After facing a public uproar and faux-outrage from the New York and New Jersey governors, the Port Authority on Friday announced a reduced series of fare and toll hikes for its river crossings and PATH trains. The new plan, which is contingent on the requirement of a comprehensive review of the agency’s capital plan and operations to ensure accountability, will help fund a $25.1 billion capital plan over the next four years, and it will see PATH fares increase by 25 cents a year over those four years.

This new version of the budget ostensibly takes into account “toll and fare payers’ economic realities,” and it represents spending cuts over the previous version as well. Instead of a $33 billion capital plan for 10 years, this new one covers the same time span but for $6 billion less. These cuts came amidst public pressure from Governors Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie that many thought was less than sincere. Clearly, these governors were aware of the fare and toll hike plan but were able to curry voter points by proclaiming public outrage.

Still, the Port Authority responded and agreed to limit the increases to $4.50 over the next five years. “Because of the leadership of our Governors, I believe we have reached the right balance by prioritizing our infrastructure needs while heeding the concerns of our toll and fare payers. We also now have the direction to ensure that our future finances and operations are prudently managed and efficient,” PA Chairman David Samson said. “By our action, today we demonstrate we are getting back to our original mission and continuing our more than 90 year tradition of being the economic engine and transportation infrastructure leader of New York and New Jersey.”

The new fare and toll increases, then, look a little something like this:

• Tolls on cars using E-ZPass will increase $1.50 in September 2011 and then 75 cents in December each year from 2012-2015 for a total increase of $4.50 over five years, down from the proposed $6 increase over four years.
• Cars paying with cash will have the same increase, but will be subject to an additional $2 penalty (rounded up to the nearest whole dollar).
• Tolls on trucks using E-ZPass will pay an additional $2 per axle in September 2011, and then an additional $2 per axle in December of each year from 2012 -2015.
• Tolls on trucks paying cash will have the same increase but will be subject to an additional $3 per axle cash penalty.
• Fares on the PATH train will increase 25 cents per year for the next four years.

It is currently unclear what the full structure of the PATH increases will be. After four years, the base fare will be $2.75, but the costs for the discounted unlimited ride cards are unknown. In the original plan, the 30-day card jumped from $54 to $89. Riders were of course outraged, but this plan seems to ensure that the PA can continue to grow while providing for over 100,000 jobs in the area.

According to the PA’s report, over 60 percent or nearly $15 billion will be spent over the next four years, and projects funded include work on the George Washington Bridge, the Lincoln Tunnel Helix rehab, the Bayonne Bridge roadway, PATH car, signal and station modernization and airport runway modernizations. These are, of course, some badly needed projects.

“I can tell you what the effect would be if they didn’t raise the tolls,” Mayor Micheal Bloomberg said. “The bridges eventually would fall down. We wouldn’t be able to make the commute better and let business go back and forth under the river and over the river. If you want services you have to pay for them.”

And therein lies the rub. If you want services — and better ones at that — ultimately, you have to pay for them.

Early renderings of the Calatrava hub show that $3.8 billion just doesn't go far these days.

The Port Authority’s Santiago Calatrava-designed PATH hub at the World Trade Center is becoming a transit boondoggle in the fullest sense of the phrase. Once projected to cost just $2.2 billion, the ornate station saw costs jump to $3.44 billion in February, and now, federal officials monitoring the project believe the hub could cost as much as $3.8 billion — or 70 percent above initial costs — when all is said and done.

Shawn Boburg of The Bergen Record first reported on the increases today. The hub, once set to open in 2011, may not wrap until March 2015, making it three months behind the current schedule. Boburg has more:

The report warns that — even after the controversial February increase — the “budget still does not appear adequate for the ultimate completion of the project.” It adds: “Recent discussions with the Port Authority” indicate a $3.8 billion final price tag. The 2005 budget for the project was $2.2 billion…

Officials at the Port Authority, the bi-state agency in charge of the federally funded project, brushed aside the estimate. “We remain confident in our budget” of $3.4 billion, spokesman John Kelly said.

And an official at the Federal Transit Administration, which is paying a majority of the hub expenses, stressed that the authority could still hit its current spending target if it manages the project properly…An FTA official said the $3.8 billion estimate included a “risk” assessment and was not certain.

