Metropolis in the Making; Governor Robert B. Meyner of New Jersey; WNYC

The New Jersey New York Connecticut Metropolitan Region, as defined by the Regional Plan Association, includes nine counties in northern New Jersey. In these counties, live four million people more than a quarter of all the population of the Metropolitan Region. Furthermore, the New Jersey part of the region is growing fast. We estimate that during the next 20 years, half of the growth of the region will settle in these New Jersey counties. That means their population will increase from 4 million to 6 million. Manufacturing and other employment are increasing rapidly in these New Jersey counties. We estimate that in the next two decades, the increase in number of jobs in the New Jersey portion of the Metropolitan Region will be more than half of the total increase of jobs in that region. This means that the number of people crossing the Hudson River to work will continually increase. Particularly, it means that the number of people crossing from New York to go to work in New Jersey, which already is large, may be expected to increase rapidly.

For these reasons, the northern New Jersey counties form an increasingly important part of the entire Metropolitan Region. It's therefore particularly appropriate that in this series of broadcasts on metropolis in the making, we have today the honor of interviewing the Honorable Robert B. Miner, Governor of the State of New Jersey. Governor Miner will be interviewed by Mr. H. Bruce Palmer, President of the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, and a member of the Advisory Council of the Regional Plan Association. Mr. Palmer's great and effective interest in the community matters as well illustrated by the fact that he is chairman of the Newark Economic Development Committee. Here is Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. It's a real pleasure to have this opportunity to sit with our fine governor and to ask a few questions on matters of regional interest. First Governor, I'd like to, I know that you attended the dedication of the fine new building an international airport,

and that really is a great regional facility that we have for transportation. And I wonder if you would want to summarize, perhaps the remarks that you made on that occasion. Well, I was delighted to attend the opening of this new facility, Mr. Palmer. But it's an illustration, I think, of regional planning through the New York Port Authority, which has membership from New Jersey and New York. We have tried to treat the transportation problem from air and by motor vehicle through the New York Port Authority. And this was a perfect illustration of how we have an authority representing two states operating for airports. And here was a dedication of the arrivals building serving any number of national and international airlines. These airlines will have a better chance of getting their passengers taken care of as they arrive in the area of New York and New Jersey.

This regional area on here is a perfect illustration of a regional solution to a regional problem. Having just come into the old terminal, I imagine that you can see how this would expedite you're getting back to New Jersey. Well, I might say that the courtesy of the officials of the port authority enabled me to come through very quickly even in the old one. Well, two weeks before you came in, I also came in and I didn't have that courtesy. Governor Minor about 400,000 people, it is estimated across the Hudson River each day from New Jersey to New York. Accord figures are not available, but it is estimated I think that about 200,000 people across the river from New York coming into New Jersey for their jobs. Now, these numbers are increasing as all of us know. The question I would like to pose is this, do you consider that the ability of the people to make these crossings quickly and comfortably and in a reasonable cost as a matter of primary concern to the two states of New York and New Jersey?

And in speaking of this crossing, I mean the complete crossing from the job to their homes. Oh, I think it definitely is the concern of New York and New Jersey. I think so far as furnishing a means by vehicle, the port authority has tried to estimate from year to year the needs and has endeavour to try to meet it. So far as the railroads are concerned, unfortunately, people have taken to rubber as a means of transportation rather than the steel rails and the steel wheels that propel that type of transportation. And the problem has been how can you get the railroads to continue to function in view of a increasing cost of operation and a decreasing number of passengers using the facilities. This latter problem is being studied very carefully by the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission.

The commission authorized by the legislators of New Jersey and New York. And they with funds furnished by the port authority and by the respective legislatures of both states are expected to make a problem as to how we can continue to furnish the necessary population. I think we've got to try to understand whether or not we can interrupt or slow down the trend from the rails to the rubber-tired facilities. We've also got to understand where the people are coming from and where they're going. At one time when we were contemplating the third tube of the Lincoln Tunnel, it was thought that you could have four lanes going into New York in the morning and four coming home at night because it was thought that the trend was too New York. Instead, as Mr. Osborne indicated, there are a great number of people and increasing number of people coming from New York to New Jersey.

I think we've got to look with considerable interest and we've got to give considerable study to the recommendations we get from the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission. They should be forthcoming soon and I'm sure their recommendations are going to be considered seriously unless effective public opinion is developed as a result of their studies and result of the facts they present. People have a tendency to sit back and say my railroad train will leave every morning but it won't leave unless that railroad has a chance of making a reasonable profit or unless the facilities can be continued to be paid for. Of course, the claim is made that tunnels and bridges and road improvements in general are in effect subsidized by the government and that leads to the assertion on those who are interested in rail transportation that perhaps that facility should be subsidized also. I know this a loaded question but do you have any comment? Do you think it's proper?

