TE7 HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD .A/3 Special Report 83

LAW OF TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

AN ANALYSIS

LIBRA FEB19!S

MiaoeimoimoimooiBoo^ mm -wwvotxwwxxvwoewoi oafl two .^4 POC « «x5

•SBOeBBSOoeBioeeeiBooeeiBoooimoMBmeBiooesm/^^ jeisoBBgaoeBsoessiBBesBiao^^

National Academy off Sciences— National Research Council

Dublication 1175 HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD

Officers and Members of the Executive Committee 1964 OFFICERS

WILBUR S. SMITH, Chairman DONALD S. BERRY, First Vice Chairman J. B. McMoRRAN, Second Vice Chairman

D. GRANT MICKLE W. N. CAREY, JR., Deputy Executive Director Executive Director FRED BURGGRAF, Consultant Executive Committee

REX M. WHITTON, Federal Highway Administrator, Bureau of Public Roads (ex officio) A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary, American Association of State Highway Officials (ex officio) LOUIS JORDAN, Executive Secretary, Division of Engineering and Industrial Research, National Research Council (ex officio) R. R. BARTELSMEYER, Vice President, H. W. Lochner & Co., Chicago (ex officio. Past Cfiairman 1962) C. D. CuRTiss, Special Assistant to the Executive Vice President, American Road Builders' Association (ex officio, Past Cfiairman 1963) E. W. BAUMAN, Managing Director, National Slag Association DONALD S. BERRY, Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University W. A. BUGGE, Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel, San Francisco MASON A. BUTCHER, County Manager, Montgomery County, Md. J. DOUGLAS CARROLL, JR., Executive Director, Tri-State Transportation Committee, New York City HARMER E. DAVIS, Director, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California

DUKE W. DUNBAR, Attorney General of Colorado JOHN T. HOWARD, Head, Department of City and Regional Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

PYKE JOHNSON, Retired LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM, Director, General Motors Proving Grounds BURTON W. MARSH, Executive Director, Foundation for Traffic Safety, American Aitiomobile Association OSCAR T. MARZKE, Vice President, Fundamental Research, U. S. Steel Corporation J. B. McMoRRAN, Superintendent of Public Works, New York State Department of Public Works

CLIFFORD F. RASSWEILER, Retired M. L. SHADBURN, State Highway Engineer, Georgia State Highway Department T. E. SHELBURNE, Director of Research, Virginia Department of Highways WILBUR S. SMITH, Wilbur Smith and Associates, New Haven, Conn. JOHN H. SWANBERO, Chief Engineer, Minnesota Department of Highways EDWARD G. WETZEL, The Port of New York Authority, New York City K. B. WOODS, Head, School of Civil Engineering, and Director, Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue University

Editorial Staff

D. GRANT MICKLE HERBERT P. ORLAND 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D. C. 20418

The opinions and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Highway Research Board /yf?C HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD Special Report 83

LAW OF TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES AN ANALYSIS

A Report of the Highway Laws Project

National Academy of Sciences— National Research G>uncil Washington, D.G.

1964 mo. S3 Special Committee on Highway Laws

1963

Jacob H. Beuscher, Chairman Professor of Law University of Wisconsin, Madison

David R. Levin, Secretary Chief, Division of Highway and Land Administration, Bureau of Public Roads

David S. Black, General Counsel, Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, D. C. Sherwood K. Booth, Deputy General Counsel, Bureau of Public Roads, Washing• ton, D. C. W. A. Bugge, Director, Washington Department of Highways, Olympia Saul C. Corwin, Counsel, New York State Department of Public Works, Albany Allison Dunham, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Clifton W. Enfield, Minority Counsel for the House Public Works Committee, Washington, D. C. Patrick Healy, Jr., Executive Director, American Municipal Association, Washing• ton, D. C. Bernard F. Hillenbrand, Executive Director, National Association of County Offi• cials, Washington, D. C. Robert L. Hyder, Chief Counsel, Missouri State Highway Commission, Jefferson City Corwin W. Johnson, Professor of Law, University of Texas, Austin Leonard L Lindas, Chief Counsel, Oregon State Highway Department, Salem Mason J. Mahin, Assistant Director, Laws Division, Automotive Safety Founda• tion, Washington, D. C. Louis R. Morony, Director, Laws Division, Automotive Safety Foundation, Wash• ington, D. C. LeRoy A. Powers, Stagner, Alpern, Powers and Tapp, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma J. Allyn Preston, Supervisor, Legislative Reporting Service, National Highway Users Conference, Washington, D. C. *Robert E. Reed, Chief, Division of Contracts and Right-of-Way, California De• partment of Public Works, Sacramento John R. Rezzolla, Jr., Chief Highway Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of High• ways, Harrisburg Kermit B. Rykken, Director, Highway and Legislative Department, American Automobile Association, Washington, D. C. John A. Shaneman, Engineer of Planning and Programming, Illinois Division of Highways, Springfield. Archie Smith, Legislative Counsel Legal Director, Providence, Rhode Island Joseph A. Sullivan, Judge, Detroit, Michigan William F. Tempest, Secretary, Municipal Law Section, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois * Deceased April 22, 1963 Legal Liaison Representatives in State Highway Departments Julius Cage, Assistant Attorney General, Alabama State Highway Department, Montgomery William E. Eubank, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona State Highway Department, Phoenix W. R. Thrasher, Chief Counsel, Legal and Right-of-Way, Arkansas State Highway Department, Little Rock •^Robert E. Reed, Chief, Division of Contracts and Right-of-Way, California Department of Public Works, Sacramento John P. Holloway, Chief Highway Counsel and Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, Denver, Colorado Adam F. Knurek, Legislative and Legal Counsel, Connecticut State Highway Department, Hart• ford S. Samuel Arsht, General Counsel, Delaware State Highway Department, Dover Ross H. Stanton, Ji., Resident Attorney, Florida State Road Department, Tallahassee Paul Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Georgia State Highway Department, Atlanta Daniel D. S. Moon, Deputy Attorney General, Public Works Division, Honolulu, Hawaii William Padgett, Assistant Attorney General, Idaho Department of Highways, Boise L. A. Murphy, Engineer of Location and Right-of-Way, Illinois Division of Highways, Spring• field Edwin J. Steers, Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana C. J. Lyman, Special Assistant Attorney General, Iowa State Highway Commission, Ames William B. Kirkpatrick, Chief Attorney, Kansas State Highway Commission, Topeka F. D. Curry, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kentucky Department of Highways Frankfort D. Ross Banister, General Counsel, Louisiana Department of Highways, Baton Rouge L. Smith Dunnack, Assistant Attorney General, Maine State Highway Commission, Augusta Joseph D. Buscher, Special Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland Joseph L. Lyons, Assistant Attorney General, Boston, Massachusetts Edward J. Kremer, Asistant Attorney General, Michigan State Highway Department, Lansing Rolf O. Slen, Deputy Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota Matthew Harper, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Mississippi State Highway Department, Jack• son Robert L. Hyder, Chief Counsel, Missouri State Highway Commission, Jefferson City Clayton R. Herron, Attorney, Montana State Highway Commission, Helena Harold S. Salter, Attorney, Nebraska Department of Roads, Lincoln William E. Freedman, Jr., Chief Counsel, Nevada Department of Highways, Carson City Jarlath M Slattery, Assistant Attorney General, Concord, New Hampshire William J. McCormack, Deputy Attorney General, New Jersey State Highway Department, Trenton M W. Hamilton, Head, Legal Section, New Mexico State Highway Commission, Santa Fe Saul C. Corwm, Counsel, New York State Department of Public Works, Albany Harrison Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, North Carolina State Highway Division, Raleigh Vernon R. Pederson, General Counsel, North Dakota State Highway Department, Bismarck James L. Stegmeier, Ohio Department of Highways, Columbus Roland A. Walters, Jr., Chief Counsel, Oklahoma Department of Highways, Oklahoma City Leonard I. Lindas, Chief Counsel, Oregon State Highway Department, Salem John R. RezzoUa, Jr., Chief Highway Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of Highways, Harris- burg Russell King, Engineer, Division of Roads and Bridges, Rhode Island Department of Public Works, Providence T. C. Callison, Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina Walter Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota O. L. Peeler, Right-of-Way Engineer-Attorney, Tennessee Department of Highways and Public Works, Nashville D. C. Greer, State Highway Engineer, Texas State Highway Department, Austin Franklyn B. Matheson, Chief Counsel, Utah State Road Commission, Salt Lake City Keith E. King, Staff Attorney, Vermont Department of Highways, Montpelier M. Ray Johnston, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia Paul D. Stotts, Special Counsel, Virginia Department of Highways, Richmond Delbert W. Johnson, Attorney, Washington Department of Highway, Olympia B. D. Horan, Diiector, Legal and Right-of-Way Division, West Virginia State Road Commis• sion, Charleston Richard E. Barrett, Assistant Attorney General, Wisconsin State Highway Commission, Madison Glenn A. Williams, Special Assistant Attorney General, Wyoming State Highway Department, Cheyenne Oscar P. Mast, Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia Government, Washington, D. C. Frederico Rodriguez Gelpi, Director, Office of Legal Affairs, Puerto Rico Department of Public Works, San Juan Deceased April 22, 1963 Present Pennsylvania Turnpike was first interregional toll highway built in modern era of turnpikes.

