Senate Passes Road Bill, Metro Rail Extension

The Senate Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a four-year, $65.4-billion transportation bill that would authorize millions of dollars for the Metro Rail transit line and allow states to set a speed limit of 65 m.p.h. on rural highways.

In the 96-2 vote, the Senate also endorsed a proposed four-mile extension of the Los Angeles subway that would run west from MacArthur Park but did not specify any amounts for the project; and it voted to authorize additional money for the 4.4-mile segment of the line already under construction.

The legislation now goes to a congressional conference committee, where final agreement will be hammered out on the issues of authorizing funds for Metro Rail and raising the speed limit on rural interstate highways. The House passed a $91-billion transportation bill two weeks ago.

“There are several battles left to fight,” said Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), who helped sidetrack two attempts by his colleagues to eliminate funding for the transit line. “As it passed, it contains a very good amendment for Metro Rail.”

The states and the highway construction industry have been seeking passage of a transportation bill since October, when Congress adjourned without reaching agreement on the measure, leaving funding for hundreds of highway projects across the nation in jeopardy.

Work Imperiled

Many states said that they would be unable to carry out their construction projects this spring if Congress did not quickly approve new transportation legislation. The previous authorization bill ran out in September.

In California, about 100 highway projects costing $300 million would be delayed without passage of the bill, including $33 million in construction on the Century Freeway and $10.2 million in rehabilitation work on Highway 101, Gene Berthelsen, a spokesman for the California Department of Transportation, said.

The Senate transportation bill, initially pegged at $52.4 billion for highways, grew to $65.4 billion Wednesday when the Senate unanimously incorporated a $13-billion mass transit spending plan that includes the Metro Rail provision.

However, the fates of the Metro Rail funding and the higher speed limit remain uncertain.

Both the Senate and the House versions of the legislation authorize money for the first nine miles of Metro Rail but use different formulas.

The Senate bill includes a general provision authorizing the expenditure of Metro Rail money from a pool of up to $400 million over four years. The $400-million fund would also be used to finance other new mass transit projects around the country.

The House bill authorizes $110 million in the current fiscal year for Metro Rail and $190 million for each of the next four years, for a total of $870 million.

Rep. Glenn M. Anderson (D-Harbor City), who will be a member of the conference committee, said he was pleased by the Senate’s inclusion of Metro Rail in its version of the bill but will attempt to persuade the conferees to accept the House bill’s more specific financing plan.

“My job will be to try to convince the senators to accept all or part of our language,” he said.

Route Not Determined

A spokesman said the Southern California Rapid Transit District has not determined the precise length or route of the Metro Rail extension.

The 65-m.p.h. speed limit for rural interstate highways was added by the Senate to the transportation bill Tuesday on a vote of 65 to 33. But, last year, the House rejected the higher speed limit by a vote of 218 to 198 on the grounds that it would cause more traffic deaths and waste fuel.

Anderson suggested that the conference committee might be able to agree on a compromise that would allow states to raise the speed limit if they also enacted and enforced mandatory seat belt laws.

Another issue that must be resolved is the differing price tags of the two bills.

Under the measure approved by the Senate, California could receive more than $5 billion in highway construction funds over four years, a spokeswoman for Wilson said. The bill includes a provision that could give California up to $70 million more in disaster funds to help repair damage caused by storms in 1986.