Would there be proper that there might be a subsidy for rail transportation? Well, I do know this that you have subsidy of transportation in the New York situation. The subways are subsidized. The Boston system is subsidized. I think San Francisco is subsidized. I think most of your Metropolitan Rapid Transit systems are subsidized. But when you talk about air being subsidized and when you talk about automobiles being subsidized we must realize that these facilities are increasing all of the time. The rail facilities seem to be decreasing. Is there any assurance that if they get the subsidy that the subsidy won't become greater each and each year thereafter so that you might be subsidizing in a terrific cost? A small number of passengers I think before you accept such a program of subsidization you have to have some assurance that you're going to halt this trend from rail to the roadway.

That you're not just going to make it increasingly more expensive each year. Is it going to be worthwhile? Can you afford it? Does it fit into our general scheme of the economy? Would the people go back to the rail transportation if they had the conference that they feel that they have another means of transportation? Which of course would require a tremendous capital investment on the part of the railroads to give us modern up to date commuting conveniences that normally we get. I like to sit in my car because it's very comfortable. Much more comfortable in a commuter train. Well I'm sure we would have to start our planning on the basis that it would or on the thought that it would. But I'm so afraid that there is a tendency on the part of our American public to feel that they should walk out of their house into a car and go to a place they want to go without any interruptions. Even the best of modern transportation system couldn't give you a better headway than 15 minutes or a half hour or an hour in the Lowell periods.

And I'm wondering whether the people are going to be satisfied with the drive to the railroad station. That margin of safety, there are five or ten minutes you should be there until you get on the train and then the interruption between the train and the subway system or some other transportation facility. We love as Americans to get in our car, leave when we want to and get where we are going quickly. Of course many motorists don't do that. They start out on that supposition because they leave their place but then they get into some of these traffic jams. And it might take more time than original rail transportation might take in the beginning but they at least feel they have that chance and occasionally they do get through more quickly. Of course it takes a couple of good snowstorms too. Two days ago I determined to go back to rail transportation after having tried an automobile on the snow-covered roads.

Then you probably wondered Mr. Palmer why they were overtaxed. Did that normal map put in a question at this moment? Yes, certainly Mr. Osman. There's a feeling on the part of a great many people that New York, quite maybe an unusual case, has so much transportation to provide that it really is impractical to bring in everybody by rubber. In other words, in order to get back and forth the number of people who must go back and forth between the central core and outside, we have to continue rail transportation and that we ought to improve it. I wonder if you have any comment on that, Governor Minor? I think you brought up a point that was in the back of my mind, which certainly is quite apparent. It would be absolutely impossible to expect that everybody who worked in downtown New York or Midtown New York could get there by either bus or individual transportation. It just would be physically impossible and naturally the only way you are going to be able to get those people in is by mass transportation.

That is one of a very cogent reason for trying to continue mass transportation. Of course we have the real problem of the Hudson River crossing and what I feel are the inadequacies of the crossings today. If you only thought so on that score, especially as it might relate to the page report, which suggested this loop. Connector between New York, the New York City subway and New Jersey. Well, the offhand impression of the page report that I have is that is it too expensive? Can we afford to pay for it? Or can the areas which are to be served by this proposed commission will be able to get together and set up an organization that will tax those areas to pay for that subsidy? I think we have to have a full discussion of that.

There have been alternative suggested that instead of new lobes we utilize the Hudson and Manhattan tubes to a greater extent. But of course the difficulty there is that we don't have a modern tube to take subway trains and take modern railroad trains. Those of us who are connected with the redevelopment work of our city of Newark, I feel have that conviction that we should perhaps use present facilities or in any event the loop should probably come farther back into New Jersey than presently contemplated. Well, this whole matter of transportation is a vexing one and certainly is a big one because it's certainly it's going to mean the survival of our central cities and the bigger cities because we have to give our attention to it. Another problem that we have, Governor Minor, a great important certainly from a regional standpoint is this matter of water supply. You've taken the initiative recently and I know what your thoughts have been and your actions in the past to provide increased water supply through the development of the Round Valley system.

How do you think handling the water supply problems for Northern New Jersey should be organized in the future? Well, we of course have to work very closely with our neighbors. We might not be in the position we are today if we had not, if we, if Pennsylvania had not failed to go through with the original Incadel proposition. That was a proposition by which New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware through a commission would have developed an overall water supply and the upper reaches of the Delaware to serve New York, New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and Delaware. That proposition was rejected in its final stages by Pennsylvania and we've had to go into other planning. Round Valley water supply could get started with some supplies from the Raritan River but eventually all the experts can see that we would have to take water from the Delaware in order to supply Round Valley and Round Valley would in turn furnish Northeastern New Jersey with water.