'isi:i i i

The Golden Gate Bridge, connecting San Francisco and Sausalito, California, permits normal highway traffic to move across San Francisco Bay while ocean shipping continues on the bay beneath. PREFACE

This special report, "Law of Turnpikes and Toll Bridges," is part of a series of highway law research projects undertaken by the Special Committee on Highway Law of the Highway Research Board. Because state legislation relating to turnpikes, and toll bridges and tunnels is highly particularized—often applicable only to a single specific toll facility—general treatment of this body of law has been deemed undesirable. Thus this study involves an examination of the particular state legislation concerning 85 selected major toll agencies, and presents through this selection an illustrative rather than a definitive comparison and analysis of the law. The scope of the analysis given to the selected state statutes is broad, and includes provisions relating to basic authority, organiza• tion of toll agencies, powers and duties, financing, and regulatory functions. In addition, the report includes a brief historical per• spective and a summary of pertinent Federal legislation relating to toll bridges and toll roads. Summaries of the specific provisions of state laws relating to toll facilities are presented in tabular form in an appendix. Other appendices contain bibliographical refer• ences, citations of cases and statutes, and a listing of the major toll highways in the United States. Other publications in the Highway Research Board's series of Special Reports on state highway laws include "Relocation of Public Utilities Due to Highway Improvement, An Analysis of Legal Aspects" (Special Report 21), "Expressway Law, An Analy• sis" (Special Report 26), "Acquisition of Land for Future Highway Use, A Legal Analysis" (Special Report 27), "Condemnation of Property for Highway Purposes, A Legal Analysis" Part I (Special Report 32), Part II (Special Report 33), and Part III (Special Report 59), "Legislative Purpose in Highway Law, An Analysis" (Special Report 39), "Outdoor Advertising Along Highways, A Legal Analysis" (Special Report 41), "Highway System Classifica• tion, A Legal Analysis" Part I (Special Report 42), "Federal-Aid Provisions in State Highway Laws, An Analysis" (Special Report 48), "Intergovernmental Relations in State Highway Legislation, An Analysis" (Special Report 49), "State Constitutional Provisions Concerning Highways, A Legal Analysis" (Special Report 50), "Highway Contracts, A Legal Analysis" (Special Report 57), "Traffic Engineering, A Legal Analysis" (Special Report 64), and "Highway Programming, An Analysis of State Law" (Special Report 70). The following individuals participated in the research and preparation of this report: Pierce S. McDonnell, Attorney at Law, Washington, D. C; John J. Mullins, Highway Research Engineer, U. S. Bureau of Public Roads, Ross D. Netherton, Counsel for Legal Research, Highway Research Board, and Marion Markham, Legal Research Specialist, Highway Research Board. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 3

FEDERAL LAWS 10

AUTHORIZATION 20

ORGANIZATION OP TOLL AUTHORITIES 25

POWERS AND DUTIES 28

FINANCING 40

MISCELLANEOUS MAJOR PROVISIONS 52

APPENDIX A, TABULAR SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATE LAWS 57 Table 1. State Toll Facilities Legislative Analysis: General Authorization 58 Table 2. State Toll Facilities Legislative Analysis: Admin• istration 75 Table 3. State Toll Facilities Legislation Analysis: Powers and Duties 81 Table 4. State Toll Facilities Legislation Analysis: Financing 93 Table 5. State Toll Facilities Legislation Analysis: Miscellan• eous 109

APPENDIX B, TABLE OF CASES AND FEDERAL STATUTES 113

APPENDIX C, SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WRITINGS ON TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES 115

APPENDIX D, LIST OF THE MAJOR TOLL HIGHWAYS IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF OCTOBER, 1963 119 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Legislation relating to 85 major turn• standards. In addition, however, there pike, toll bridge, tunnel and ferry agen• is evidence that Interstate System route cies is dealt with in this report. This locations are made with at least some legislation is of relatively recent origin consideration of whether construction and reflects public policy evolved in re• of an alternative free facility will jeop• sponse to the organization, financing ardize the financial structure of nearby and operation of major highway trans• toll facilities. Also, the question of portation facilities under modern condi• whether Federal-aid funds should be tions. used to reimburse states for toll road Reference to the nineteenth century construction remains an open issue history of highway toll facilities in which Congress ultimately must decide. the United States revealed the origin of Among the state toll facility statutes many of the major features of modern examined in this report, few contain a state toll agency laws. Thus such fea• declaration of legislative policy. De• tures of modern law as retention of scriptions of toll facilities in terms of ultimate control of legal powers by the their location are in many cases general, legislature, use of the corporate form although, where the legislation in ques• of organization and the revenue bond tion relates to a single bridge or road, method of financing, various protective it may become quite specific. devices for bondholders' interests, and The statutes provide that most of the lelegation of certain regulatory powers turnpike and toll bridge agencies shall ill are traceable to experiences of the be administered by a three to five mem• itates in the toll road activity that oc- ber board. A typical law establishes a jurred prior to the present expressway board consisting of members appointed jra. from private life by the governor, and Similarly, significant features of the also one or more state ofl^cials who are jresent state law relating to toll facili- usually from the highway department. ;ies must be understood in the light of Most boards are authorized by statute ;he Federal law and policy regarding to elect their own officers. • ;oll roads and bridges. Currently major Compensation for members is limited )olicy problems exist with respect to by most statutory provisions to reim• ;he provisions of the General Bridge bursement of actual expenses. A major• Acts relating to pooling of revenues and continuation of tolls on bridges in• ity of provisions define the quorum cluded in the Interstate System of high• necessary to conduct business, but less ways. than half require members to be bonded. Historically, the Federal-aid highway With respect to the powers granted law has adhered to a policy that Fed• to and duties imposed upon toll agencies eral-aid funds could not be used in by law, most statutes grant turnpike or constructing toll roads. This is still the toll bridge agencies the power to locate basic law, but circumstances have made routes, acquire land by eminent domain it appear desirable to provide for ex• proceedings, construct and maintain ceptions to this policy in designating the their projects, control access, contract, Interstate System. In the implementa• employ consultants, enter property to tion of the authority to incorporate toll make surveys, control the use of public segments into the Interstate System utilities on its property, and fix toll various standards are prescribed by rates. A majority authorize incorpor• Congress, including integration of the ation of facilities into the state highway system and adherence to certain design system once the bonded debt is paid. 1 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

