Kris]

January 19, 2005

Pataki's Budget Leaves Transit Projects in Doubt

By AL BAKER and SEWELL CHAN

Graphic: The Governor's Proposed Budget

ALBANY, Jan. 18 - Gov. George E. Pataki proposed a $105.5 billion budget on Tuesday that would dedicate increases in taxes and fees to mass transit but leave in doubt the future of such major projects as the Second Avenue subway and Long Island Rail Road access to Grand Central Terminal.

While the governor proposed spending $15.2 billion over five years to maintain the New York region's subways, buses and commuter railroads, he proposed ways to pay for only three years and suggested that the higher taxes and fees would pay for $3 billion of the total amount. He said he hoped that federal aid, private assistance and "innovative financing mechanisms" would help pay for the remaining two years of the plan.

Over all, Mr. Pataki's budget seeks to close a projected $4.15 billion gap in the state budget, in part by making deep cuts in health care for the state's low-income and poor people, taxing hospitals and nursing homes and giving New York City only a fraction of the education aid a court-appointed panel said it deserved by next year.

Transit and civic groups sharply criticized the budget, saying it would cripple long-awaited transit projects while leaving the financing uncertain for maintenance and upgrades that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has described as essential.

New York City residents may be most interested in the governor's proposal to spend $2 billion for the Second Avenue subway and the railroad connection to Grand Central. The authority had asked for $3.7 billion to complete the railroad project and finish the first segment of the subway, from 125th to 63rd Streets, by about 2011. Supporters of the projects said the financing decision could mean that both are delayed until 2020 or later.

"This is not going to be done in my professional life and maybe not in my lifetime, which is very disappointing because the state's own economic forecasts can't be fulfilled," said Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, one of the city's oldest civic organizations.

John F. Cape, the acting director of the state's Division of the Budget, acknowledged that the authority "will continue to face challenges in the coming months and years," but he added, "We are committed to working with them to ensure that they will meet the current and future needs of New York's commuters."

Other aides vigorously disputed the advocates' assertion that the subway and railroad projects would have to be delayed.

For the city and state university systems, the budget proposes to cut $137 million from operating costs at the senior colleges and gives the trustees the authority to offset those cuts by raising tuition.

The governor would allow increasing tuition at the State University of New York by $500 and at the City University of New York by $250, and some Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature said the schools would have to use the entire increase because of the governor's changes.

In his budget address, delivered to lawmakers and officials in a theater at the Empire State Plaza, the governor said that the state was still facing serious economic trouble and that painful choices were needed to "take the responsible, prudent path to fiscal stability." Under state law, the budget deadline is April 1, which Albany has failed to meet for 20 years in a row.

He proposed about $700 million in tax increases, including a higher excise tax on wine, and he called for an extension of a tax on clothing and footwear priced under $110, a tax that was supposed to end on May 31. He also proposed to lower more quickly than planned surcharges on two categories of income: between $150,000 and $500,000 and those earning above $500,000. The change would cost the state $190 million in revenue.

Mr. Pataki said his tax cuts would encourage economic growth, but this proposal raised objections from one of the governor's chief antagonists, Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the State Assembly. "This is all about the wealthy," said Mr. Silver, a Democrat. He added that the capital plan for the transportation authority was "totally undefined," though it counts on increases in vehicle registration fees and the mortgage recording tax, which is paid by homeowners when they buy a home or refinance their mortgage.

The governor said his budget, the 11th of his tenure, increases state spending by 2.4 percent, which he said was less than the 2.7 percent rate of inflation. But that figure assumes that the state will spend $103 billion in the fiscal year ending March 31, although lawmakers had previously put the amount of this year's spending at about $101 billion. Aides to the governor said the spending increase was primarily caused by an accounting change that added the full $4.4 billion cost of the Health Care Reform Act to the state's regular operating budget. That program, which used money from tobacco industry settlements and other revenue to pay for several expensive but politically popular items, like hospital subsidies and health insurance for low-income workers, is set to expire on June 30.

Edmund J. McMahon, a policy analyst with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy group, said that spending was still too high in New York, with projected gaps of $2.7 billion in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The governor proposes to increase spending of state funds - exclusive of federal aid - by 5.4 percent, Mr. McMahon said.

