ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, March 13, 1997 TAG: 9703130060
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS and HEARST NEWSPAPERS
The president's new highway proposal would allow states to tax existing interstates. One high-profile lobbyist says that amounts to "highway robbery."
President Clinton's $175billion program for new highway projects could hit some of America's drivers in the pocketbook: To help foot the bill, the plan would allow states to charge tolls on interstate highways.
Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater is playing down the change.
Slater said that while the bill does give states permission to charge tolls on existing sections of the interstate system, it is only ``a modest change'' from previous policy.
``We do not believe a lot of states will take advantage of it, but clearly they should have the opportunity,'' Slater said at a news conference at the Transportation Department.
``Most of the interstates were already paid for by highway users, but what Bill Clinton has done is to say, `Let's toll them again,''' said William Fay, president of the American Highway Users Alliance, a Washington lobbying group. ``It's double taxation and will have a tremendous impact on the cost of goods that are hauled.''
Fay said he attended an administration briefing Wednesday at which government documents outlined the plans to lift the ban on tolls.
``We are unalterably opposed to new tolls,'' said Bill Jackman, a spokesman for the American Automobile Association. ``The public already pays 14.3 cents in tax per gallon of gas for highways.'' Another 4 cents per gallon in gas tax goes toward deficit reduction.
The highway industry officials said they were stunned by the White House plan to lift the toll prohibition - an idea defeated in the Senate two years ago.
``We've been hearing from administration officials for about a week about the tolls,'' Jackman said. It was ``still a bit of a surprise,'' given the Senate defeat, he added.
Jackman said his organization would lobby lawmakers on Capitol Hill to try to strike the new toll provision.
Morton Downey, the Transportation Department's No.2 official, said the change was made in response to requests by some states for another source of revenue for state and city transportation projects.
Downey said existing law requires all such tolls to be ``just and reasonable.''
At present, tolls are permitted on highways now used as interstates that were built entirely with state revenues before the creation of the Interstate Highway System in 1956. An example: the New Jersey Turnpike.
Another exception would be new construction of an interstate segment, such as a new bridge.
Fay complained that the bill would divert dollars from the highway trust fund to subsidize Amtrak, the national rail system, instead paying for needed roads and bridges.
``In that sense, it's highway robbery,'' he said.
The legislation, which would authorize surface-transportation spending over the next six years, also offers a new formula to allocate money to states.
Slater said the new allocation would increase highway dollars for every state except Massachusetts, which he said received substantial federal highway aid over the last six years.
This section of the bill is sure to be controversial on Capitol Hill, because the new formula does not end the situation in which so-called donor states pay out more in fuel taxes than they get back from Washington in transportation spending.
But while he defended the new formulas as ``a proper balance,'' he conceded that they are only the starting point.
``We have stepped forward to try to bridge the breach,'' he said. ``This is a starting point, not concrete tablets. We know the Congress will have a lot to say about this.''
As it enters the starting gate of the congressional process, the bill is free of any earmarks for so-called demonstration projects for individual congressional districts. Many critics call such projects wasteful ``pork'' that skirts the state-federal selection process for new highway projects.
But department officials acknowledged demonstration projects are likely to be added as the House and Senate transportation committees begin their consideration of the bill.
Responding to questions, Downey said that as a spending bill the legislation would be subject to President Clinton's new authority to veto individual projects he deems wasteful or unneeded.
Clinton formally launched the legislation at a ceremony Wednesday, declaring it should receive bipartisan support in Congress.
LENGTH: Medium: 89 linesby CNB