In the financing of turnpikes and toll specify their rights of redress, pledge bridges, all statutes permit the toll an assignment of revenues and forbid agencies to issue negotiable revenue mortgaging of toll agency property. bonds or securities in the nature of such Among other major provisions, police obligations usually at an interest rate control of projects is usually made the not to exceed 6 percent to be amortized responsibility of the toll agencies' police, over a period of not more than 40 years. local units are ordinarily granted the Ordinarily, the toll agency is em• authority to convey property to a turn• powered to sell the bonds at public or pike or toll bridge agency without ad• private sale. Most laws permit the is• vertising; damaged private property suance of temporary bonds, grant cer• must under most statutes be restored, tain tax exemptions, authorize invest• repaired or compensation made; dam• ment by financial institutions, permit aged public property is protected by refunding, and require the establish• some statutes; and most projects are ment of a sinking fund. For the protec• authorized to make traffic rules and tion of bondholders, almost all statutes regulations by statute. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Throughout the history of highway programs. However, the importance of transportation in the United States, linking the western parts of New York turnpikes and toll bridges have played and Pennsylvania with the Atlantic an infiuential role by providing an alter• coast by a good, all-weather road was native to the customary methods of widely recognized at this time, and cur• public management and financing of the rent British experiments with turnpike highway system. The toll technique of roads attracted the interest of financiers financing and the corporate foim of in the United States. management are distinguishing charac• Pennsylvania was the first state to teristics of this altei-native approach. apply these new principles when, in Public policy regarding the manner and 1792, legislation was enacted to author• extent of encouragement given to this ize formation of a corporation to build approach has varied from time to time and operate a turnpike from Philadel• throughout American road building his• phia to Lancaster. Four years later this tory. It has also varied as between toll road was completed, and its immediate bridges and toll roads. Use of toll financial success and the general satis• financing and corporate management faction of its users set off a wave of has long been an accepted practice in enthusiasm for similar projects. During connection with bridges, but its applica• the next twenty-five years hundreds of tion to road building often has been turnpike companies were chartered by controversial. In each era of American state legislatures. Almost 8,000 miles of history the prevailing attitudes and turnpikes wei*e constructed, involving policies regarding these matters have public and private investments exceed• been expressed and reflected in the law ing $15 million. relating to turnpikes and toll bridges. The original concept of the turnpike To a great extent American turnpike road contemplated service to both the and toll bridge law of the twentieth local and long-distance traflSc, but inter• century has been shaped by the national regional wagon freight was expected to experience with toll facilities in the provide an increasingly important source nineteenth century. Certain of the is• of toll revenue. This expectation fitted sues with which twentieth century law well with the general feeling of land• is called upon to deal are direct descend• owners and local government that it was ants of the first toll road era in the unjust to expect the entire burden of early 1800's. Thus the comparative road building and maintenance to be analysis of modern turnpike and toll borne by local labor and land taxes bridge law is often made clearer when when the chief benefits of these roads it is placed in its historical perspective. went to travelers, merchants and freight haulers. THE FIRST ERA OF TURNPIKES: 1800-1830 This first era of turnpike roads was a major achievement in building facil• The first major programs of turnpike ities for long-distance overland trans• building occurred in the years 1800 to portation. It ended in the 1830's, how• 1830. Following the American Revolu• ever, when the competition of the tion the highway systems which the railroads emerged. Many turnpike new governments of the United States companies had built in areas where inherited from their colonial predeces• potential traffic could not justify road sors presented an impossible dilemma. investment on the scale undertaken. None of the states were financially able Most had underestimated and were to undertake large public road building unprepared to cope with the cost of road TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES maintenance and administration of a sofar as traffic potential was concerned. toll-financed activity. All were inex• When additional capital was needed, fi• perienced in corporate management and nancial reserves were often lacking, and finance. As railroads and canals be• excessive use of statutory authority to came more attractive for transportation raise tolls merely drove traffic to investments turnpike activity declined. greater use of competing forms of trans• The facilities of the bankrupt turnpike portation. companies were not taken over by the Toll bridge finances fared better than states, nor was any tax-financed high• those of the turnpikes in this period, way program of comparable propor• and the vast majority of the toll bridges tions commenced. Except for post road built in the early 19th century continued and military road construction, the Fed• under successful private management eral Government's road building efforts until rebuilt as or replaced by free were limited to the National Pike (Cum• bridges later in the century. The berland Road). Thus the road network relatively fewer and easier problems which the turnpike companies built of maintaining bridges accounts in part prior to 1830 gradually fell into dis• for the success of the bridge companies repair except as local labor kept roads in maintaining financial solvency long passable for minimal local use. after the turnpikes declined. Also, the The first turnpikes have sometimes strategic advantage of the bridge owner been regarded as failures because of in operating a facility which could not { their inability to compete successfully be bypassed by the traveling public (as with railroads in long-haul transporta• could a toll gate) had its effect on main• tion. In fact, however, these first turn• taining revenue levels. pikes represented notable achievements in engineering and financing for their HIGHWAY FINANCE IN MID-19TH time, and dealt acceptably with a trans• CENTURY portation problem which public agen• cies at the national, state and local lev• The failure of Congress actively to els were unable to solve. Moreover, assist a road program of national scope valuable experience was acquired in the in the 1830's, and the inadequacy of technique of delegating legal authority state finances to undertake systematic to private enterprise. For example, as and substantial road building eventually a result of lessons learned in this period, led to consideration of the possibility of it became customary for turnpike stat• financing highways by a combination of utes to condition the right to collect tolls private investment and state guaranty on the continued maintenance of the of bonded debt. road to satisfactory standards. Also, Despite the fact that railroad growth turnpike companies were required to dominated this period, active interest in contract for road repair work instead of certain types of road building continued using the local labor system, and the in two regions. In the midwest (across standards of work were uniformly high• Ohio to the Mississippi Valley) there er on such contract jobs than where the was an evident need for roads from farm unpopular system of relying on local to railway station; and in the southeast, landowners to "work out" their road where railroad building was still on a taxes was used. Similarly the authori• small and disconnected scale, roads zation of the turnpikes to control vehi• from farm to boat landing or farm to^ cle loads and sizes more strictly per• market were needed. In addition, the, mitted better control of road damage. original motives which had earlier led' Control of corporate management prac• to encouraging use of toll financing were tices was a weak point of the earliest still present. The states were in no po• turnpike laws. Many turnpikes were al• sition to finance road building from tax lowed to choose their routes badly in• funds, and state legislators were keenly HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

aware of the general desire to shift the Large blocks of stock were also pur• burden of maintenance of through-traf• chased by some states, although state fic roads from the local inhabitants participation was generally as guaran• to the highway user. tor of the plank road's bonds. Overextension of credit financing and The enthusiasm with which plank the financial panic of 1837 postponed roads were built between 1845 and 1855 any major ventures in a combination of was not equalled by any road building public and private finance until a gen• programs prior to that time, nor for al• eral recovery occurred. By the early most a century afterward. But after 1840's, however, state credit was suf• ficiently strong to permit turnpike 1855 the plank road boom declined al• bonds backed by a state guaranty to be most as quickly as it had occurred. Phys• sold on a large scale. Coincidentally ical and engineering weaknesses ap• public attention was captured by the peared chiefly responsible. Originally it development of "plank roads," first in was thought that plank pavement would Russia and later in Canada. not have to be replaced in less than 8 to 10 years but this proved to be a mis• calculation. In major traffic centers, like THE PLANK ROAD BOOM Chicago in the 1850's, the hoofs of the OF THE 1840'S heavy teams hauling freight wagons The first American plank road was splintered the planking and created built in Syracuse, New York, in 1837. hazardous breaks in the road. Rural During its first two years of operation roads of this period were still built with• 161,000 teams of horses passed through out engineering advice or supervision, its toll gates. Its financial success led and so were frequently laid out on poor• to a flood of petitions to state legisla• ly drained land. Five years became the tures for incorporation of similar com• maximum life of the plank roads. Thus panies. Enabling legislation came will• the original investment had to be sup• ingly, and between 1843 and 1857 in plemented by annual replacement costs New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey . which had to be met within the statutory and Maryland over $10 million in bonds limits on toll rates. A few roads had the were issued for construction of some traffic potential to do this, but most did 7,000 miles of plank road. not. As the futility of their situation be• Typically, plank roads were from 10 came clear to the plank road compa• to 30 miles in length, extending from nies, many began to divert toll earnings market towns into the surrounding rural into quick efforts to pay off the invest• areas. They gave farmers smooth, all- ors in dividends before a collapse oc• weather roads on which they could move curred. Finally, as in the case of the at speeds up to 9 mph as compared earlier toll roads, petitions began to with a top speed of 6 mph on the best appear in state legislatures seeking per• macadam roads of the time. Chicago mission to abandon the roads or dissolve in the 1850's laid some 50 miles of plank the companies, or secure other forms streets, and in southern Wisconsin plans of special relief. The legislatures had were made for a network of almost 150 little choice under these circumstances miles of plank roads connecting Mil• and, by the 1860's, all but a few plank waukee with nearby towns. roads disappeared. The ultimate fail• Private investment came chiefly from ure of the plank road companies to solve urban business interests and landown• the problem of short-haul transportation ers along the proposed routes. Rail• between farm and market or farm and roads also bought stock in many roads rail center left rural America literally seeking thus to avoid the necessity of stuck in the mud a large part of the adding spur lines to their trackage. year. TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