In seeking to close the budget gap, the governor focused on health care and Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor, to trim nearly $1 billion in spending, including the reimbursement rates for the state's hospitals and nursing homes. That lower state spending would cause local cuts and lead to about $3 billion in reduced spending on health care across New York, said Jennifer Cunningham, the political director of 1199/S.E.I.U, the health care workers' union. That is because the state's contribution generates matching money from the federal government and localities.

The governor was under increased pressure this year to comply with an order from the State Court of Appeals to increase school spending significantly to provide New York City's 1.1 million public students with a sound basic education. A court-appointed panel said that would mean about $1.4 billion in new funds for the city next year alone. In his budget, the governor proposed expanding video gambling to increase money aimed at educating the neediest children around the state. That fund would provide $325 million in the first year, which is the precise amount Mr. Pataki proposed last year.

Beyond that, he proposed providing $4.7 billion in state, local and federal funds for New York City schools over five years, a plan that mirrors one that he submitted to a panel of court-appointed referees last fall, and which the panel rejected. That plan relies on tapping gambling revenues for $1.2 billion, relying on the federal government for $1 billion, and counting on the city to contribute $1.5 billion more, though the Bloomberg administration has vociferously resisted contributing any additional money.

Michael Rebell, the executive director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, the group that brought the lawsuit that led to the court order, said of the governor's plan: "It's an incredible rehash. It's a disappointment. This warmed-over budget plan has already been rejected by the Legislature."

Still, aides to the governor said his budget would increase state education aid to $15.9 billion next year, an increase of $526 million for the entire state and a number they contended was the largest increase any governor has ever proposed.

"My goal is to solve the question of how we fund those 207 high-needs districts without raising taxes on New Yorkers, and I've offered this as a solution, and I'm willing to listen to other nontax solutions, but I haven't seen them," the governor said.

Mr. Pataki also called for allowing New York City to open an unlimited number of charter schools by exempting the city from a statewide limit of 100 such schools that was established in 1998. That limit threatened to be an obstacle for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in his effort to open 50 new charter schools and the city cheered the governor's comments yesterday.

"We applaud the governor," said Michele McManus Higgins, a spokeswoman for Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein. "Charter schools provide our children with additional educational opportunities, and we are pleased that we will be able to build upon our efforts and expand these much-needed opportunities for students in our city."

Al Baker reported from Albany for this article, and Sewell Chan from Manhattan.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company


http://www.state.ny.us/budget2005/budget2005html.html

[Kris]

January 20, 2005

In Pataki's Budget, Transit Advocates See Trouble for M.T.A.

By SEWELL CHAN

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is already planning to raise fares every two years starting in 2006, could be forced to do so earlier and in progressively higher increments as it struggles to pay for a gap in its new five-year capital plan, transit advocates said yesterday.

A day after Gov. George E. Pataki proposed a $105.5 billion budget for the next fiscal year, transit officials and others were digesting the transportation portion. Though Mr. Pataki proposed increasing taxes and fees to pay for what he called $19.2 billion in transit spending over five years, transit advocates asserted yesterday that the source of most of that money was unexplained or based on unrealistic assumptions. Of the total amount, $15.2 billion is intended for maintenance and upkeep and $2 billion for expansion. The figure also includes $2 billion in city funds for the westward extension of the No. 7 line.

The authority in September had requested $27.7 billion, including $17.2 billion for essential maintenance. Critics said yesterday that Mr. Pataki had not demonstrated where most of his proposed $19.2 billion would come from.

"It's the first time there's been such great uncertainty in 20 years," said Richard Ravitch, who was chairman of the authority from 1979 to 1983.

Mr. Ravitch said that some of his worst fears were being realized. "I have said since 1980 that the M.T.A. needs a recurring, inflation-sensitive source of revenue to fund a continuation of its capital improvement plan," he said. "This proposal does not appear to meet that test."

The governor's aides disputed that assertion, saying the governor planned to aggressively lobby Washington for greater transit aid and insisting that the authority had to exert greater discipline and find creative ways to pay for its needs.