FTA officials tried to downplay the bad news. “In its financial oversight role, the FTA is obligated to identify and measure risk associated with the PATH Hub project,” Brian Farber, the FTA’s associate administrator for communications and congressional affairs, said. “Having identified those risks, we still believe that if the Port Authority properly manages them, the project could meet the projected $3.4 billion budget.”

As costs escalate, the Port Authority will be expected to shoulder more and more of the funding burden. As Boburg notes, the FTA will fork over around $2.9 billion for the hub, and the Port Authority will have to foot the bill for nearly $1 billion more. Considering how the hub is largely cosmetic and does not serve to increase cross-Hudson rail capacity, this investment is growing more and more foolhardy by the quarter, and it highlights how misplaced the region’s transit spending priorities are these days.

The Port Authority is looking to raise the Bayonne Bridge. Will the work allow for better transit connections? (Photo by flickr user andy in nyc)

In late-December, amidst holiday vacations and blizzard hullabaloos, the Port Authority announced its preferred method for dealing with the pesky Bayonne Bridge. Unfortunately, as container ships grow larger, the bridge is not tall enough, and to address this issue without risking a steep decline in business through the region’s ports, the Port Authority had to decide between replacing the bridge and raising it. With cash short, the PA said it will try to raise the bridge, leaving many to wonder what future transit will have over this key link between Staten Island and New Jersey.

To solve the height problem and keep the project’s budget manageable, the Port Authority would like to raise the bridge from 151 feet to 215 feet. The water crossing much reach that height after the Panama Canal is widened in 2014, and in today’s economy, building a new bridge isn’t a feasible solution. Just ask supporters of the ARC Tunnel about that. In its December 30th release on the decision, the PA had the following to say about its plan:

The “Raise the Roadway” solution will involve reconstruction of the existing approaches, ramps, and main span roadway to a higher elevation that would allow the crossing to accommodate larger ships for years to come. The alternative, as compared with others reviewed to replace the bridge, is the most cost effective, and has the fewest environmental and neighborhood impacts. This bridge modification approach also minimizes visual and physical impacts to the historic bridge and seeks to preserve the iconic arch, while improving the navigational clearance restriction.

Port Authority staff is currently drilling down on engineering issues for the proposed solution, including roadway design, lane configuration and upgrades to the existing 10-foot-wide lanes, providing median dividers and shoulders, and adding additional safety and security measures. The Port Authority also will work with its regional partners to initiate and expedite the environmental regulatory process.

Noticeably missing from the Port Authority’s own initial announcement was any mention of transit. Those who wish to see Staten Island’s nascent transit network better connected to New Jersey’s and who are pushing for a North Shore Rail Line reactivation were dismayed by the news. As Maureen Donnelly reported in the Staten Island Advance last week, the borough’s transit activists are not happy that the Port Authority has said that “it’s too soon in the process to make an informed determination whether space might be set aside to handle bus or rail traffic over the bridge.”

A PA spokesman said that raising the roadway “does not preclude the use of mass transit,” but borough officials aren’t satisfied. “We have a significant opportunity here, and it would be the right thing for the Port Authority to at least provide the space — and we’ll work on trying to figure out how to establish whether it’s a rail link or bus rapid transit, or something of that sort,” Linda Baran, president of the SI Chamber of Commerce, said. “They’d be crazy not to have a dedicated lane. This is something that’s feasible.”

Feasible is almost too tame a word for this scenario. After killing the ARC Tunnel, might New Jersey, the primary mover behind the Bayonne Bridge makeover, be again sacrificing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve transit access and interconnectedness between Staten Island and the Garden State? In an ideal world, the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail would run over the bridge and offer a connection to the North Shore Rail Line. Of course, in an ideal world, costs don’t matter while here they do. Anything less than a truly dedicated bus lane shouldn’t even be on the table.

The Bayonne Bridge has stood for 80 years at its current height and with its current configuration. As New York and New Jersey look for ways to improve transit connections, this bridge shouldn’t be overlooked, and now’s the time to act. The region can’t afford to wait another 80 years before having another go at it.