FREE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS nance. This process has been placed in perspective by one historian as follows: The incorporation of private compa• nies to build and operate turnpikes and The original purpose of toll roads . . . was twofold: to persuade private capital plank toll roads continued on a reduced to assist the state m its stupendous task scale throughout the rest of the nine• of supplying lines of communication to a teenth century. After the 1850's, how• I'apidly expanding countiy; and second, ever, charters issued to private road to shift the burden of maintenance from companies and general laws relating to the local inhabitants to those who used the roads. No doubt this was a wise turnpikes were increasingly more cau• policy during the first half of the nine• tious regarding delegation of powers teenth century, but after that time the than they had been during the early days original causes for entrusting road con• of enthusiasm for toll facilities. The struction to private enterprise had prac• states also sought to avoid a repetition tically passed away. The states had grown in population and wealth until of the widespread chaos that had re• they were able to build highways free sulted earlier when some of the turn• to all. On the other hand, long dis• pike companies, faced with financial tance traffic had almost entirely ceased failure, merely ceased their operations to use the I'oads. Under such circum• and abandoned their roads without stances it is not surprising to find a growing sentiment in favor of legisla• making adequate provision for assump• tion looking to the abolishment of toll tion of the responsibility for mainte• roads. The chief arguments for such nance by local government. Turnpike action were: (1) that roads belong to legislation of the late nineteenth century the class of general utilities and, as therefore often combined specific provi• such, should be made free to all; (2) that turnpikes drew their patronage sions for dissolution of the toll almost wholly from local traffic which companies and orderly transfer of re• meant placing a heavy tax on the farm• sponsibility for their roads to local ing class, their chief patrons; (3) that governmental agencies. the people would be greatly benefitted by a freer social intercourse; and (4) As the nineteenth century closed, a that tolls were an annoyance to travel• significant shift in public attitude re• ers. It was pointed out also that publicly garding highways appeared. Statutory owned roads could be maintained procedures initially designed to enforce cheaper than turnpikes because of the elimination of dividends and the expense the obligation of maintenance and to of collecting tolls.' prevent capricious abandonment of turnpikes began to be used in some By the beginning of the twentieth cen• states to bring about systematically a tury extension of public control to the transfer of privately owned toll roads remaining segments of the turnpike net• into the free public road system. In• work had put an end to the highway' stead of appearing in the role of peti• system which was part free and part tioner for relief from their statutory re• toll, and the rise of the Good Roads sponsibilities, turnpike companies more Movement forecast the establishment often found themselves as defend• of state highway departments to furnish ants opposing petitions of counties and both the technical skill and administra• municipalities seeking to have turn• tive organization to begin building a pikes declared free public highways. free public highway system to serve the The state legislatures of the 1870's and then emerging automotive form of 1880's were sympathetic with this trend, transportation. Turnpike roads there• and favored local governmental units upon ceased to be a major influence on with enabling laws making possible ac• national highway policy until the quisition of turnpike roads and assess• 1930's. ment of local taxes to pay for mainte• ' DUBRENBERGER, TURNPIKES 161-62 (Valdosta 1981) HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

HIGHWAY POLICY AND FINANCE: ministrative resources for road build• 1890-1940 ing and to put their state and local agen• The Good Roads Movement of the cies in a position to participate in this late nineteenth century led to a period process. The annual cost of these new of reform in which the historic system highway programs was at first distrib• of local management of roads was re• uted among the public according to the placed by professionalized agencies of principles of taxation currently utilized the state and Federal Government. One in financing other general functions of commentator, tracing the evolution of government. American highway policy, has sum• It quickly became clear, however, that marized the results of this period as current general revenue sources were follows: not sufficient to finance ready-built pro• grams on the scale desired. A period of Although an infinite variety of detail experiment followed in which no clear is found in the proposals for the reform of highway policy, none of them con• theory of finance was articulated. It sidered the turnpike or toll system an was during these years, however, that appropriate means of administration or the special taxes which later were to be financing; second, all of them proposed singled out as devices for allocating the professionalization of road manage• highway construction costs to highway ment; and third, all insisted that sys• tematic classification of roads according users first appeared. Starting with New to their principal purposes provided the York in 1901, the states enacted laws necessary basis for a redistribution of requiring motor vehicle owners to pay financial and administrative responsi- annual registration fees. Motor fuel bility.= taxation by the states began with Proceeding on these principles, the Oregon law of 1919. During World War states took many of the steps necessary I a Federal excise tax was levied on the to improve their own financial and ad- motor vehicle but was repealed follow• ing the war. Federal excises were first ^DEARING, AMERICAN HIGHWAY POLICY 47 (Washington 1942). levied on gasoline used fOr motor fuel

President Jackson's veto of a bill to grant financial aid In the 1840's a second period of toll road building com• to the Maysville (Kentucky) Turnpike in 1830 estab• menced with the construction of the Syracuse (New lished Federal policy regarding aid for internal improve• York) plank road. During the following decade thou• ments until the end of the nineteenth century. sands of miles of plank roads were built. 8 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES in 1932 and on diesel fuel in 1951. Dur• various classes of highway users. More• ing the depression years of the 1930's over, the gap between highway costs and Federal excise taxes were again imposed highway user revenue was of such pro• on motor vehicles, and have been con• portions as to create doubts that bond tinued since that time. issues by the states could be relied upon The steady increase of revenue from to produce the supplemental financing these taxes during the period 1920 to necessary for highway modernization 1940 made it possible for the states to on the scale that was required. During increase the level of their annual capital the period 1920 to 1940 borrowing had outlay for highways from $300 million accounted for only about 25 percent of in 1920 to $630 million in 1940, and to the states highway program finances.* step up expenditures for maintenance In this setting active interest in toll fi• from $65 million to $224 million.' nancing revived. The opening of the Between 1920 and 1940 approximately Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1940 was fol• one million miles of highways were lowed by similar projects in other states. built new or surfaced and improved. As of January 1963, publicly owned toll This was a major engineering achieve• facilities were in operation in 36 states ment. Equally impressive, however, was and had a combined total of 4,189 miles. the achievement in highway financing The major turnpikes included in this which had demonstrated that specialized group of facilities are listed in Appen• highway user taxes, utilization of gradu• ated license fees and taxes on fuel by dix D. gallon, could produce major yields of Reappearance of toll gates on major revenue at relatively small administra• segments of the national highway sys• tive costs. tem has potentially much greater sig• nificance than might be suggested by TOLL ROADS SINCE 1940 the fact that toll road mileage amounts to less than 0.1 percent of the total high• The backlog of reconstruction needs way mileage of the United States. The accumulated during World War II, plus most promising locations for toll roads the desire for expansion of the high• are in areas of high traflSe density. way system to accommodate resump• Where toll financing has been proposed tion of motor vehicle travel on an un• for building major arterial highways at precedented scale in the immediate these locations serious policy issues postwar years, put the existing system have had to be considered before the of highway finance under severe pres• necessary enabling legislation is draft• sure. Already, in the 1940's, doubts had ed. arisen regarding the ability of taxes The merits of toll financing and man• based on fuel gallonage and graduated agement, and their advantages and dis• license fees to supply the revenue nec• advantages are generally agreed upon: essary for highway modernization and at the same time to distribute the bur• The toll method of finance has the basic merit of charging the cost of den of finance acceptably among the public highway facilities to those who demand the service, and . . . the further ' Recourse to highway user excise taxes in connection with proErrams of financial aid for highways did not advantage of providing economic dis• at this time go so far as to contemplate a direct and ciplines in the location, design, and exclusive relationship between the revenue yielded by these taxes and the appropriation bills enacted by the operation of a highway. For without legislatures. The possible desirability of establishing by assurances of the economic soundness law a direct linkage between appropriations for highway aid and the revenue yield of certain highway user taxes of toll projects, it is impossible to ob• was, however, debated with increasing frequency in tain the necessary financial backing. public testimony before legislatures in the 1930's, 1940's and 1960's, and provided a background for the decision These economic disciplines have often of Congress to adopt the policy of linkage in providing financing for the National System of Interstate and

been lacking in state highway undertak• ventional methods of highway adminis• ings where pohtical considerations, or tration and user support, ways must be simply the absence of any necessity for found to accommodate two distinctive a careful weighing of costs against pros• methods of dealing with the highway pective revenues, have influenced loca• problem. Those responsible for legisla• tions, priorities and design. These ad• tive policy decision and normal ad• vantages might in many cases outweigh ministration will be confronted with a the disadvantages of the toll gate, and novel set of issues: the higher costs incurred in the design 1. Will the programing of toll roads and operation of such roads. But even make it difficult for established highway more advantageous is the fact that the authorities to formulate sound long- toll road may permit prompt construc• range plans for developing the remain• tion of a needed facility which could not ing portion of the highway system? otherwise be provided, so that the higher costs involved in this decision may be 2. Will it be possible to avoid over• more than oifset by the early realization laps and conflicts m jurisdiction as be• of vehicle operating economies on the tween turnpike authorities and existing modern road/ highway agencies? 3. Can duplication of facilities and What is not so easily discernible or capital investment be avoided? well documented is the best method of 4. Is double taxation of users inherent integrating toll finance and manage• in the system of toll financing? ment with the principles and methods 5. Will it be possible to reconcile of existing administration and financing traditional concepts of financing high• of the states' free public highways. This ways with the essential requirements aspect of the problem has occupied a for satisfactory toll-road operation?" major part of the legislature's effort in The legislative solutions to these and developing recent toll road statutes, for various other problems involved in the in most instances it has appeared to integration of free roads and toll roads them that toll roads and free roads are are set forth in statutory provisions re• not necessarily opposite and conflicting lating to the general authority, specific approaches to highway modernization. powers and duties, administrative struc• The legislative problem has been, there• ture and procedure, and methods of fore, to create a legal framework which finance. In certain respects these stat• incorporates the advantages of toll fi• utes embody tested safeguards against nancing and management into the exist• a repetition of the mistakes and inherent ing system of public highway finance weakness that hampered toll finance and administration in a way that will and management in the nineteenth cen• avoid insofar as possible the disadvant• tury. In other respects this body of law ages of the toll approach and unneces• deals with problems unique to the twen• sary conflicts between the two methods. tieth century system of highway trans• Some of the questions that are encount• portation, and thus is experimental in ered as this line of legislative inquiry its approach. This background helps ex• is pursued have been described as fol• plain the various differences that appear lows: when the toll road laws of the states are . . . since even the most articulate compared; and, to a lesser extent, such proponents do not advance the toll-road differences apply as well to the law re• device as a universal substitute for con• lating to toll bridges.

