[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9123-S9125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 1384. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide 
State and local authorities a means by which to eliminate congestion on 
the Interstate System; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as the month of August nears and the 
remaining summer days dwindle, many Americans are turning their 
attention to the highway as they plan family vacations and road trips, 
setting their sights on destinations that may be close to home or 
several States away. As they plot their travel plans, they must take 
into account several road-related factors, including, what route to 
take, which highway to use and how long it will take to get to their. 
Road safety, highway quality and congestion will undoubtedly be major 
considerations that will enter this equation.
  In addition to personal mobility, roads also serve as the backbone of 
the national economy. Our economic success depends on a sound 
transportation system that efficiently carries goods to and from the 
marketplace. We must work diligently throughout the upcoming highway 
re-authorization to provide a policy framework that facilitates access 
to both markets for goods and places for people.
  It is for these reasons, among others, that I rise today to introduce 
the Freeing Alternatives to Speedy Transportation Act, or for short, 
the FAST Act--legislation that will ease and alleviate traffic 
congestion, increase highway capacity, decrease pollution and improve 
the quality of life for millions of Americans. The legislation has 
already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman 
Kennedy of Minnesota. His bi-partisan version of the bill has gained 
strong support and momentum, and I thank him for his leadership on 
transportation matters.
  It is easy to say how important our roads are to our success. But the 
question that has everyone stumped is how to pay for it all. We must 
look to creative policies that place the State in the drivers seat 
toward ending the transportation funding dilemma--policies that 
capitalize on user choice and private financing. The FAST Act provides 
just that--flexibility and innovation to move forward with important 
Interstate highway expansion projects--projects that would not be 
possible with out the FAST Act--to ease congestion and alleviate the 
strain on our roads.
  The FAST Act removes the obstacles that prevent States from 
collecting user fees on Interstate highway expansion projects. It 
allows a State to create an authority that collects user fees to 
finance expansion lanes on Interstates, while building in several 
protective measures that boost consumer confidence and protection. The 
fees are collected only on the expansion land--the existing lanes 
remain open and free of charge. Fees can be used only for the 
construction of the FAST lane and accompanying structures--the money 
cannot be diverted to other accounts or projects. It allows the State 
to collect, as part of the fee, a maintenance reserve for that lane, 
and guarantees that the fee will be removed once the project is paid 
off. In other words, the fee pays for the project, ends, and the FAST 
lane then becomes available to everyone free of the fee. While I 
realize this bill is but one avenue in bridging our highway policy 
needs, the options it opens through user-choice and dedicated funding 
will promote sound State planning and decision making.
  The FAST Act has the support of the Colorado Department of 
Transportation, think tanks, State governments and many others who hope 
to find new ways to expend highways. Tom Norton, Executive Director of 
the Colorado Department of Transportation, wrote in support of the FAST 
Act, ``With nationwide transportation needs continually increasing, 
Federal Government, as well as the States, must seek new funding 
sources to keep up with this demand. This needed legislation provides 
States the ability to explore a new source in order to fund highway 
expansion.'' In addition to the backing the legislation has received 
from the Colorado Department of Transportation, both the Minnesota and 
Washington DOTs support the bill as well.

  Earlier this week, the Joint Economic Committee released a white 
paper, noting ``roads are deteriorating while congestion worsens every 
year.'' The paper highlights the FAST Act as a new funding mechanism 
for highways, noting that many economists believe that the new 
authorization bill should grant the states more flexibility in raising 
money for funding transportation projects. It concludes by stating that 
the FAST Act is a modest measure that can help bridge the financing 
chasm.
  Numerous organizations and associations across the country have 
either endorsed the FAST Act or have strong and positive interest in 
the legislation. These groups include: Americans for Tax Reform, 
American Highway Users Alliance, Associated General Contractors of 
America, National Taxpayers Union, Association for Commuter 
Transportation, and the American Association of State and Highway 
Transportation Officials.
  As the population of the United States continues to surge and miles 
traveled by automobiles increase every year, transportation planners 
must find new and innovative ways to expand highway congestion. With 
today's budget crisis, this task becomes even more formidable as States 
look for new ways to stretch every dollar. The FAST Act give States one 
more tool in their battle against congestion. It creates a new source 
of revenue through user choice. It give them flexibility in managing 
construction and maintenance, encourages public-private partnerships 
and speeds traffic through a series of electronic gateways instead of 
creating logjams at toll booths. It is one more tool in the toolbox of 
innovative finance options that will lead to a more efficient, safer 
highway system.
  I ask unanimous consent that supporting documents and the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                State of Colorado,


