Clinton Offers Plan for Tolls on Interstates

Unveiling his $175-billion plan for funding the nation’s highways over the next six years, President Clinton proposed Wednesday that states be permitted to charge tolls on interstate highways and to use the revenue to improve their transportation systems.

“States need a lot of resources--state, federal, and other--to keep up with the aging of their transportation systems,” Deputy Transportation Secretary Mortimer Downey said. “This could be one more way to raise those dollars.”

The Clinton package also includes new proposals for funds to help former welfare recipients travel to their jobs, to beef up funding for air quality programs and to give states and localities more flexibility on how they use federal funds.

“As we invest in these bridges and roads and transit systems, we are also building a bridge to a cleaner environment. We’re building a bridge from welfare to work,” Clinton said in outlining his proposal. “We’re building a bridge to sustainable communities that can last and grow and bring people together over the long run.”

Reaction to the president’s proposal was mixed, as is the potential impact of the plan on different states and cities.

In California, for example, the president’s plan for allocating transportation funds would mean an increase--both in the amount and the proportion of federal funds the state would receive. Under Clinton’s formula--which is not expected to become law--California would receive an average of $1.9 billion a year in federal funds over the next six years--up from $1.6 billion--and that amount would represent 9.56% of the funds available nationwide, up from 9.33%.

As far as the president’s proposal to allow tolls on interstate highways, the idea has been a subject of considerable controversy in California for years. Some environmental groups have long advocated variable tolls, with pricing higher during peak hours to encourage commuters to join carpools or other alternatives to driving alone.

The state currently has one toll road, California 91 between the Inland Empire and Orange County. Two new toll roads are being contemplated in Southern California.

The Wilson administration responded equivocally to the proposal. “We’re always interested in looking at creative and intriguing funding options,” said Wilson spokesman Ron Lowe.

Key state legislators were quick to react to the tolls idea.

“Stop picking our pockets,” said state Sen. Richard G. Polanco (D-Los Angeles), arguing that tolls would hit low-income residents hardest. “It’s ridiculous. We’ve already paid for them,” he said.

But state Sen. Quentin Kopp, a San Francisco independent who is chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said that the idea “merits discussion.”

Kopp has been battling demands from Southern California lawmakers that the Bay Area pay for earthquake reinforcements on its bridges--and possibly a new Bay Bridge--by doubling or tripling the existing $1 toll that commuters pay to cross the bridges into San Francisco. Kopp contended that the bridge work, the cost of which would exceed $1 billion, should be paid for primarily from statewide highway taxes.

If highway tolls were put in place, “maybe Southern Californians would understand what it feels like to pay tolls on bridges,” Kopp said.

It is not yet clear how Congress will respond to Clinton’s proposal to allow states to collect tolls on interstate highways. Currently, states are allowed to charge tolls on state roads, as well as bridges and tunnels on interstate highways, but not on the highways themselves.

“We want to see better, safer transportation systems with greater capacity,” Downey said. “Those need to be paid for in one way or another and tolls would actually allocate those costs to the users.”

Downey said that the department does not know which states would be likely to start collecting tolls.

Taken as a whole, the president’s proposal generated mixed reactions from Congress. But the legislative process is just beginning and initial reactions indicated that specific elements of Clinton’s plan are sure to spur heated debate.

“In the past, this administration’s legislative submissions were routinely referred to as ‘DOA’ or ‘dead on arrival.’ Well, that’s not going to be the case with this one,” said Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. “On the other hand, we have some very serious concerns with the proposal.”

Shuster suggested that Clinton’s plan would use too much money from the Highway Trust Fund for purposes other than highways. Over the six-year period, it would, for instance, make Amtrak and inter-city rail terminals eligible for $5 billion in what have traditionally been considered highway funds.

“This is an unacceptable diversion of funds, given our enormous highway and transit needs,” Shuster said.

The administration’s six-year proposal represents an 11% spending increase over the $157 billion spent for surface transportation over the last six years.

Congress, however, is likely to press for higher spending than the administration on traditional highway and roadway projects and less on environmental protection and rail transportation. A bipartisan majority of senators already has expressed support for spending $27 billion per year on the nation’s highways--compared to the yearly average of $20 billion in the president’s proposal.

Congress must complete work on the massive legislation, which sets general transportation policy and provides funding for highways and transit systems, by Sept. 30, when the current legislation expires. Heated battles--pitting lawmakers from one region of the country against those from other areas--are expected over the formula for divvying up the money.

The administration’s proposal includes a funding allocation formula but the Transportation Department’s Downey conceded that Congress will surely come up a different one.

Other elements of Clinton’s version of the sweeping transportation bill would:

* Give states financial incentives to fight drunk and drugged driving and increase the use of safety belts and child restraints.

* Provide $600 million over six years to states to develop innovative transportation systems, such as van pools, to help transport former welfare recipients to jobs.

* Increase funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program by 30%, to $1.3 billion annually. Responding to new research on the dangers of particulate matter, the program would make funds available to areas that do not meet health standards for this air pollutant.

During a morning ceremony at the White House, Clinton said his transportation proposal would “create tens of thousands of jobs for our people, help move people from welfare to work, protect our air and water and improve our highway safety.”

Times staff writer Dan Morain contributed to this story from Sacramento.