'OWEN & DEAMNG, TOLL ROADS AND THE PROBLEM OF HIGHWAY MODERNIZATION 40 (Washington 1961). 'Ibid, p. 41. FEDERAL LAWS

The authority for Federal legislation assigned to the Federal courts,^ and relating to toll bridges and toll roads is sometimes delegated to the Secretary of derived from the constitutional power of War.'' In the nineteenth century statutes Congress to regulate use of the naviga• the standard of regulation was vari• ble waters of the United States and com• ously expressed as requiring toll rates! merce among the states and with foreign that were "reasonable" or "reasonable nations. Historically, Congress has con• and proper." sistently shown concern regarding the The handling of permissive legisla• toll features of bridges over navigable tion for bridges was simplified and water and has exercised its powers of standardized in the General Bridge Act of 1906, which granted general au• supervision and regulation. The active thority to construct and maintain interest of Congress in application of bridges over navigable waters subject the toll approach to highway construc• to the approval of the Secretary of War tion, however, dates only from the es• (now Secretary of the Army) and Chief tablishment of the Federal-aid pro• of Engineers. Three points of signifi• gram for highways in 1916. Although cance to the development of the Fed• the present Federal law and Congres• eral regulatory function in regard to sional policy regarding toll bridges and tolls emerged in this legislation. First, toll roads have, in various of their as• responsibility for performing this reg• pects, a common background and ob• ulatory function was fixed in the Sec• jective, differences in the history and retary of War rather than the Inter• administrative provisions of the laws state Commerce Commission as had relating to toll bridges and toll roads been strongly urged by some during the make it convenient to consider each consideration of this matter. Second, separately. the phrase "from time to time" was used in describing the Secretary's TOLL BRIDGES power to review toll rates, thus imply• Initially, Congress followed the prac• ing a duty of periodic scrutiny. Andi tice of enacting special legislation to third, the phrase "reasonable and just'1 authorize construction of bridges over was chosen to describe the standard of navigable waters. Where the petition• regulation.^" ers for such legislation contemplated Following adoption of the General Bridge Act of 1906, permissive legisla• using toll finance and corporate man• tion for construction and operation of agement. Congressional concern, as in• toll bridges was required only when spe• dicated by the qualifying provisions cial circumstances were present. Typ• customarily attached to legislative ap• ical of such legislation were the acts proval of the bridge proposal, centered granting consent to interstate compacts in the regulation of toll rates. establishing special public authorities In early examples of Federal enabling to construct and operate bridges, tun• legislation for toll bridges, the rate reg• nels and ferries crossing navigable ulatory function was sometimes exer• "Act of July 20, 1868, 15 Stat 120, c. 179, Act of cised by Congress itself," sometimes June 30, 1870, 16 Stat. 173, c 176, Canada & Southern R R Co V International Bridge Co. 8 Fed 190 (D C- 'Act of Julv 27, 1868, 15 Stat 232, c 261, Act of NY 1881) Augubt 1876, I'l Stilt 20.'>, c 303 PeihAps the eailiest » H Rep. 182, Sqth Congress, 1st Sess., p. 1 e\ample ot thib policy was congressional IcKisUtion ' Reasonable and just" was not further defined in the authoiizinK the WabhmKton Biid»!e Co to constiuct and statute, but had shoitly prior thereto received judicial operate a toll biulKe acioss the Potomac between the city interpietation in Covington & Lexington Turnpike Road of Washington and Alexanders, Island (2 Stat 467) in Co V. Sandfoid, 164 US 578, 697 (1896) and Smyth vJ 1808 Toll lates for this budge were piescribed by Ames, 169 US 466, 544-545 (1898). See also Cong. Rec J statute .•)9th Cong , 1st Sesa., v. 40, pp 1715-1716. 10 FEDERAL LAWS 11 waters which served as state bounda- Pooling Toll Revenue nes." The provisions noted above not only clarified the meaning of the "reason• General Bridge Act of 19U6 able and just" standard for toll regula• As part of a comprehensive reorgani• tion, but added substantive limitations zation of Federal legislative procedure, on the authority of interstate bridge the General Bridge Act of 1946 resulted operators to retain tolls longer than nec• in still further simplification of the pro• essary to amortize the initial bonded cedure for construction of bridges over debt. The policy underlying this limita• navigable waters of the United States. tion was consistent with the historic The Act declared the consent of Con• policy of Congress to favor free public gress to construction, maintenance and transportation facilities, but the effect operation of bridges and approaches of the limitation on the duration of tolls thereto over navigable waters in ac• was regarded as burdensome by toll cordance with certain conditions that facility operators, and has been modi• followed.^- These conditions included fied in certain cases. approval by the Secretary of the Army Modifications of the statutory limit and Chief of Engineers of the location on tolls generally have been for the pur• and plans of the bridge, and, in the case pose of allowing the toll operator to pool of privately owned toll bridges, the ad• the revenue from one facility with reve• ditional approval of the highway de• nue from another in order to assist in partment of the state or states in• the financing of the latter. For exam• volved.^ ' ple, revenue from an existing toll bridge With respect to bridges wholly within may be pledged with revenue antici• one state, regulation of toll rates was pated from a second proposed bridge left to appropriate state agencies. With to assist in financing construction of the respect to interstate bridges, the Gen• latter. If permitted, the duration of eral Bridge Act of 1946 repeated the tolls on the first bridge must be extend• regulatory provisions of the Act of ed to the maturity date of the bonds is• 1906." Additional clarification of this sued for the latter structure, even earlier standard was provided, how• though this period may exceed by a ever, by a new provision that substantial time the date that the first . . . the lates of toll shall be so adjusted bridge was originally due to become as to provide a fund sufficient to pay free of tolls. for the reasonable cost of maintaining, Modifications of interstate compacts repairing and operating the bridge and its approaches undei economical man• involving bridges subject to the General agement, and to provide a sinking fund Act of 1946 in order to permit such pool• sufficient to amortize the amount paid ing of revenues from toll bridges and theiefor, including reasonable inteiest tunnels have been sought and obtained and financing cost, as soon as possible under reasonable charges, but within by various agencies, such as the Port a period of not to exceed thirty years of New York Authority and Delaware from the date of completing or acquir• River Port Authority, in order to facil• ing the same. After a sinking fund itate financing additional bridges, tun• sufficient for such amortization shall nels and other facilities related to have been so provided, such bridge shall thereafter be maintained and operated transportation in the area of their juris• free of tolls. . diction. Illustrative of the technique employed to permit pooling of toll reve• "S3 US Code, "Navigation and Navigable Wateis." ^42."., 11(a). interstate compact relating to the Del• "/bid, S525, 11 (b) "Ihid, 1526 aware River Port Authority: 12 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any limita• Occasions for interpretation of the tion on the collecting of tolls as pre- relationship of such exceptions to the sciibed by section 506 of the General Budge Act of 1946, as amended, oi as general Federal policy favoring event• piesciibed by an Act heretofore enacted ual elimination of tolls on publicly by the Congress authoiizing or consent• owned interstate bridges have been few,, ing to the consti'uction or acquisition of and, for the most part, have occurred in any bridge constructed or acquired by the commission, the commission is here• legislative hearings on proposed modi• by authorized to fix, charge and collect fications of existing interstate bridge tolls or other chaiges for the use of any compacts.'' The leading quasi-judicial bridge or tunnel heretofore or here• proceeding on pooling of bridge toll rev• after established, conti oiled, constiucted, enues occurred in 1953 when the Sec• or acquired by the commission, and to combine any two or more of such retary of the Army exercised his reg• bridges or tunnels, or combine any one ulatory jurisdiction to review a toll or more of such bridges or tunnels, with increase on interstate bridges operated any railroad, rapid-transit system, oi by the Delaware River Port Authority.' other properties or facilities for trans• portation, tei'minal or port improvement Since interpretation by this method pui poses (each such bridge, tunnel, lail- tends to be restricted to the specific 1 oad, system, or othei pi operty or facil• factual circumstances presented, sub• ity being hereinafter lefeued to as stantial questions remain unclarified.'"' "facility") heretofore or heieafter es• tablished, controlled, constructed or For example, what types of facilities acquired by the commission, and com• may be financed by pooled tolls from bine the tolls or revenues theiefrom, highway bridges? In this regard legis• and to fix, charge and collect tolls or other charges foi the use of such facili• lation granting Congressional consent ties so combined, and to use or pledge to pooling has used various terms of any such tolls or othei chaiges for pur• general description.-" poses of financing, acquiring, construct• May the combined cost of "pooled" ing, opeiating or maintaining any facility or facilities, all to the extent projects be used as the basis for deter• provided by and m accoi'dance with the mining whether a proposed toll rate is provisions of the afoisaid compact or "reasonable and just" under the Gen• agreement as amended and supple• eral Bridge Act of 1946? mented, as consented to by the Congress, and the laws of the State of New Jersey What safeguards, if any, does the Fed• and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania eral law contain to prevent the pooling with respect thereto or to said commis• of toll bridge revenue with projects sion; Provided, That, as a specific ex• which are marginal or submarginal rev- emption from the provisions of section 506 of the Genei-al Bridge Act of 1946, " H. Rep 2293, 82d Cong , 2d Sess, U S Senate Com• as amended, the collection of tolls for mittee on Public Woiks, (82d Cong. 2d Sesb ) , Heaiingb on S 2187. 1(2188, Delaware River Port Authouty, Sup• the use of any bridge hereafter con• plemental Compact between Pennsylvania and New Jeisey. US. House of Repiesentatives, Committee on structed or acquired by the commission, Public Woiks (82d Cong, 2d Sebb ) Hearings on Sup• in excess of amounts leasonably re- plemental Compact, Delaware Rivei Poit Authouty quiied foi the operation and mainte• Depai tment of the At my. Report of the Seoetary of the Army In the matter of Camden Bi idge Tolls, de• nance thereof under economic manage• cided May 4, l'),-)4 ment, shall cease at the expiration of Foi discubsion of this subject bee Chestack, J . "The Public Authouty." 10.") U Pa L Rev o.'iS (l'),->7). fifty yeai's fiom the date of opening Netheiton. R. "Area Development Authoutieb A New Form of Government by Fioclamation." H Vand L Rev to ti'affic by the commission of the 678 (19.3.5). Nehemkib, 'The Public Authouty Some bridge latest constructed or acquired LeKal and Piactical Aspects," 47 Yale L J 14 (1137) by said commission after the effective "'En, Sec 3, P L .573. 82d Con« 2(1 Sess. authoi• izing the pooling of interstate budge tollb with levenue date of this Act, and the late of such fiom "piopeities oi facilities foi tianspoilation. teiminal tolls shall be subject to the provisions OI poit puipobes heietofoie oi heieinaftei ebtab- lished. controlletl, constructed oi acquit ed by the com- of section 503 of the General Bridge Act mibbion . . " See albo House of Representatives, Com• of 1946, as amended." mittee on Public Woiks, Hearingb on H R 7332 (88th Cong Ut Sesb), supplemental compact, Delawaie Rivei Poit Authouty, November 1'), I'tbS. wheie pel mission was sought to combine a toll bridge iiroject with constiuc- Supplemental legiblation lelatinK to consent to intei- tion of legional rapid tiansit facilities, and "a wide bt.ite compact between Pennbylvania and New Jeisey vaiietv of ttanspoitation piojects anvwheie in the Poit establishinK the Delawaie River Poit Authoiitv, PL Dibtiict, as the legiblatuies of both States may delegate 573, .•)74, 82d Cong , 2d Seib. oi impobe." FEDERAL LAWS 13 enue producers and hence may not be applicable provision of Federal law indi• expected to become self-supporting? cates the desirability of further study by the Congress and possible revision of Does the Secretary's statutory au• such piovisions of law. thority to regulate interstate bridge tolls The General Bridge Act of 1946 (60 necessarily include by implication the Stat. 847), as amended, contains in sec• authority to regulate rates of charges tion 506 thereof a limitation on the made for use of other facilities financed imposition of tolls with respect to pub• in part by the pooled bridge tolls? licly owned interstate bridges construc• ted or acquired under that act. On these What procedure will achieve a full bridges rates of toll must be adjusted so and realistic review of questions involv• as to provide a sinking fund sufficient ing increase or pooling of bridge tolls? to amortize bridge costs within a period Typically the factual backgrounds of not to exceed 30 years. Thereafter, these publicly owned intei state bridges are re• such financing arrangements are both quired to be maintained and operated massive and complex so that only free of tolls. These i-estrictions and limi• highly specialized counsel and exam• tations on tolls do not apply, however, iners are capable of presenting and to intrastate bndges. Therefore, the evaluating the evidence. Federal law is not consistent in its ap• plication to toll bridges over navigable To what extent may the desire to ac• waters. Nor does the General Bridge cumulate reserves beyond what is nec• Act apply in any way to tunnels under essary to retire the bonded indebted• such navigable waters, thus creating ness directly involved in a particular another inconsistency in the Federal law. It is realized that, historically, toll bridge be considered in approving a Federal general bridge legislation has proposed increase in toll rates ? had one of its primaiy bases in the responsibility of the Secretary of the Legislative Policy Problems Relating Army (formerly Secretary of War) with respect to navigation and the to Federal Toll Bridge Laiv navigable waters of the United States. For decades. Federal responsibility and Administrative interpretation of the jurisdiction as to reasonableness of tolls Federal policy relating to toll bridges on bridges constructed under the general as expressed in the General Bridge bridge acts have been lodged m the Act of 1946 and related legislation has Secretary of the Army or his predeces• revealed other features of this policy sor. (See sec. 503 of the General Bridge Act of 1946.) The question arises wheth• which may deserve continued scrutiny er the present-day interest of the by Congress. Certain of these questions Department of the Army in such bridges of legislative policy were identified by IS sufficient to justify the continuation the Department of Commerce in 1962 of this responsibility in that Depart• on the occasion of Congressional ment in the light of the ovei-all trans• portation 1 esponsibilities of the Federal amendment of the interstate compact Government. authorizing construction of additional A 1 elated question raised by the in• toll bridges across the Delaware River clusion of the Delaware Memorial I and Bay. Specifically, the Department Bridge in the Interstate System con• stated: =^ cerns the Federal policy on the duia- tion of tolls charged for the use of Consideration by this Department of facilities included in the Pederal-aid the pioposed legislation . . . has led to highway systems, paiticularly the In• the belief that the general situation re• tel state System where Federal-State lating to highway toll facilities and the