                                 Department of Transportation,

                                       Denver, CO, April 25, 2003.
     Hon. Wayne Allard,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Allard: We are writing in support of ``Fast 
     Act'' H.R. 1767, the fast fees legislation introduced in the 
     House earlier this month by Representatives Mark Kennedy and 
     Adam Smith. We understand that you are considering sponsoring 
     this legislation in the Senate and support your interest in 
     this legislation.
       This proposed bill is consistent with legislation that was 
     enacted last year by the Colorado State Legislature. Our 
     state law allowed us to create the Colorado Tolling 
     Enterprise, which enables the state to collect fees for new 
     capacity on state highways. H.R. 1767 would expand our 
     opportunity to create new capacity on interstate highways as 
     well.

[[Page S9124]]

     The philosophy of H.R. 1767 is consistent with our state law 
     in creating new ways of increasing highway capacity.
       With nationwide transportation needs continually 
     increasing, federal government, as well as the states must 
     seek new funding sources to keep up with these demands. This 
     needed legislation provides states the ability to explore a 
     new source in order to fund highway projects.
       As you work to reauthorize TEA-21, we encourage you to 
     support legislation that provides greater flexibility to the 
     states as we all seek to improve our highways and meet the 
     needs of a growing state.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Norton,
       Executive Director, CDOT.
     Margaret ``Peggy'' Catlin,
       Executive Director, Colorado Tolling Enterprise.
                                  ____


Joint Economic Committee, (Chairman Robert F. Bennett--Economic Policy 
                        Research, July 7, 2003)


                 New possibilities for Financing Roads

       It is an unfortunate fact of life that our roads are 
     deteriorating while congestion worsens every year. Fixing our 
     roads will not be easy; billions of dollars will be needed to 
     stave off further declines, and there is little appetite in 
     Congress to raise federal taxes on gasoline. The table below 
     shows that current spending proposals for highways and mass 
     transit for the next six years far outstrip the $218 billion 
     spent on roads and mass transit over the previous six years. 
     The overarching question is how will the federal government 
     fund a significant increase in surface transportation 
     expenditures without raising gasoline taxes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Package
                                         size
                                      (billions      Gas tax increase
                                          $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Infrastructure and                    375  Yes, by indexing tax
 Transportation.                                  retroactively to 1993
                                                  and for subsequent
                                                  years to inflation.
Congressional 2004 Budget Resolution        280  No.
Senate Environment and Public Works.        311  ?
Administration......................        247  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Research Service, H. Con. Res. 95.

                  a new funding mechanism for highways

       There are other ways to fund transportation spending 
     increases that should be explored. For instance, many 
     economists believe a new transportation authorization bill 
     should grant the states more flexibility in raising money for 
     funding transportation projects. To that end, Reps. Mark 
     Kennedy (R-MN) and Adam Smith (D-WA) have proposed the 
     Freeing Alternatives for Speedy Transportation (FAST) Act 
     (H.R. 1767). The bill would remove the current prohibition on 
     tolls for federal highways, as well as ensure that states 
     wouldn't be penalized for coming up with innovative ways to 
     fund transportation construction. While toll lanes alone 
     cannot make up the projected shortfall between the various 
     spending proposals and revenues that will be generated by the 
     gas tax, the judicious use of tolls would raise significant 
     revenue.


