Streams

Transit Dispute Fueled Rancor Between Christie, Obama Administration

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

WNYC

When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said he was not running for president but vowed to make President Barack Obama a “one-termer,” the feeling may have been mutual.

The New Jersey Transit board approved a settlement last week between New Jersey and the U.S. Department of Transportation – the final disposition of a year-long tussle over a transit tunnel that was to run under the Hudson River from New Jersey to Manhattan, a project Christie pulled the plug on last year.

And although Christie may have said good-bye to his chance to take on the president directly, the bitter aftertaste of the contentious deal between the governor and federal agency still remains.

Historically, governors did not spar with the federal DOT, which was seen as a source of funds for public works projects – roads, bridges, tunnels – that create jobs and make politicians look good.

But last year, Christie dug in and showed he was willing to stop a big project in its tracks to the increasing consternation of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, himself a former Republican Congressman from Peoria, Ill.

At issue was a $9 billion transit tunnel under the Hudson River, the largest new transit project in the nation.

The tunnel, known as the Access to the Region’s Core, or ARC tunnel, was already under construction, and was intended to provide an extra pathway for NJ Transit trains, which now share an at-capacity tunnel with Amtrak.

The lost ARC

Christie halted work, so he could review the project’s finances because he feared the project could cost New Jerseyans billions of dollars more than projected.

Project supporters argued that the construction jobs it would create, along with increased business activity and rising property values along the train line, would offset any increases.

In fall 2010, there was widespread disbelief among federal officials and Washington insiders that Christie would pull the plug on the project. Why, they wondered, would Christie miss out on billions of dollars of federal money coming to New Jersey? And why would he be willing to generate such animosity amongst federal officials whom he might need help from later?

But he was.

In fact, as Christie was publicly mulling a decision he’d already clearly made, the U.S. DOT was strenuously lobbying him (Ray LaHood himself traveled to Trenton twice to make the case).  But publicly, no one from the federal government was talking.  There were no red hot pokers from the Obama administration side.

Just how angry LaHood became only began to come out as the tunnel was being buried — literally, as workers began throwing dirt back into the hole after the project had been killed (a second time, as it happened, since Christie, in response to LaHood’s treatises, gave the project a temporary reprieve.)

“Chris Christie’s decision to terminate America’s largest transportation project was particularly disappointing,” LaHood wrote in an op-ed in the Newark Star Ledger the day after the project died. “Unfortunately, his choice comes with profound consequences for New Jersey, the New York metropolitan region and our nation as a whole.”

A killed project escalates tensions

With the project dead, the bitterness only seemed to escalate. The U.S. DOT demanded that New Jersey pay back $271 million in funds already spent on the project, which Christie refused to do.

Christie hired the well-connected law and lobbying firm, Patton Boggs, to argue his case in Washington.

Periodically, the DOT would release stats on how interest and penalties were accruing on the project.

Privately, LaHood was getting more and more irate. In a letter (pdf) to New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg in April, LaHood wrote:

“In February 2010, Governor Christie sat in my office and expressed his full commitment to the completion of the ARC project. In March of 2010, when several news stories called Governor Christie’s commitment to the completion of the ARC project into question, I asked the Governor to restate that commitment in writing. He did so in a letter to me dated April 6, 2010.”

He continued: “The possibility that this project’s cost could run [as high as $12 billion] was first shared with New Jersey Transit as far back as August 2008. Any notion that the potential for cost growth constituted new and emergent information when the governor made his decision is simply not accurate.”

LaHood held to his position that he would not relent on his demand that Christie pay back the $271 million.

By last week, with interest and penalties, the bill had grown to $274 million.  But New Jersey’s two Democratic Senators, Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, had been arguing that New Jersey could pay a lesser amount and at the same time agree to direct $128 million for transit projects in New Jersey.

A settlement reached

On Friday, the U.S. DOT announced that it had agreed to settle the case.  It would accept $95 million from New Jersey, plus the $128 commitment for transit spending.

But Christie tossed into his statement a claim that the $95 million would be offset by $100 million in insurance premium refunds.

“First I’m hearing of that,” shot back one federal official when asked.

The implication –- and Christie said as much in his statement –- was that the settlement contains “not one additional dollar of New Jersey taxpayer money.”

But that’s not exactly right. If Christie had gotten his way, and paid zero to the federal government, presumably New Jersey would have been able to pocket the $100 million in insurance premium refunds, not use it to offset a $95 million payment.

Still, though, Christie was able to create the impression he’d boxed his opponent into a corner, again.

That’s a stance we’ll likely see much of from Christie in the next year — whether he’s a candidate for president or not.

Read more on Transportation Nation, a site that combines the work of public radio newsrooms and our listeners as the way we build, rebuild and get around the nation changes.

Tags:

More in:

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [2]

Big Al from Upper West Side

New Jersey's financial problems are easily solved, 'consolidate the over 600 different jurisdictions' into 8 or 12 townships. This will reduce the duplication of services, in school districts, fire, and police departments etc. Christie is just a small-time loud mouth bully, a typical Jersey shore type. I for one am sorry that he stuck to his original decision and decided not to run for national office, it would have been fun watching him spar with the pundits and the media about his 'mouthings' and his obvious inability to control his temper. Imagine the dream Republican team Christie and Palin, OMG. Christie is not interested in 'saving New Jersey'. The tunnel would have created jobs, and new income for Jersey by making it easier to get in and out leaving New Jersey, so if he wanted to make Jersey better its clear that he should have agreed to continue with the new tunnel. Like the other republican governors who turned down Federal transportation money for tunnels and light rail systems, he stopped the tunnel for political reasons. Americans complain about this and that about China, but China for good and/or bad reasons does not allow political or money interests to stop their country from moving forward, they build transportation systems for the benefit of their people, they create jobs for their economy. Americans need to come to realize that the strength of the country is its people and not the idea that we can become a millionaire whether through a new reality show, or a lawsuit or sports. After all, isn’t that what the Wall Street protestors are trying to do, raise the consciousness of the culture to turn away from a one where the dollar bill is worshipped to one where the people are important.

Oct. 06 2011 12:12 PM
aw hess from LI,NY

When is a deal a real deal? New Jersey has its own rules. The question remains how did the Feds and the State reach this "agreement"? I for one would like to know.

Oct. 06 2011 06:44 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Sponsored

Latest Newscast

 

 

Support

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public

Feeds

Supported by