What Will It Cost?

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (D) announced yesterday that it would cost $7 billion to fix the structurally deficient and obsolete bridges in New Jersey. So, what programs will he cut to get to that number? What taxes will he increase to bridge the gap - literally and fundamentally?

He doesn't say, which is as any good politician would counsel. Why piss off your electorate when then answers are clear - you either have to raise taxes or you have to cut spending to shift money to infrastructure. Neither are options that would sit well with various constituencies, so everyone complains about the sad situation and little is actually done.

You could try to increase taxes significantly on stuff that doesn't affect taxpayers every day, like the sales tax on real property transfers. If you don't feel it in the pocket every day, the politicians think they can get away with it. They'll raise the sin taxes for the same reason - everyone seems to think you can simply tax alcohol or tobacco and no one would complain much. Tax toilet paper and you might get a different answer.

You could even blame the federal government for not giving more money to the states for transportation projects, but Sen. Menendez (D) and Lautenberg (D) both know that the federal governmnet significantly increased the transportation fund over the prior period significantly. Is it as much as Menendez and Lautenberg hope for? Not in the slightest - transportation budgets help provide jobs for unions and transportation budgets provide ribbon cutting for new bridges, tunnels, mass transit projects etc., in addition to the routine stuff - like painting bridges, inspections, and ongoing maintenance.

Then, there's the problem with misplaced priorities. NJ Transit built white elephants such as the Mahwah parking garage/Rt. 17 station that added more than 1,000 parking spaces, but was so underutilized that NJ Transit leased many of the spots to a car dealership since the Ramsey and Mahwah stations were more convenient and the boondoggle Secaucus Transfer, which not only remains underutilized, but lacks parking for those who would rather avoid traffic into Manhattan and would help accomplish Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing goals of reducing congestion in Manhattan and on city roads.

The Pulaski Skyway is an obsolete bridge because it was designed at a time when cars were much lighter, traffic was lighter, and safety concerns were not where they are now. Existing lanes are narrower than modern standards and more importantly, there are no breakdown lanes, which means if a car breaks down, you cause multi-mile traffic jams. It may be structurally adequate, but because it cannot handle the traffic flow, it is obsolete. Such is the case with many other bridges and roads in the state. Traffic simply has overwhelmed the capacity of the roads.

A proposal to build a new skyway would alleviate many of the problems, including more direct routing for trucks that now have to take a circuitous local route, add breakdown lanes, and three lanes in each direction. It may cost more than $1 billion to build. Maintenance costs on the existing bridge would run $100 million over the next decade.

Consider that if the state and NJ Transit were able to maintain strict cost controls on the Secaucus Transfer project, which was originally expected to run $80 million, it would have had another $350 million available for other projects, including the down payment on a new Skyway. Ponder that next time you hear about cost overruns and delays in construction projects.

We pay for all the overruns and additional costs in terms of lost opportunities to fix other necessary infrastructure, additional debt payments, and higher fares.

Then, there's the issue of dam safety. Four years after state taxpayers approved a loan program to assist in the rehabilitation and improvements to dams and flood control projects around the state, only a handful of projects have been completed. The pace is frustratingly slow because of arduous permitting requirements.