Connecting the LIRR to Grand Central makes good sense from a regional rail perspective, and from that of commuters who work around Grand Central but now must debark at Penn Station. But Transit Authority sources say that the LIRR-GCT will cause the Lexington Avenue line to be overwhelmed, creating a pressing need for more East Side transit capacity. TA planners have reportedly been approached by the MTA/LIRR team working on the Grand Central project and asked what kind of capacity they could squeeze out of the Lexington line with improvements in the neighborhood of $50 million. Such changes would likely focus on reducing station dwell times so more trains can run on the line. Today's sardined Lex riders probably wonder why the $50 million can't be spent now to improve their commute well in advance of the arrival of new L.I. straphangers. At any rate, $50 million is a small bone to city transit compared to the $2 billion-plus price tag for the LIRR-GCT project.

The MESA study seeks to address overcrowding on the Lexington line by offering several alternatives. Options being considered by MESA look to build a Second Avenue subway from 125th Street to 63rd St., connecting the line to the unused N and R express tracks under Broadway via the 63rd Street line. MESA also proposes a transit designated right-of-way on the Lower East Side, terminating near South Ferry and at Union Square for either bus or light rail. Special segregated bus lanes are also being considered for 1st and 2nd Avenues in Midtown. MESA has a number of steps left in its public approval process before a project design is finalized. Cost analysis and public meetings are ongoing through June. At the latest, the study process will be complete by the fall, though an EIS draft may come somewhat later.

The LIRR-GCT project is about a year ahead. Cost analysis is complete and a draft environmental impact statement for the project is expected by late May. It is at the top of the NY congressional delegation's list of projects seeking federal dollars in the federal ISTEA reauthorization process that will play out this year. MESA has no connection to any capital budget or authorization whatsoever, and could prove a wasted effort if it languishes until after LIRR-GCT is completed. At that point, officials and the public could rightly point out that the study is out of date.

New York's leaders should give some hard thought to how these two projects can be pursued in some sort of linked fashion. It would make sense not only operationally, but also because if LIRR-GCT becomes the over-arching project in the MTA capital plan and subsumes all other priorities, real opposition to the project, however worthy it is, could arise. The state has not figured yet out how it will pay for its share of the project. An overall stock-taking of transportation capital priorities in Albany, including a look at the highway side, could point to ways that much-needed transit capacity projects can proceed in a sensible manner.