"We're confident that working together with the M.T.A., we'll be able to achieve this plan," said Adam L. Barsky, a deputy secretary.

Ronald Rock, the deputy director of the state's Division of the Budget, said: "It's going to be a challenge for the M.T.A. They're going to have to do some hard actions, but they agree they'll be able to accomplish them."

Officials briefed on the plans yesterday said the authority might be asked to raise money by issuing pension-obligation bonds and by tapping into a $200 million stabilization account created late last year.

In addition, the officials said, Mr. Pataki supports an initiative proposed by the authority in 2002 to consolidate several subsidiaries. The Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad would be combined into an entity called M.T.A. Railroads, but that plan has stalled in the Legislature.

Officials at the authority declined to comment on the governor's budget. "We're still reviewing it," said a spokesman, Tom Kelly.

Critics of Mr. Pataki said the measures would be minuscule compared with the shortfall in the authority's capital budget.

"I don't think anyone's quite absorbed the level of calamity that's likely to befall subway, bus and commuter rail riders," said Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat who is chairman of the Assembly committee that oversees the authority. Mr. Brodsky added, "Dramatic fare increases and worse service are inevitable." Mr. Ravitch and other transit advocates said they feared a similar outcome.

The authority raised tolls and fares last month, and it plans to do so again in 2006. But as a greater proportion of the budget goes to pay off old debt, the authority's capacity to borrow money against capital projects has declined.

Even normally circumspect business leaders expressed reservations about the plan, saying that the figures did not add up to the sum that the governor had promised.

Richard T. Anderson, president of the New York Building Congress, which represents construction, engineering, real estate and architectural firms in New York City, went further. "The budget proposal is enormously less than what the transportation needs of New York State require," he said.


EDITORIAL

Taking Care of Basics

Peter Kalikow, who was appointed by Gov. George Pataki to head the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, believes that the state should support the current core services in the New York City area, while putting off any major expansion plans until better financial times. It seemed for a while that the governor might agree. But although some details are still a little fuzzy, the budget Mr. Pataki unveiled this week seems to miss the point.

To ward off a descent into the bad old days of a few decades ago, the M.T.A. says, it needs $17.2 billion over five years. In his $105.5 billion budget for the next fiscal year, Mr. Pataki seems ready to give the M.T.A.'s core only about $15 billion, and even that number counts on federal transportation funds and the sale of M.T.A. assets. That's a major drop, a big "delta," as they say in the transit business.

The governor's proposal for downstate transit, which includes another dollop of funds for roads and bridges in the city and upstate, also adds $4 billion for expanding the city subway system. A hefty $2 billion would come from New York City for the extension of subway service into the Far West Side of Manhattan. The remainder would go for other possible additions, like the Second Avenue Subway and East Side access to Grand Central Terminal.

Mr. Pataki does deserve credit for looking for new sources of revenue for mass transit - he has proposed dedicating the proceeds from a slight surcharge on mortgage transfer taxes and additional fees for registering vehicles, particularly the bigger S.U.V.'s. But he has shied away from raising corporate taxes and the petroleum business tax, as suggested last year by Mr. Kalikow. Mr. Pataki's desire to avoid tax increases is understandable, but the budget he's proposing seems likely to lead to cuts in service or in maintenance, or the need to squeeze more revenue out of the riders. Commuters in the metropolitan area have faced two fare increases in two years, with another uptick possible for 2006. That's a lot for Mr. Pataki to ask from New York City's eight million commuters.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company


What Pataki's Budget Means To The Transit System

[Kris]

March 8, 2005

Spending Plan Helps the State, M.T.A. Is Telling Legislators

By SEWELL CHAN

he document resembles a travelogue of the Empire State, taking the reader from Orchard Park to Oriskany, Sidney to Syracuse, Tonawanda to Troy. The goal, however, is to promote transit, not tourism.

In a new strategy to persuade Albany to pay for a five-year capital program, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is distributing an eight-page brochure that highlights dozens of subway, bus and commuter rail parts that are made in the state.

The information is intended to persuade members of the Legislature and county executives across the state to support the authority's request for a $27.7 billion capital plan through 2009. But the findings might be particularly surprising for riders in the New York City area.

