I see that as a major problem then. You have an agency that has infrastructure that it cannot maintain - Why? Do they not receive fuel taxes from motorists for the repair and upkeep of that piece of infrastructure? Have they diverted it into other projects? Is that bi-state agency corrupt?
If a new bridge is built and paid for with tolls, will it fall into the same state with the bi-state agency at the helm in 40 years?
Frankly, I'm seeing a different issue, i.e. decaying infrastructure vs. that which has been minimally maintained so funds could be diverted into a pet project.
Under normal circumstances this agency -- the Port Authority of NY & NJ -- has no problem maintaining its infrastructure. Two things have come into play in this particular case:
1. They also owned the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan, so they've been on the hook for billions of dollars to redevelop the site since 2001.
2. With the widening of the Panama Canal scheduled for completion in 2016, this agency now has a need for another bridge to undergo a major overhaul even though it is structurally sound and still works just fine. This second bridge has now become a higher priority because it is simply too low to allow the next generation of container ships to pass underneath it.
As a quasi-public agency, the Port Authority of NY & NJ receives no fuel tax revenue and no Federal money except in very limited circumstances (mainly for dredging projects that are subject to oversight by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers). This actually works in their favor because they can streamline a project construction process and get things done much faster than traditional public agencies. In fact, they often provide their own funding for major regional transportation projects even on roads and transit lines that they don't own, if they have a vested interest in the project's successful completion (a major rehabilitation project on a highway that accesses one of their airport or port facilities, for example).