Officials must act to alleviate congestion problem at JFK.

A report issued in October by the Center for an Urban Future (CUF) should serve as a wake-up call to our elected officials about a looming economic crisis. Entitled "On a Wing and a Prayer," the report warns us that JFK airport is in danger of losing significant amounts of its air cargo business unless we solve some of the major problems afflicting it.

Should anyone doubt how important a problem this is, consider these figures: The air transportation industry is the second largest employer in Queens, accounting for nine percent of the borough's jobs. More than 47,000 people work at LaGuardia and JFK, and an additional 270,000 throughout the city have jobs with some airport connection. And the two airports have an economic impact of over $30 billion on our region.

Although air cargo is not a subject that usually concerns the ordinary citizen, it is vitally important to the health of the airports. For example, 44 percent of the employees at JFK are involved in air cargo matters. And while JFK is only the 14th busiest passenger airport in the nation, it is the third busiest cargo airport.

Third busiest is not bad -- but JFK used to be first. And not just in the country, but in the world. Over an eight-year period when air cargo was booming across the globe, JFK's cargo business grew by a modest 37 percent, as opposed to 126 percent at Newark International Airport.

There are a number of reasons why JFK is losing ground. For example, it does not have enough cargo facilities either at the airport itself or in the immediate area, and many of the facilities it does have are in desperate need of repair. This is a relatively easy problem to fix, but it would obviously require a significant amount of investment.

A much more important -- and daunting -- problem is that of access to JFK. David Plavin, of the Airports Council International, cites the ability of trucks "getting in and out of the airport more easily than they can right now" as the key to whether JFK will regain its number one position or continue to fall farther and farther down the list.

Currently the congested Van Wyck Expressway is the only route that trucks can take to get to and from JFK. Access will not improve unless alternative routes are made available and/or the traffic on the Van Wyck is significantly reduced.

The CUF makes several recommendations, some of which are worth investigating. For example, opening the Belt Parkway to small commercial vehicles or closing some points of entry to the Van Wyck might provide a small measure of relief.

"Double-decking" the Van Wyck, or building another roadway above the existing one, would definitely help traffic, but the communities affected would be very averse to this idea, and understandably so.

There's always the new $1.9 billion AirTrain that will link Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan to Kennedy Airport. However, I don't believe the current plan will decrease traffic in any measurable amount. Very few passengers would want to take their luggage and change trains at Jamaica in order to get to JFK.

But I do think that a rail link to JFK could provide a solution for the cargo problem. Why shouldn't the Port Authority investigate the feasibility of using existing tracks (plus a modest amount of new tracks for connecting purposes) to create a rail freight link between JFK and freight transfer and storage centers in, say, Sunnyside and the Brooklyn waterfront? Or perhaps, depending on the ultimate location of the Cross-Harbor Tunnel, in Staten Island?

If such a plan were shown to be viable, it would do more to alleviate the congestion along the Van Wyck than the passenger Airtrain. And it would also do more to alleviate air pollution problems for the neighborhood than building another roadway over the Van Wyck.

I think most cargo professionals would welcome such a project. It's true that this system would result in a slight delay, as it would take time for the goods to get from JFK to the offsite centers. But truckers would save time by not being stuck in traffic around JFK for an hour or two.

This is not a new idea. I have floated it for the last several years, always being told that there are too many "unknowns." I agree -- which is why I have long suggested that a study should be implemented to identify those "unknowns" and find out whether they are insurmountable obstacles -- or simply the result of tired, obsolescent, business-as-usual thinking.

It's not too late. If somebody - the Port Authority, the mayor, the governor -- would push for such a study, we might actually come up with a plan which would avert potential economic crisis a decade or so down the line.

Memphis and Los Angeles have already passed JFK. Anchorage and Miami are easily within striking distance of doing so. Putting our finger in the dam and praying for a miracle isn't the answer. Action is.