"Quotation from lettet from the Secietaiy of Com- authoiize the tolls chaiged, on the existing and additional Imerce to Chaiiman, Committee on Public Woiks, House bridges, to be used foi the construction of transpoitation of Representatives, June 21, V)62. H R Rep 2328, 87th or terminal and other facilities oi projects of the Cong, 2d Sess pp 5-6 (1962) Also included in this authority is not m accordance with the General Bridge repoit is a letter from the Secietary of the Aimy to the Act of 1946, which provides that the lates of toll shall Chan man of the Committee on Public Woiks dated be so adjusted as to provide a fund to pay the cost of lune 22, 1962, stating as follows "It will be noted that maintaining, lepaiiing, and opeiating bridges and to ;he bills create a distinction between the Delaware provide a sinking fund to amoitize the cost within a Memorial Budge and any other budges that the authouty period not to exceed 30 years. Furthei. the existing nay construct, with respect to the chaigmg of toll's by bridge is subject to a provision that it shall be made fiee he Secretaiy of the Army under the authority of the of tolls (as IS also tiue under the 1946 Bridge Act) ^eneial Bridge Act of 1946 In addition, the committee's wheieas these bills would not so provide for either ittention is invited to the fact that the pioposal to additional bi idges oi the existing bridge " 14 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

