$500,000,000 Rail Loop Linking Jersey-Manhattan Now Urged

NEW YORK CITY — The Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission (MRTC) Monday recommended to the governors of New York and New Jersey the construction of a 500-million-dollar rail loop system to speed commuter traffic and said that while the loop will not pay for itself and some sort of public subsidy is needed.

The rail loop envisions a North Jersey network terminating at the railroad serving commuters and connecting with terminal points and into new Manhattan subway lines — north-south tubes from 60th St. to the Battery under Madison and Fifth avenues.

It also calls for a modernized line to downtown Manhattan via the Hudson and Manhattan tubes.

The recommendation, submitted by Edward J. O'Mara, Rumson Rd., Little Silver, and Charles T. Tuttle, New York city realty co-chairmen, further calls for the establishment of a bi-state public agency which would be called the Metropolitan Transit District of New York and New Jersey. The way was left open for Connecticut to join this district.

The agency, given a final report to the governors and legislatures of the two states, followed a two-year study of rapid transit needs of the metropolitan area.

Alternate Plans

This report offers a variety of alternate plans for handling the rail commuter problem. They range in estimated costs from 265 to 345 million dollars. Two would bring Manhattan's BMT-Broadway subway and one into the Lexington Ave. IRT line. Little was said in favor of the alternate plans.

The Monmouth county planning board was grouped with organizations approving, in principle, the proposed plan “without concurring in the details.”

In a joint statement, Mr. O'Mara, a former Jersey state senator, and Mr. Tuttle asked for “an open minded examination and painstaking understanding” of the report and that “hasty belittlements or biased prejudgments” be avoided. They said the report “offers no panacea, for there is none.”

MRTC was established in 1954 as a bi-state agency with no governmental powers but to study and detail rapid transit study and to hand up recommendations such as the one now submitted. The cost of carrying out construction and operation of the proposed system, if accepted, would fall to the transit district.

Losses Would Continue

If created, this district, in its initial planning stage, would operate on an annual appropriation of $150,000 a year from each state. Later, it would finance capital needs by issuing bonds secured by the agency's own operating revenues. MRTC said in its report that it is expected the operations will be at a loss, and that the deficit will have to be financed in a manner to be decided by county governing bodies.

The transit district would have a council made up of 32 members, all non-salaried, 16 from each state, including two each from the Jersey counties of Monmouth, Middlesex, Bergen, Hudson and Union, and one each from the counties of Orange, Rockland, Mercer, Morris, Passaic, Somerset and Union. Members would represent the county boards of freeholders.

The council chairman and six directors would form the board of directors, responsible for administration and the hiring of staff. This district council would have the job of preparing, in detail, a general plan, to be submitted to the legislatures of both states.

MRTC urged that the two legislatures give prompt consideration to establishment of the district this year and presented a number of reasons why this problem needed fast attention.

State of Crisis

Saying that Metropolitan transit now is in a state of crisis, MRTC said this is “a public problem that calls for a public plan, in which all forms of transportation can be used most effectively to achieve an efficient overall transportation system.” The problem, it said, “turns on the wisdom of planning and building now to meet the plainly forecasted transportation needs of the next 25 years, if the anticipated growth over that period is to result in the greatest public benefit at the least cost.”

Alternatives to an adequate and useful system of suburban rail transit, it said, “are either severe congestion of highways and urban streets, resulting in a strangulation of movement and economic loss, or the construction, at a staggering price, of many new highways, river crossings, urban expressways and a tremendous volume of parking space in the high-cost central areas.”

The new loop plan calls for local stops in Manhattan near the main centers of the city where commuters work. And, with such a subway, MRTC said “the average New Jersey commuter would save about 24 minutes a day compared with present travel methods.”

To hold down the deficit anticipated in operations, MRTC proposed that fares be increased to range from 25 to 35 cents and up to 30 cents on the H&M tubes. At 25 cents on each route, carrying an expected 95,570,000 passengers, the annual deficit, it said would run to 7 million dollars. At 35 cents on the loop and 30 on the H&M, the loss would come to 2.3 million dollars, if there were only 85,100,000 passengers, it estimated.

Other Rail Deficits

MRTC also noted that this annual deficit “is exclusive of whatever additional deficits may be assumed by the district insofar as it may conclude that service on a particular railroad is so inadequate or financially continued under public enterprise, as many effect satisfaction of such suburban service.”

Even with most of the projected capital costs and deficits “are based on the realistic assumption of its extensive resources.” It said the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan area “is experiencing a rising growth of population, business activity and also a decentralization of population in central industrial and commercial areas.” But Manhattan is expected to remain the chief work and financial center.

MRTC said its survey consultants “estimated that the current operating deficits of New Jersey railroads and their ferry operations amount to some 12.5 million dollars a year.” It also said fare increases “have become subject to the law of diminishing returns” and that today railroads “are publicly stating that they have reached the point of public financial assistance for their rail suburban services in the form of either tax exemption, direct grants, as the only alternative to discontinuance, government ownership or operation.”

Public Financing Asked

In face of both this and the predicted continuing deficit that would result even with the proposed loop, some sort of public financing was asked for.

The commission said it feels that “the best method of providing the necessary subsidy is that it be supplied by the benefited areas pro-rated as closely as possible in terms of the benefit areas. The commission feels that the possibility of federal subsidy for transit is extremely remote. “Furthermore,” it said, “intensive demands on the finances of the states for increased appropriations and bond expenditures in other state fields, make it doubtful that the states would be in a position to provide anything but a modest financial assistance. It was admitted that some additional tax may be required.”

Today, said the commission, 803,000 persons — New Yorkers from the suburbs—5,000 from Monmouth county on a typical business day—204,000 persons in the peak rush hour. And, it concluded that “this action is necessary to meet these travel needs.” Because this situation is worsening, quick action was called for.