Opinion ID: 1951332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the role of the port authority

Text: Ultimately, those who are most hurt by the Port Authority's failure to enter the field of mass transportation are, of course, the commuters. Absence of Port Authority initiative in this area is a direct reflection of the deficits which are inherent in the provision of this public service: Until the late 1950's, transit operations in the United States were generally profitable and, consequently, attractive to investment. Decline in patronage and increasing labor and equipment costs have completely reversed this trend to a point where today, public transit in its everyday operations in most cities is a losing proposition. The losses are not as great as sometimes presumed but, in most cases, average between 20 and 25 percent annually. Therefore, public transit  like many other sectors of the transportation industry, including private automobile transportation  now requires substantial public support in the form of direct financial subsidies to be capable of rendering necessary services. [Roeseler and Levi, State Subsidies for Public Transit: An Overview of Current Legislation, 4 Urban Lawyer 59, 60 (1972)] See also Kneafsey and Edelman, A Market-Oriented Solution to the Northeast Railroad Dilemma, 41 I.C.C. Pract. J. 174 (1973-74). This problem concerning the financial weaknesses of mass transit facilities has been realized within the New York metropolitan area. This, no doubt, has resulted from both the unusually heavy demands which have been placed on these systems in the Port District, and the lack of a perceived common interest among the District's geographic and political components. Danielson, supra, footnote 14 at 21-22. The Port Authority's failure to assume an active role in solving this problem has had a concurrent effect on the traveling habits of the average commuter. Faced with increasing service cutbacks and escalating fares, the commuter is left with fewer alternatives to the private automobile. Grubb, Urban Transportation Alternatives to the Automobile, 39 I.C.C. Pract. J. 19 (1971-72); Cooper, Prospects for a Mass Movement to Public Transit, 5 Urban Lawyer 679 (1973). His increasing resort to this mode of transportation in turn has caused a drastic increase in traffic congestion and air pollution which are commonly associated with the metropolitan area. These problems have stimulated legislative responses on both the federal and state levels. The federal response consists primarily of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 49 U.S.C.A., § 1601 et seq., which purports to encourage the planning and establishment of areawide urban mass transportation systems needed for economical and desirable urban development, with the cooperation of mass transportation companies both public and private. 49 U.S.C.A., § 1601. See Haley and Watkins, The Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970  A Federal Program Comes of Age, 16 N.Y. Law For. 741 (1970). As a corollary to the urban mass transit crisis, the federal government has enacted the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.A., § 1857 et seq. Similar considerations produced comparable legislation in New Jersey, Emergency Energy Fair Practices Act of 1974, L. 1974, cc. 2, 6; Executive Order No. 1 (Feb. 5, 1974). These legislative enactments were most recently recognized in a report issued by the Joint Transportation and Communications Committee of the New Jersey Legislature. Report of the Senate and General Assembly Joint Transportation and Communications Committee (Pursuant to Assembly Concurrent Res. No. 211 of 1974), October 6, 1975. As the report noted: The legislation passed by New Jersey during the last four years clearly reflects the determination on the part of its officials to direct the Port Authority towards making a greater financial commitment to mass transit. In order to determine whether New Jersey has been treated by the Port Authority in a fair and impartial manner the Committee has investigated the degree of Port Authority responsiveness to meeting the mass transportation needs of the State. [ Id. at 13] The Committee's conclusion was succinct as it was unfortunate: The Committee recognizes that the Port Authority has acquired a reputation for its engineering, planning and management skills. It is the conclusion of the Committee, however, that in the area of mass transportation the Port Authority's performance has not been satisfactory. [ Id. at 17] The Committee's conclusions were premised upon the same type of factors which I have considered above. While the Committee was hopeful that the Port Authority would take its mass transportation responsibilities more seriously in the future, it nonetheless pledged its vigilance to see that the Port Authority completes the mass transportation projects it has promised to complete. Id. at 18, 19. [15] The sensitivity of the state government to the urgent need for more modern means of public transportation has not been confined to the legislative branch. In his recent State of the State address, Governor Byrne not only recognized this problem, but concurrently cited the Port Authority's responsibility for its solution. Perhaps even more important, the Governor indicated his willingness to impose an affirmative sanction on the Port Authority should the desired action in the area of mass transit not be forthcoming: How do we keep the railroads running at a time when the state subsidy program costs over $100 million a year and has been growing by more than 35 per cent a year? Should there be an overall operating agency for these lines? What about the communities and industries served by lines soon to be abandoned? Where can we find the $255 million required to match federal funding for the modernization of two major commuter lines and the extension of PATH to Plainfield? The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey must increase its commitment to these efforts. If it is unwilling to do so, we will insist that it rescind the toll increases instituted last year for the specific purpose of funding improvements in the public transportation system. [Annual Message of Governor Brendan T. Byrne, Jan. 13, 1976, at 19] I, too, would similarly take this opportunity to demonstrate the vigilance which has motivated the Joint Committee and the Governor. The Port Authority has too long neglected the responsibility with which it was statutorily charged in 1921. In So. Burlington Cty. NAACP v. Tp. of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 189 (1975), we recognized the significance of transportation to the overall development of an urban area. I would today reaffirm this significance.