Toll gates at the west end of the George Washington Bridge connecting New York and New Jersey. Toll facilities designed to accommodate large volumes of trafAc must be equipped with multiple-lane toll gates to permit move• ment onto toll facilities with a minimum of delay

participation is on a 90-10 basis. Under poses. Traffic generated by free portions the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, of the system undoubtedly contributes the Congress specifically authorized the materially to the financial success of inclusion of toll facilities as part of the these toll facilities, and 90 percent of the Interstate System (23 U.S.C. §129 (b)) cost of these fiee highways is borne by for purposes of system integration when the Federal Government out of funds such facilities meet the adopted design collected from the highway user through standards, with the express provision, taxes going to the highway trust fund. however, that no Federal funds be ex• The Department of Commerce is pended thereon except to the extent per• aware that the points raised herein go mitted by law. No Federal restrictions beyond the immediate issues of the are placed on the use of tolls fiom such pending bill. The Congress may wish, facilities or the duration of the toll howevei', as already indicated, to take collection period, except that if a State the opportunity presented by the pro• applies for Federal aid for certain ap• posal to examine the larger issues con• proaches to toll roads on the Interstate cerned, the consistency of Federal law System under section 129(d) of title regarding toll facilities of all kinds and 23, United States Code, the State must the effect of such tolls on the highway agree that the section of the toll road user, particularly the user of Interstate involved will become free when specified System highways, with a view to deter• costs are provided. It is possible under mining whether amendment to existing existing law, therefore, for individual law on this subject may be desirable States to maintain key segments of the and m the public interest Interstate System as toll facilities in• definitely. The specific question is raised wheth• Summary of Legislative History of the\ er it IS desirable to permit the con• General Bridge Acts tinuation of tolls on a part of the Interstate System for indefinite periods Summarizing the conclusions to bel for the support of other projects or pur• drawn from a review of the legislative! FEDERAL LAWS 15 history of the Federal statutes relating the Secretary in the legislation of 1946, to bridges, the policy of Congress re• which closely parallels the Federal garding use of toll finance and man• policy favoring free public highways. agement appears to involve the follow• Also, Congress has recognized the in• ing points: terest of state highway departments in First, Congress has recognized that the location and construction of private bridges are merely extensions of high• toll bridges and their approaches by ways over water barriers, and, as such, requiring state approval of plans for are integral links in a national highway such facilities. system which by long standing policy Finally, the emergence of port au• has been kept free from tolls upon the thorities, bridge authorities, and area highway users to the greatest extent development authorities as proprietors possible. of toll bridges has increased pressure Second, where deemed necessary for to authorize the combination, or "pool- bridge construction, Congress has per• mg," of bridge tolls with revenue from mitted the use of toll financing, but in other types of facilities. As a result the so doing it consistently has subjected established policy of Congress favoring the toll-collecting power of bridge oper• conversion of interstate toll bridges into ators to supervisory regulation designed free bridges at the earliest possible date to assure that the bridge would be has become unclear because of piece• economically managed and that the meal modifications of the General public would not be burdened by un• Bridge Acts by special legislation. reasonable or unjust tolls. Third, under the law, the Secretary of War (now Secretary of the Army) TOLL ROADS has historically been relied upon as the Federal-Aid Policy agent of the Federal Government charged with the responsibility of regu• Until establishment of the Federal- lating the rates of toll levied for the use aid program for highways in 1916, Con• of bridge facilities. This reliance upon gress had no policy regarding the use the Secretary has remained constant of toll financing and management in even though Congress itself, in progres• highway construction. During the nine• sive efforts to simplify and streamline teenth century the National Pike (Cum• the operation of the legislative branch berland Road) was, except for military of the government, has eliminated and post roads, the only example of many checks which originally it exer• Federal involvement with road build• cised directly upon the construction and ing,- and in this instance Congress operation of bridges over navigable showed no desire to participate in the waters. decision that converted this road into a Fourth, in expressing the standard turnpike in its later life. Commencing by which the Secretary shall regulate in 1916, however, Federal participation toll rates. Congress has selected lan• in a long-range program of financial aid guage which emphasizes the rights of for state highway construction com• the public in situations where the pelled consideration of the toll question monopoly of an essential service is by Congress. involved. In cases where private monop- The original Federal-Aid Road Act" alies, designed to operate a commer- provided that "all roads constructed nally profitable toll bridge, are under the provisions of this Act shall nvolved, the standard has been given be free from tolls of all kinds." This specific meaning by judicial construc- -2 Except Federal military and post road construction ;ion. In cases where publicly owned and Typical of the eaily Congreisional policy weie laws authoiizinK creation of corporation to build toll roads. )perated monopolies are involved, spe- e.q, the Alexandria-Leesburg Turnpike in Virginia, 3 ific standards have been provided for Stat 457 (1813), and the Geoigetown-Leesburg Turnpike in Maiyland, 3 Stat 12 (1813) 16 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES language was broadened in the Federal owned by the state or one of its political Highway Act of 1921=' to state that "all subdivisions; (2) the net toll revenue highways constructed or reconstructed must be applied to reimburse the state under the provisions of this Act shall or its political subdivision for its share be free from tolls of all kinds." This of the cost of construction; and (3) upon latter provision remains in the codified repayment of the state or its political Federal highway law at the present subdivision, collection of tolls must time, but subject to certain qualifica• cease and the bridge must be maintain• tions to be noted below.- ' ed and operated as a toll-free facility.-" During the 1930's comparable provi• Tolls Defined sions were included in various other Federal laws authorizing funds for Because highway finance currently highway and bridge construction.^*^ In depends on various forms of user 1945 Congress authorized use of Fed• charges and taxes to secure revenue eral-aid highway funds to reimburse for road construction, the term "tolls" states which, prior to 1947, had built or must be defined. The Federal law con• acquired toll bridges serving the Fed• tains no statutory definition of this eral-aid highway system and sub• term. Its judicial definition has, how• sequently converted such bridges into ever, been accepted for purposes of in• free facilities. In this instance Federal terpreting the Federal-aid law. In this participation was limited to 50 percent connection courts have held that a toll of the current reasonable value (exclus• is a settled, certain and defined sum col• ive of right-of-way) of the physical lected for the use of common passage property or 50 percent of the outstand• or as a duty imposed on transportation ing net indebtedness.^' of passengers or goods over public roads ToU Roads.—No further modification and bridges.^' Thus the only charges of the policy regarding toll roads in the prohibited by Federal statutes on high• Federal-aid system was made prior to ways built with Federal-aid funds are 1956. In 1939 this policy was reviewed tolls in this accepted sense of a propri• in the light of extensive studies of the etor's charge for the privilege of pas• feasibility of proposed construction sage over a highway or bridge collected of a transcontinental toll road system,^" when and as such privilege is exer• and, in 1954, in the light of a study of all cised. phases of highway finance," but on neither of these occasions was legisla• Exceptions tion enacted to modify the prohibition Toll Bridges and Approaches.—The against Federal aid for toll highway so-called Oldfield Act of 1927 exempted projects. toll bridges and the approaches there• to, under certain circumstances, from Federal-Aid Hightvay Act of 1956 the Federal-aid law's prohibitions The Federal-Aid Highway Act of against tolls. Under this exception Fed• 1956 included two provisions relating to eral aid was for construction of toll bridges and was authorized in the same Act of March 3, 1927, 44 Stat. 1398, recodified! as 28 US Code, "Highways" 8129(a). manner as for the construction of ^ E o , Department of Agriculture Appi opriation Act of 1934 (Act of March 3, 1938, 47 Stat 1456) and toll-free bridges by a state or political National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (Act of June 16, 1933, 48 Stat. 204, Title II, §204 %) which included subdivisions thereof to the following bridges "acduiied" as well as "constructed " conditions: (1) the bridge must be Act of July 31, 1946, 5D Stat 507, c. 883 This pio- vision is not, however, retained in the present codifica• tion of highway laws, 23 US Code, "Highways' ^* Act of November 21, 1921, 42 Stat 212, §9 '»Sec report of the U S. Bureau of Public Roads, en• -= 23 U S Code, "Highways" §301 titled "Toll Roads and Free Roads," published as H. Doc, J'Anthony v. Kozer, 11 F. 2d 641 (D,C. Oregon 1926), 272, 76th Cong, 1st Session, April 27, 1989 Intercity Coach Lines Inc. v. Hariison, 172 Ga 390, l.i7 •" See teport of the Secretary of Commerce, entitle^ SE 673 (1931), Tirell v Johnson, 86 N H 530, 171 "Progress and Feasibility of Toll Roads and Their Relal Atl 641 (1934), Johnson Transfer & Freight Lines v tion to the Federal-aid Program," published as H DocI Perry, 47 F. 2d 900 (D C. N. Dak. 1931). 139, g4th Cong., 1st Session, April 14, 1955. FEDERAL LAWS

K portion of Connecticut Turnpike near Norwalk (note US 1 paralleling tlie turnpike) illustrates the fact tliat the location of routes and toll gates substantially affects local use of turnpike facilities/and may determine the rela tive proportion of toll revenue contributed by local and through traffic.