                 efficient tolls can reduce congestion

       Ideally, the toll charge would vary based on the current 
     congestion level on the road--the more cars on the road, the 
     higher the price of the toll lane. As the toll increases, 
     drivers will change their behavior; when the toll is 
     relatively high people will use car pools, take mass transit, 
     or postpone unnecessary trips. In high-traffic corridors the 
     market can pay the bulk of the cost of constructing and 
     maintaining the road.
       Since roads are not continuously congested, variable tolls 
     reduce traffic and spread it out more evenly over the course 
     of the day. In essence, properly managed fares can reduce the 
     level of lane expansion necessary by maximizing the 
     efficiency of the current infrastructure. The idea of 
     variable pricing for toll lanes is the same principle that 
     dictates lower ticket prices for movie matinees and discounts 
     for ``early bird'' dining specials at restaurants: price 
     differentials over the course of a day can alleviate crowds.
       Regardless of the degree of success, innovative congestion 
     pricing would not come close to alleviating the need for new 
     roads. Most large cities desperately need new and improved 
     highways to deal with the immense increases in traffic that 
     have occurred in recent years.


                          Tollbooths are passe

       When most people think of tolls they associate it with long 
     queues of cars waiting to pay 50 cents to cross a bridge, 
     thereby increasing congestion on roads. In reality, leaps in 
     tolling technology have made cumbersome tollbooths 
     unnecessary. Today, cars can use transponders to 
     electronically pay tolls without stopping the flow of 
     traffic. Transponders are inexpensive and the tolling 
     authority often provides them at no cost to drivers. Drivers 
     can either receive a monthly bill or else pre-pay 
     (anonymously, should they wish) for a certain number of 
     trips.
       Proposals, like the FAST Act, encourage states to take 
     advantage of this innovative technology by allowing them to 
     toll new lanes on the federal interstate provided that they 
     use an electronic tolling system.


                    Tolls are not the same as taxes

       Some politicians resist any legislation that might lead to 
     an expansion of tolled lanes on the principle that tolls 
     merely represent a new form of taxation. However, it is 
     important to note that tolling is not just another name for a 
     tax. When used on newly built lanes financed by toll 
     revenues, tolls serve as a voluntary access charge for 
     drivers who choose to use a lane that is less congested. In 
     essence, when people use a toll lane they are buying time.
       Dedicated toll lanes function much the same as FedEx and 
     other next-day shipping companies. Someone wishing to send a 
     package via U.S. mail can do so at an inexpensive price, but 
     the delivery will take longer and the ultimate delivery date 
     will be less predictable. However, someone who absolutely 
     needs a package delivered overnight can guarantee an on-time 
     delivery by paying extra and using FedFx.
       Those who worry that states will exploit tolls to fund 
     revenue shortfalls by gouging citizens should be heartened to 
     know that the FAST Act specifically addresses this temptation 
     in its legislation. The FAST Act requires that all revenues 
     raised from tolls be dedicated only to the lanes where the 
     tolls are collected. States are also constrained from 
     charging unreasonably high access charges by the marketplace. 
     Because tolls are added only on new lanes, drivers will 
     always have a choice whether or not to pay the toll. If the 
     toll is set at a price drivers are not willing to pay, the 
     newly added lane will be underutilized, costing the state 
     potential revenue and drawing the ire of its citizens.


