Overall, the Portway concept and projects represent a gargantuan investment in trucking, while doing absolutely nothing to increase intermodal ship-rail connections at the big NJ ports. Portway designers have not examined whether shuttle trains, increasingly used to move containers from European ports to inland distribution nodes, can play a role in improving access to and from ports Newark and Elizabeth.

Though official documents claim Portway Phase I projects are primarily repair of existing roads, it starts on Portway's center-piece, a new "Route 1&9T," - "T" for truck - a new truck road whose first phase extends from Tonnelle Circle to Croxton Yards in Jersey City.

Further phases would involve building even more truck highways. Phase II would extend "1&9T" to Little Ferry, Bergen County, with work beginning in 3-5 years. According to promotional literature, other phases might include "a new highway service to Port Jersey and potential new port facilities at MOTBY" or a highway extension to Union County's Trembley Point railroad terminal. The truck-road would pass along the eastern edge of the Hackensack Meadowlands and seems to many observers a precursor to the development of new warehouses and distribution centers in this environmentally sensitive area.

The fix-it projects in Portway Phase I make sense, but the overall approach is wrong-headed for a region that needs to act now to head off waves of new trucks that will be needed to serve the port if better rail infrastructure is not developed. NJDOT projections show the number of containers expected to move through North Jersey ports to double by 2010 to 2.8 million per year. Railroads expect their volumes to double and Newark Airport looks towards a 10% per year growth in cargo volumes from this year's 1.14 million per year. Freight rail connections should link these facilities where needed.

Hudson and Union Counties, the City of Newark have all questioned the need for Portway (see MTR #227). NJ DOT and the Port Authority should start to listen.