Politicians in New York and New Jersey have been denouncing the Federal Transit Administration’s low ratings for the Gateway trans-Hudson rail project as the doings of President Trump. But contrary to the myth spun by Gateway supporters, it was not written by Trump or U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.
Having worked for 31 years for the FTA, Region 2, which covers New York and New Jersey, I know that this report was written by career professional FTA employees based in Washington, with input from New York Regional Office colleagues. Each proposed project is reviewed and ranked on the same series of questions and criteria, along with any updated information provided by the project sponsor. This includes progress to date in advancement of environmental review, design and engineering along with identification of matching local share.
New York and New Jersey elected officials want Washington to pick up half the tab for the $14 billion for Gateway’s first phase. This would pay for replacing the Portal Bridge (which has been delayed since the 1980s by several New Jersey governors along with Amtrak and was always a standalone project from Gateway), two new Hudson River tunnels and rehabilitation of two existing tunnels.
Local leaders are hypocritical in continuing to call for Washington to finance construction of Gateway, but refusing to contribute matching funding. Previous governors of both states found billions in hard cash for their local share to obtain FTA funding for other projects. These include NJTransit’s Hudson Bergen Light Rail Segment One ($992 million), Segment Two ($1.2 billion) and Secaucus Transfer ($450 million). The MTA did the same for LIRR East Side Access ($11.2 billion) and Second Ave. subway Phase One ($4.5 billion). None required federal loans.
Neither Gov. Cuomo nor Gov. Murphy has programmed significant funding in their current budgets toward local share for Gateway. Without real hard financial resources from Washington ($14.6 billion), NJ ($7.3 billion) and NY ($7.3 billion), how will the full $29 billion Gateway be paid for? A project can’t be financed by borrowing and fare surcharges alone.
There are other potential funding opportunities. NJT receives almost $1 billion and MTA $1.4 billion in yearly FTA formula funding outside of the New Starts process. Why not use some of that toward Gateway? Both can request the Federal Highway Administration transfer Congestion Mitigation Air Quality or other flexible funds to FTA in support of Gateway.
A recent increase in gasoline tax has provided Murphy with a robust State Transportation Trust fund. Why doesn’t New York establish one by raising the gasoline tax a few pennies per gallon? Murphy wants a portion of New York’s future congestion pricing tolling for trips his residents take to Manhattan. Why doesn’t he ask Cuomo to allocate 10% of these revenues toward Gateway, just as Cuomo has done for the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North?
Amtrak has its own multi-billion capital program. Service on the Northeast Corridor between NYC and Washington actually makes a profit. How much hard cash is Amtrak contributing?
The Gateway project, which has grow by $9 billion over the past four years from $20 to $29 billion, is reminiscent of the ongoing MTA’s East Side Access to Grand Central. In 2001, the estimated cost was $3.5 billion with a completion date of 2011. In 2019, 18 years later it stands at $11.2 billion and could grow up to $12 billion with completion in 2022. Could Gateway do the same and become our New York version of the infamous Boston “Big Dig” by costing $40, $50 or even $60 billion when completed by 2038?
The Gateway Development Corp. reminds me of the character Wimpy who famously said, “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Tuesday may never come for commuters and taxpayers who use NJT and Amtrak and need a new Hudson River Tunnel to be completed within their lifetime.
Penner is a transportation historian and advocate.
