The Star-Ledger reported on Monday on the contents of a 15-year Port Authority "investment agenda" it had obtained. The plan calls for $40 billion in infrastructure projects, half of which would be financed by the agency, while federal funds, airlines, ocean carriers and other tenants of the agency's airports and marine terminals pick up the rest. The overall look at potential projects and revenues was reportedly ordered by PA board chair Lewis Eisenberg two years ago.

The projects include a new $1 billion NJ-Manhattan commuter rail tunnel to ease the train capacity jam at Penn Station, $1 billion for a new PATH train fleet, $944 million for new marine terminals $350 million for the I-278 Goethals "twin" bridge. The list also includes $350 million for the Governors of NY and NJ to fund unidentified priority projects.

To pay its share of the costs, anticipated Port Authority revenues would fall $6 billion short of the $20 billion needed. According to the document obtained by the Star-Ledger, the gap could be made up if bridge and tunnel tolls and PATH train fares are increased. The planning document does not schedule or even recommend the hikes, but according to the Star-Ledger, Port Authority officials said that if all proposed capital improvements are to be undertaken, it would be best to have the higher rates in effect by mid-2001.

Some of the projects mentioned in the article, like the new commuter rail tunnel, are critical to the transportation future of the region, and the Port Authority's close look at how to pay for it is a welcome development. The Governors of New York and New Jersey should get on board a plan to build this project.

Others, like the Goethals "twin," are hugely unpopular (see next story) in both New York and New Jersey and could weigh down an otherwise worthy Port Authority capital program.

Apart from the mix of projects, increasing Port Authority toll and fare revenues has some pitfalls and some opportunities. A PATH fare increase will not yield much additional revenue (when viewed against the scale of overall PA finances), and so should be weighed against potential negative impacts on transit ridership.

The blow of a bridge and tunnel toll hike could be softened by confining any significant hike to peak periods and minimizing the off-peak increase. A peak/off-peak price break could help reduce some peak congestion, a benefit to rush hour motorists that would not result from repetition of past across-the-board toll hikes.