                        tolling success stories

       Various permutations of congestion pricing have been in 
     place since Singapore's Area Licensing Scheme was introduced 
     in 1975. With electronic tolling, Singapore managed to reduce 
     the number of single drivers and better utilized its road 
     capacity by distributing trips more evenly throughout the 
     day.
       Domestically, there have been several value pricing 
     projects established under the Value Pricing Pilot program. 
     Perhaps the most successful pilot project is the High 
     Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on Interstate 15 in San Diego. The 
     program allowed two lanes, previously reserved for carpools 
     with at least two passengers, to provide access to all 
     drivers willing to pay a toll to enter the lane. The toll was 
     set at a level so as to ensure that traffic in the lanes 
     traveled near the speed limit.
       The project was immensely successful and led to several 
     dramatic improvements in road performance. The number of 
     people carpooling increased and rates of carpooling 
     violations decreased. Drivers believed that the toll lanes 
     were safer and more reliable. Revenues generated were high 
     enough that an express bus was added to I-15, providing 
     another alternative for commuters. An overwhelming 94 percent 
     of transit riders, 92 percent of carpoolers, and over 70 
     percent of all commuters felt that congestion pricing was a 
     ``fair'' system given that travelers choose to pay the 
     charge. The managed lanes on I-15 have proven so successful 
     that the San Diego Association of Governments plans to expand 
     its value pricing system by replacing the two HOT lanes with 
     four new HOT lanes.
       Most recently, in February 2003 London introduced a 
     congestion-pricing scheme that charges vehicles entering the 
     central city. Though met with intense skepticism by political 
     opponents, the pricing experiment has proven to be even more 
     successful than its designers had anticipated. The average 
     driving speed in London's central city has increased 37 
     percent and the total number of cars entering Central London 
     has decreased by 20 percent.


                           freedom for states

       The FAST Act and similar proposals encouraging greater 
     utilization of toll lanes do not seek to mandate the 
     wholesale use of tolls by states. However, states should have 
     the option to use tolls to finance the reconstruction of new 
     roads and should incur no penalty for doing so. In a federal 
     system of government, states should be encouraged to pursue 
     innovative methods for financing and providing essential 
     services to the citizenry, and this is indeed what the FAST 
     Act would achieve. Given the significant difference between 
     proposed highway spending plans and projected gas tax 
     revenues, the FAST Act is a modest measure that can help 
     bridge the chasm.


                            further reading

       Joint Economic Committee Hearing on Financing Our Nation's 
     Roads--http://jec.senate.gov/hearings/hearings__may06.html.
       Getting Unstuck: Three Big Ideas to Get America Moving 
     Again, by Robert D. Atkinson--http://www.ppionline.org/
documents/Transportation__1202.pdf.
       Privatization Watch--The Surface Transportation Issue--
     http://www.rppi.org/may03pw.pdf.
       JEC publications released in June:
       ``Putting the U.S. Economy in Global Context,'' June 24, 
     2003. Compares economic growth--as measured by GDP--in the 
     U.S. and other major economies.
       ``Prescription Drugs Are Only Reason Why Medicare Needs 
     Reform,'' June 17, 2003. Explains why the program needs 
     market-based reforms to become more financially viable and 
     responsive to patients.
       ``Health Insurance Spending Growth--How Does Medicare 
     Compare?'' June 10, 2003. Compares cost growth rates of 
     Medicare with various other insurers, such as the Federal. 
     Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

[[Page S9125]]

       ``Recent Economic Developments: Looking Ahead to Stronger 
     Growth,'' June 3, 2003. Gives an overview of the U.S. 
     economy, including a review of key economic data released in 
     May.
       Other recent JEC publications include:
       ``Medicare Beneficiaries' Links to Drug Coverage.''
       ``A Primer on Deflation.''
       ``Economics of the Debt Limit.''
       ``Dividend Tax Relief and Capped Exclusions.''
       ``How the Top Individual Income Tax Rate Affects Small 
     Businesses.''
                                  ____


                                S. 1384

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Freeing Alternatives for 
     Speedy Transportation Act'' or the ``FAST Act''.

