Pennsylvania residents should be relieved over the state Senate's intent to delay until at least next year action on whether to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to a private operator.

There still isn't enough proof that the highest bid received for the deal is fair value for a transportation asset as large as the Turnpike.

The high bidder's proposal for what would be a 75-year lease stipulates a $12.8 billion upfront payment.

The state would use that money to fund repairs to crumbling bridges and highways and to bolster mass transit systems.

Unfortunately, the Rendell administration and other leasing-plan supporters have yet to provide convincing evidence that, through the deal, the state would not be shortchanging itself over the long term if it were to accept the current bid on the table.

"We should not rush into such a major policy decision under some sort of artificial deadline," said Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware. He was referring to the high bidder's disclosure that it probably would withdraw its offer after the second week of October.

This is too important an issue to be ratified without it being adequately evaluated and publicly debated. Even seemingly routine items receive closer legislative scrutiny than what lease promoters are advocating regarding this important, heretofore-untested-in-this-state highway decision.

Meanwhile, the thinking of Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, is consistent with that of many people across the state who oppose a lease, or who just think the high bidder's offer is too low.

"I believe the plan that's on the table now for the Turnpike is a bad deal for Pennsylvania," Scarnati said. "I believe it's too low."

Even with the benefit of information from such leases in effect in several other states, Pennsylvania must tread very carefully, since none of the other leases involve such an extensive highway system.

However, Chuck Ardo, a spokesman for Gov. Ed Rendell, raised a legitimate point in stating that the lease should have been a priority in the closing months of the two-year legislative session.

He's correct that the lease wasn't given priority treatment.

The information revealed in such a focus could have provided the new legislative session with a strong foundation on which to consider the issue when it convenes.

No one is arguing that the state is not dealing with a serious situation involving transportation funding. With that realization, it's understandable that being the possible recipient of $12.8 billion upfront for attacking the needed road and bridge repairs and to help struggling mass transit systems would pose a great temptation.

But long-term highway and mass transit needs must be realistically estimated and compared with the expected annual returns earned by the upfront payment that is to be invested by the state.

Pileggi said he could foresee no circumstances in which the Senate would consider the proposed lease deal this year, and he was right in providing clarity on the issue.

"There is no support for taking it up in this fall session," he said.

State residents harboring anxiety over acceptance of the high bidder's offer can relax — for now. However, they should prepare themselves to pay attention in 2009 as the new legislature is faced with the issue.

This is one time when state residents can be happy about legislative inaction; the alternative offered could have ended up being much worse — and for many decades to come.