Riders of new subway cars running on the Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 lines might not know that the lighting is from Buffalo, the ventilation system from Auburn and the fabricated metal parts from Kingston and Farmingdale.

Similarly, passengers on the latest clean-fuel city buses might be unaware that the propulsion system was made in Johnson City and the sheet metal in Utica. As for the shiny M7 rail cars operated by the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad - well, you get the idea. The authority's capital plan includes plans to buy 1,010 hybrid electric or compressed natural gas buses, 1,044 subway cars and 486 rail cars.

Gov. George E. Pataki has proposed a capital plan that includes $14.7 billion to maintain the existing system, $500,000 for security and $4 billion for expansion projects, although half of the $4 billion would come from New York City for an extension of the No. 7 line.

The authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, has insisted that $17.2 billion is needed for maintenance, and that the governor's plan would mean delaying major projects, like the Second Avenue subway and a link between the Long Island Rail Road and Grand Central Terminal.

Maps showing the origins of the authority's rolling stock provide an illustration of the impact of transit spending, the authority's director, Katherine N. Lapp, said yesterday. "We've sent them to the leaders in the State Legislature," she said.

"They're looking at our capital plan, and I want them to understand that it's not just for the benefit of downstate. My point is: Even if you never step foot in our system, the fact is that if you're in one of the areas where we employ New Yorkers, you're benefiting from us."

Using a model originally developed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Ms. Lapp's staff estimated that the authority's previous capital program, for 2000 to 2004, generated $25.3 billion in economic activity, $10.2 billion in wages and salaries and $941 million in state and local taxes.

The effort to persuade state lawmakers occurred as the authority's top lobbyist, Christopher P. Boylan, joined officials from other transit agencies across the United States in Washington to lobby for reauthorization of a major federal transportation law. The law, known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, expired in 2003. The Bush administration has proposed spending $284 billion on a new six-year bill that includes financing for both highway and transit purposes.

The secretary of transportation, Norman Y. Mineta, said yesterday that there had been six temporary extensions since the last law expired. "None of us wants a seventh extension," he said during a meeting of the American Public Transportation Association, which represents more than 300 of the largest transit agencies, including New York's.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

March 10, 2005

Transit Bill May Reduce State's Aid

By IAN URBINA

ASHINGTON, March 9 - New York State could lose up to $1 billion in federal money if Congress passes a transportation bill being debated in the House this week, lawmakers say.

The bill, which provides $284 billion over six years for federal highways, public transit and road safety projects nationwide, represents a 42 percent increase from the previous transportation spending package, which expired in 2003.

But New York lawmakers say the state's share of the aid will depend largely on the formula used to determine how much money each state gets back from the gas taxes paid by its drivers.

Under the current formula, New York, which relies heavily on public transit, receives more transportation money than it pays in gas taxes. But states like Florida and Texas pay more in gas taxes than they get back in transportation aid, earning them the nickname "donor states," and they want the formula changed.

"Their arguments about gas tax imbalances are just ridiculous," said Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat who represents parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn and is on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "We send upwards of $30 billion per year more than we get back in total federal expenditures, but you don't hear us asking for a guaranteed percentage of the wheat subsidy."

Mr. Nadler said that New York has invested huge sums in mass transit, and that as a result its residents buy less gasoline and pay fewer related taxes than those in other states. "It's not right to punish states for being energy efficient," he said.

The House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, has argued for an increase in the guaranteed minimum amount that states receive in return for their gas taxes, to 95 percent of every dollar paid, from the current 90 percent. A spokesman for Mr. DeLay, Dan Allen, would not comment on why he was seeking the change.

"In the end, I think that Tom DeLay and others will realize that there is a lower number than 95 that is fair to everyone," said Representative Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican from upstate New York who is a senior member of the transportation committee. "But right now, everything is still in flux." Mr. Boehlert said New York has about 33 percent of the mass transit traffic in the country, but gets about 14 percent of the relevant federal money. It also has about 20 percent of the nation's bridges, but gets only about 10 percent of the federal money for bridges, he said.