     SEC. 2. INTERSTATE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 165. FAST fees

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement an Interstate System FAST Lanes program under which 
     the Secretary, notwithstanding sections 129 and 301, shall 
     permit a State, or a public or private entity designated by a 
     State, to collect fees to finance the expansion of a highway, 
     for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion, by 
     constructing 1 or more additional lanes (including bridge, 
     support, and other structures necessary for that 
     construction) on the Interstate System.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     program, a State shall submit to the Secretary for approval 
     an application that contains--
       ``(1) an identification of the additional lanes (including 
     any necessary bridge, support, and other structures) to be 
     constructed on the Interstate System under the program;
       ``(2) in the case of 1 or more additional lanes that affect 
     a metropolitan area, an assurance that the metropolitan 
     planning organization established under section 134 for the 
     area has been consulted during the planning process 
     concerning the placement and amount of fees on the additional 
     lanes; and
       ``(3) a facility management plan that includes--
       ``(A) a plan for implementing the imposition of fees on the 
     additional lanes;
       ``(B) a schedule and finance plan for construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the additional lanes using 
     revenues from fees (and, as necessary to supplement those 
     revenues, revenues from other sources); and
       ``(C) a description of the public or private entities that 
     will be responsible for implementation and administration of 
     the program.
       ``(c) Requirements.--The Secretary shall approve the 
     application of a State for participation in the program after 
     the Secretary determines that, in addition to meeting the 
     requirements of subsection (b), the State has entered into an 
     agreement with the Secretary that provides that--
       ``(1) fees collected from motorists using a FAST lane shall 
     be collected only through the use of noncash electronic 
     technology;
       ``(2) all revenues from fees received from operation of 
     FAST lanes shall be used only for--
       ``(A) debt service relating to the investment in FAST 
     lanes;
       ``(B) reasonable return on investment of any private entity 
     financing the project, as determined by the State;
       ``(C) any costs necessary for the improvement, and proper 
     operation and maintenance (including reconstruction, 
     resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation), of FAST lanes 
     and existing lanes, if the improvement--
       ``(i) is necessary to integrate existing lanes with the 
     FAST lanes;
       ``(ii) is necessary for the construction of an interchange 
     (including an on- or off-ramp) from the FAST lane to connect 
     the FAST lane to--

       ``(I) an existing FAST lane;
       ``(II) the Interstate System; or
       ``(III) a highway; and

       ``(iii) is carried out before the date on which fees for 
     use of FAST lanes cease to be collected in accordance with 
     paragraph (6); or
       ``(D) the establishment by the State of a reserve account 
     to be used only for long-term maintenance and operation of 
     the FAST lanes;
       ``(3) fees may be collected only on and for the use of FAST 
     lanes, and may not be collected on or for the use of existing 
     lanes;
       ``(4) use of FAST lanes shall be voluntary;
       ``(5) revenues from fees received from operation of FAST 
     lanes may not be used for any other project (except for 
     establishment of a reserve account described in paragraph 
     (2)(D) or as otherwise provided in this section);
       ``(6) on completion of the project, and on completion of 
     the use of fees to satisfy the requirements for use of 
     revenue described in paragraph (2), no additional fees shall 
     be collected; and
       ``(7)(A) to ensure compliance with paragraphs (1) through 
     (5), annual audits shall be conducted for each year during 
     which fees are collected on FAST lanes; and
       ``(B) the results of each audit shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Apportionment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Revenues collected from FAST lanes shall 
     not be taken into account in determining the apportionments 
     and allocations that any State or transportation district 
     within a State shall be entitled to receive under or in 
     accordance with this chapter.
       ``(2) No effect on state expenditure of funds.--Nothing in 
     this section affects the expenditure by any State of funds 
     apportioned under this chapter.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--
       (1) The analysis for subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 164 the following:

``165. FAST fees.''.

       (2) Section 301 of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``tunnels,'' the following: ``and except 
     as provided in section 165,''.

     SEC. 3. TOLL FEASIBILITY.

       Section 106 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Toll Feasibility.--The Secretary shall select and 
     conduct a study on a project under this title that is 
     intended to increase capacity, and that has an estimated 
     total cost of at least $50,000,000, to determine whether--
       ``(1) a toll facility for the project is feasible; and
       ``(2) privatizing the construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of the toll facility is financially advisable 
     (while retaining legal and administrative control of the 
     portion of the applicable Interstate route).''.

                          ____________________