It's a definite problem, a regional problem because New York gets its water supply from the upper reaches of the Delaware and affects in the taking of the water, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It's interesting to note that we had a modified Supreme Court decree in 1954 which permitted New York City to take more water. New York City in order to take more water from the upper reaches of the Delaware had to assure the court of a study flow in the lower reaches and it's interesting to note that at times last summer New York was taking as much water for its people in New York City as it was furnishing the Delaware so that we had a study flow here at Tritten. So this is going to require certainly the cooperation of those various states within the region.

There's no doubt about it and we hope someday to see some damning of the upper reaches of the Delaware and that we'll call for planning by the four states concerned and certainly under an existing Supreme Court decision one party can't move without going into the court and getting the other parties agreement. And of course if we had an agency that represented the four states or two of the states, that might be easier of accomplishment. Certainly another one of our big problems, regional problems. The other night Governor Herrmann spoke with the importance of regional treatment of the question of air pollution. It seems that you can't stop the air from moving over a region and I think that you know some of the problems and I wonder if you want to comment upon that proposal that the governor made. Well I might point out that since 1954 we've had a statute which calls for a rather complete treatment of air pollution. We in New Jersey under this statute have been moving cautiously we want all of the facts we want to be relatively certain that the people who are expected to comply will have an ample opportunity to alter their processes of disposing of garbage of.

Of handling the industrial waste and all of that sort of thing I think we've been making a good deal of progress on our own in this regard. We have joined with New York in a study of the problem of air pollution and we stand ready to continue that study and continue cooperation as between both states. I'm sure that there are people in New Jersey who feel that whenever there's any dust and dirt in the air it must come from New York and I'm sure there's some people over there who just as soon as there is pollution in the air are convinced it comes from New Jersey. I think here again we've got to stop vying as to who's at fault and try to solve it jointly. That's fine. Now when we talk of these all these regional problems we have to think of the machinery that's going to be created to take care of all the problems which have a regional nature in the New York and New Jersey and Connecticut metropolitan region.

What do you consider to be the role of the states and what role will they play in the development of a mechanism for the solution to these regional problems? Well I think we've got to be adaptable. I don't think we approach any of these problems with an idea that we have to be orthodox that every time New Jersey wants to do something through the formality of a call to the governor of New York we have a conference and try to solve all of these problems. I think our New York port authority officer offers one way of handling some of these functions. Maybe a metropolitan rapid transit commission for more than just study purposes with some real authority is necessary. We have an interstate sanitation commission which can undertake some of the other problems we were discussing and perhaps we've got to have something similar to Incadel which was supposed to develop the water resources of the Delaware Valley.

I think we've had plenty of ingenuity in the United States in our form of democracy and I think we've got to utilize to the fall these different agencies and we don't have to start off with any ideal that there's just one method of doing it that we should look at the problem pretty carefully and then try to adapt any of the old patterns and try to fit them into handling the new problems. What about the role of the federal government in this regard? Do you think these are primarily our problems and that our contributions should be the significant contributions or do you think the federal government has a part to play? Well I certainly think the federal government has quite a role to play and I think they're increasingly aware of the role. I think the one agency that plays probably the most important part is the Army engineers. We've seen that in the Delaware Valley where we presently have through the Army engineers a two million dollar study. I believe it's about two million dollars to study the entire Delaware Valley.

This is to study conservation, the reservoirs of water, residential and recreational areas, streamflow regulation, the prevention of salt intrusion, the protection of our oyster beds, the supply of water for industry and municipalities along the river. This is not just one problem of flood control or just water conservation but it's a total problem and the federal government in the study stages is well able to undertake assistance in outlining these programs and secondly we have to have in some of these agencies and interstate compact and the federal government has a role there. I say of the respective states will not be aware of their opportunities and will not undertake the obligation when they should. You might very well find the federal government intervening because the needs of the people won't be served by an argument in the legislature.

The legislature will be served by action and sometimes if congressional action is the thing to bring it about maybe that's what we're going to get because the people are going to push that agency which will respond and sometimes Congress responds much more quickly than a state agency or a series of them. I think it's also constructive that your municipalities and the county governments are beginning to look at means of creating the mechanism whereby they can jointly give attention to some of these regional problems that we have. Well we are in state government are most anxious to work with the local municipalities in trying to bring about cooperative endeavor. I think you've seen it in Newark that you have to have the neighboring municipalities in a certain amount of state overall planning to get your job done. Thank you Governor Minor. Mr. Governor Minor and Mr. Palmer I want to thank you both on behalf of the Regional Plan Association and all the listeners at WNYC for what has been a very interesting and instructive discussion.

We certainly thank you very much.