House members, who will vote on a final version of the bill on Thursday, debated into Wednesday night whether the cost of specially financed local projects added to the transportation bill - known as earmarks - should be counted as part of the total that states receive in transportation money.

Of the $11.2 billion in earmarks in the current bill, New York would get at least $629 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. As the second largest recipient of earmarked money in the nation, New York would suffer greatly if this money were deducted from its total transportation aid. Donor states are seeking such a deduction as part of the bill.

For years, New York has played a central role in debates about federal transportation money. In 1991, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was chairman of the committee that handled public works projects, developed a financing formula that began directing more aid to states in the Northeast to help them maintain their transportation network. Before 1991, more money went to states to build new highways and bridges.

"The highways and public transit systems in New York are getting older, less funded and more used," said Jeffrey M. Zupan, a senior fellow at the Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit research group in Manhattan. "But New York's Congressional delegation lacks the sort of leverage that it had in Moynihan's years."

On Wednesday, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a report concluding that the government would have to spend at least $94 billion a year for the next five years to avoid greater problems with the nation's roads, bridges and railroads.

Although lawmakers across the country have said current spending levels are too low, the White House issued a statement on Wednesday reiterating its threat to veto any transportation package calling for over $284 billion in spending.

A Senate committee may begin considering transportation spending as early as next week.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

March 11, 2005

Lawmakers Are Said to Favor a Transportation Bond Act

By SEWELL CHAN

Democrats in the State Assembly plan to propose a $2.9 billion bond act to finance capital programs for transit in the New York City area and roads and bridges throughout the state, and their Republican counterparts in the Senate are sympathetic to the idea, according to people close to the negotiations over the state's budget.

By placing the decision before the voters, a bond act could allow state lawmakers and Gov. George E. Pataki to avoid raising taxes and fees as they seek to improve the state's transportation infrastructure. But voters rejected a similar measure in 2000 and might do so again.

Under the Assembly's plan, voters would be asked to approve borrowing $1.6 billion for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and $1.3 billion for the State Department of Transportation through general-obligation bonds, according to three people who were briefed on the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan had not been formally presented by the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver.

But Senator Thomas W. Libous, who is close to the Republican leader, Joseph L. Bruno, said the Senate would be open to the idea of a bond act.

"We have been discussing a general obligation bond," said Mr. Libous, a Republican from Binghamton and the chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. "We certainly would be open to working with our counterparts in the Assembly on that."

He went so far as to suggest that the Senate might propose its own bond act for transportation. "When we submit our budget tomorrow night, you might see something like that in there," he said.

At a news conference on Staten Island, Mr. Pataki, speaking about the budget generally, reiterated his opposition to taxes but said he was open to proposals from the Legislature.

"Everybody knows what my proposal is," Mr. Pataki said. "Let's put all the cards on the table. If someone wants to spend a billion dollars more, show where it's going to come from, and how they're going to spend it. If they want to raise taxes, do it. Let them make the case to the public. I happen to think that would be the wrong thing to do."

A spokesman for the state's Division of the Budget was noncommittal about the Assembly's talk of a bond act. "We will review their proposal to determine how it fits into the context of an overall balanced budget," the spokesman, Michael E. Marr, said.

The governor has proposed a $19.2 billion capital program for the transportation authority, including $14.7 billion for basic maintenance, $2 billion for expansion projects like the Second Avenue subway and $500,000 for security. The remaining $2 billion would come from New York City and pay for an extension of the No. 7 subway line.

The bond act in 2000, which would have raised $3.8 billion for transportation infrastructure, received support from voters in New York City and its suburbs, but voters upstate resoundingly rejected the plan.

In addition, the state comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, has warned that the state has too much debt and should avoid additional borrowing.

Gene Russianoff, an advocate for subway riders, said a new bond act could be a difficult proposition.

"There are two schools of thought," said Mr. Russianoff, a lawyer at the New York Public Interest Research Group. "One is that it's a good government move because it would be voter-approved, general-obligation debt. There's another school that sees it as cowardly to punt the issue over to the voters, especially when the last time around, they rejected it. Personally, I think that's too cynical."

Copyright 2005*The New York Times Company