Pennsylvania's interest in possibly leasing the Pennsylvania Turnpike to raise billions of dollars for its roads, bridges and mass transit systems has generated considerable notice on Wall Street and from companies that already are involved in such leases in this country and in Europe.

Considering the leases already in place domestically, such as one involving the 7.8-mile Chicago Skyway and another involving a 157-mile toll road in the state of Indiana, it wasn't surprising that about four dozen letters of interest converged on Harrisburg soon after Gov. Ed Rendell promoted the idea.

With the issue moving forward at such a quick pace — the plan only became public about a month ago — it is time that state residents start paying closer attention to what has been proposed, learn all they can about the pros and cons, and express their viewpoints to their state representatives, since legislative approval would be required for such a lease.

Commonwealth residents also should ponder whether a voter referendum on the issue should be advocated, then make their opinions known on that point too.

The turnpike belongs to the people of this state and they should have a say in such a dramatic move.

There is no question that the state's highways and bridges need major repairs and that mass transit systems are operating in the red. However, the people must ask themselves whether they feel that a one-time lease payment is preferable to a steady stream of about $600 million a year in toll revenue.

Some reports have speculated that a long-term turnpike lease — perhaps for 75 or 99 years — could bring in between $2 billion and $30 billion. The serious consideration thus becomes whether the big chunk of lease money upfront is worth the risk in terms of how it might negatively impact highway money needs beyond the short term.

The good that would emanate from the lease payment initially wouldn't last forever. Major repairs would be needed in a couple of decades.

But there are issues to consider besides the new concrete and bridge structures that would be put in place, the highways and bridges that would be repaired, and the mass transit systems that would benefit from the lease money.

Foremost is how much higher tolls might be on America's first superhighway if privatization were to occur. Whoever would take over control of the turnpike would have the goal of making money — a return on the investment and a healthy profit.

In addition to raising tolls, that could be accomplished by adding commercial establishments along the highway, which many motorists and commercial drivers might deem desirable.

Nevertheless, that wouldn't happen overnight, and higher tolls might be the most immediate impact from the private takeover.

There would be less incentive to keep tolls at the current level, since politicians would be removed from the toll-decision process.

Meanwhile, motorists who travel the mountainous western portion of the turnpike will surely be concerned about the impact on winter maintenance. Current turnpike maintenance crews do a generally good job in keeping the toll road in shape during challenging snow and icy-weather events.

That service could well be impacted under a lease arrangement with what possibly could be an international company distanced from the Pennsylvania roadway.

Then there's the legitimate concern about whether the turnpike might be subjected to a lesser degree of repairs in the latter years of the lease, if the company initially leasing the turnpike was not getting the subsequent lease.

Therefore, sometime in the next century Pennsylvania could have a serious toll road problem on its hands without anyone wanting to assume a new lease deal — leaving the major repair task to the state.

States such as California and Texas are in the process of selling rights to build new toll roads and operate bridges and tollbooths. Meanwhile, other states from New Jersey to the Midwest are contemplating privatizing major routes.

The privatization trend is decades old in Europe, but it remains unknown how such arrangements will work out here over an extended period of time — whether they will achieve the rosy expectations to which politicians allude.

No one has said yet how much of the lease bonanza is being eyed for the mass transit systems destined to continue losing money without serious cuts to operating costs.

State Rep. Richard Geist of Altoona, who has chaired the House Transportation Committee for more than a decade, expressed excitement over the level of interest in a lease, calling it a "smashing success."

However, state residents should be cautious at this time and demand that lawmakers and the governor listen to what they have to say — via referendum or otherwise.

The old addage — if it looks too good to be true, it probably is — might apply in this instance.

This is not an issue to be railroaded through the legislature in the middle of the night without debate and without prior public hearings throughout the state.