he existing policy on toll bridges and was an agreement between the Secre• oil roads. tary of Commerce and the state prior One authorized the Secretary of Com- to approval of the project: nerce to approve as part of the Inter- itate System any toll road, bridge or (1) that the section of toll road will become free to the public upon collec• ;unnel now or hereafter constructed tion of tolls sufficient to liquidate the vhich meets the standards adopted for cost of the toll road or any bonds out• he improvement of projects located on standing at the time constituting a ;he Interstate System provided that valid lien against such section of toll roads covered in the agreement and :he Secretary finds that such action will their maintenance and operation and 'promote the development of an inte• debt service during the period of toll grated Interstate System," and that collections, and ;uch toll road bridge or tunnel is located (2) that there is one or more reason• )n a route heretofore designated as part ably satisfactory alternate free routes )f the Interstate System.'- The law available to traffic by which the toll provided, however, that no Federal- section of the system may be bypassed." d funds may be expended for the con- Approach roads to serve ferries, truction, reconstruction, or improve- whether toll or free, also became elig• lent of any toll road, except for certain ible to receive Federal aid where the pproach roads having "some other route involved was approved as part of se" as highways. With respect to this the Federal-aid highway system (but tter exception, the 1956 statute author• not a part of the Interstate System)." ed expenditure of funds on Interstate This authorization was accompanied by stem projects approaching toll roads the following proviso: the Interstate System although the Such ferry may be either publicly or oject has no use other than as an ap- privately owned and operated, but the toach to the toll road, only when there •''Ibid. 11(d). ''Ibid. 11(e), added to title 23, U.S. Code l)y Act of •23 U.S. Code, "Highways," §129. 11(b), (c). July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 522. 18 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

operating authority and the amount of cally required to take this factor into ac• fares charged for passage shall be under count in connection with the designa• the control of a state agency or official, tion of the Interstate System. The and all revenues derived from publicly owned or operated ferries shall be ap• criteria set forth in the Federal-Aid plied to payment of the cost of construc• Highway Act of 1956 (Tit. 23, U.S. Code, tion or acquisition thereof, including "Highways," §129 Hb) require a find• debt service, and to actual and neces• ing that incorporation of a particular sary costs of operation, maintenance, toll road will "promote the develop• repair and replacement. ment of an integrated Interstate Sys• tem," that the road in question meets Legislative Policy Problems Relating Interstate System standards, and that to Toll Roads it is "located on a route heretofore or hereafter designated as a part of the In• Various problems of interpretation terstate System." have arisen in the implementation of the policy on toll highways enacted in The legislative history of this provi• the Federal-aid highway legislation. sion suggests, however, that Congress One of these involves the proviso that was aware that considerations beyon(3 toll roads may be incorporated into the these general engineering standards Interstate System only if, among other would inevitably be involved in admin• criteria, they meet the design and con• istering this modification of its historic struction standards applicable to that policy regarding incorporation of toll system. Inasmuch as the circumstances mileage in Federal-aid highway sys• which have influenced the construction tems. Thus the House Committee on of the major toll roads have varied sub• Public Works stated in its report on thq stantially, complete uniformity of design 1956 act: "The language [relating tc| and construction is lacking. Thus, in incorporation of toll roads into the In• practice, this criterion of the statute terstate System] is intended to promote has been administratively interpreted maximum integration of the system, and as being met if there is "reasonable" or the committee does not anticipate tha^ "substantial" conformity to the cur• free facilities would be built in such lo• rent structural and design standards of cations and to such standards as to be the Interstate System. In this context in direct competition with toll roads sc reasonableness is viewed in terms of included."'" As a result, the admin• whether the standards under consider• istrative interpretation of the provi• ation will enable the highway system to sions governing incorporation of tol fulfill the function assigned to it.^' roads into the Interstate System has been described as follows: The possible effects of the location of Interstate System or other public high• When a State proposes a toll facility as way mileage near or parallel to exist• a part of the Interstate System, the ing toll roads are understandably a proposal IS analyzed m light of all source of apprehension to holders of toll circumstances which exist with respect to the particular toll facility and inter• road bonds who may fear that the state route involved. Of course, a con• competition of such free highways may trolling factor is the statutory require• impair toll revenues. Most frequently ment that toll facilities may be appioved as part of the Interstate System only this consideration has been present when such action will promote the de• where it has been requested that toll velopment of an integrated system. In roads be incorporated into the Inter• addition to this, three specific considera• state System. As a matter of law the tions are used as guides in determining whether a toll road can be accepted as Secretary of Commerce is not specifi• an interstate highway location or wheth• er the interstate location should be I'See us Bureau of Public Roads, Circular Memo• randum. July 30, 1956. entitled "Approval of Interstate System Route Locations." •»H. Rep. 2022, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956), p. 161 FEDERAL LAWS 19

constructed along a parallel alignment. state System the state requested retro• These consideiations are: active payment of Federal aid at the (1) Whether the toll facility will be 90-10 ratio applicable to Interstate proj• adequate to accommodate safely and efficiently the type and volume of traffic, ects for those sections lying between both local and interregional, forecast for toll segments. The Federal Highway the year 1975; Administrator denied this request, but (2) Whether the toll facility will noted (in a letter from Rex Whitton to adequately meet local needs as well as Saul Corwin, Department Counsel, New those of interstate commerce; and York State Department of Public (3) Whether construction of an alter• Works, July 9, 1963) that the matter nate free facility will jeopardize the financial structure of the toll facility.'" could be reconsidered "in the event ar• rangements can be made to remove the Since enactment of the Federal-Aid toll barriers and to operate the highway iHighway Act of 1956 there have been sections as toll free facilities." several instances of refusal to approve In addition to these problems arising the location of free interstate routes out of the modification of Federal policy where it was determined that parallel toll roads were adequate to serve traf• relating to toll facilities in the Federal- fic needs until 1975 and where con• Aid Highway Act of 1956, as amended, struction of the free road would the question of whether to provide for jeopardize the financial structure of the reimbursement to states for toll roads toll road.'" incorporated into the Interstate System A highly specialized aspect of the continues to receive attention. Section question of incorporation of toll road 114 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of mileage into the Interstate System con• 1956 declared the intention of Congress cerns determination of the extent of to determine whether or not reimburse• Federal-aid participation in projects ment should be made, and directed that comprised of a combination of toll seg• studies be made to estimate the costs ments and free segments. Illustrative involved. This estimate was made in a of this type of facility is the so-called report to Congress in 1958.*'' Subse• Niagara section of the New York Thru- quently Congress directed that a study way where toll sections, financed by of possible formulas for reimbursement Thruway bonds, alternate with free sec• be made, and the report of this study tions, financed on a 50-50 matching ratio was made (Committee Print No. 1, by state and Federal funds. When this Committee on Public Works, 86th Cong., facility was incorporated into the Inter- 1st Sess., February 1, 1959, in response

" Testimony of Rex M Whitton, Federal Highway to P. L. 85-845). Administratoi. quoted in Hearings before Subcommittee on Roads. Committee on Public Works, relating to Mis• "H Doc 301, 86th Cong, 2d Sess, January 7, 1958, cellaneous Highway Legislation. Aug 22. l')61, 87th estimating approximately $4 billion As of August 1962. iCong. 1st Sess (1961). p 111. however, additions to the Interstate System have in• Ibid, at pp. 112-113 describes these instances. creased this ebtimate to .$4,369 billion. AUTHORIZATION

State legislation authorizing the es• agency is authorized generally to con• tablishment of toll facilities is summa• struct and operate toll facilities of a cer• rized in Table 1, Appendix A. Four com• tain type without specifying any par• ponent aspects of the authorization ticular locations therefor. Such general function are noted as bases for analysis authority may also include the power to and comparison, namely: (1) the appli• issue licenses and franchises to other cation or scope of the authorization; public or quasi-public agencies to carry (2) the declared policy of the legisla• on these activities. In contrast, other ture underlying the authorization; (3) instances confine the legislature's au• the substantive and procedural terms thorization to construction and opera• on which the authority is granted; and tion of a specific toll facility at a specific (4) statutory definitions of key terms location such as a bridge or ferry site used in the legislation. or highway route. Table 1 lists 140 state statutes relat• General authorization is well illus• ing to toll agencies. For purposes of dis• trated by the laws of Arizona, Colorado cussion, however, the laws dealing with and Nebraska, among others; specific 85 major toll facilities have been authorization, by the legislation of Cal• selected for particular study. The cri• ifornia relating to the San Francisco- terion used for selection of these 85 Oakland Bay Bridge, Florida relating major specific toll facility laws is to the Sunshine State Parkway, and whether the financing of the facility Rhode Island relating to the Jamestown is governed in detail by the terms of ferry. the law. The relevance of this pragmatic Legislative drafting practice does not test is apparent when it is noted that appear to follow any uniform standards such specific regulation is typically pro• regarding the degree to which descrip• vided by the legislature where either tions of toll projects must be detailed the size of the financing or the complex• in order to be legally sufl5cient. Thus ity of the legal problems involved re• some authorizations merely state termi• quire such provisions for protection nal points in terms of geographical or of the interests of the public and the political areas, while others describe prospective bondholders. It is considered terminal points in terms of directions that the provisions summarized herein and distances. Where authorizations amply cover all major phases of the are general in their terms, statutory de• authorization process which has been scriptions of facilities involved fre• used for the minor toll facility laws that quently make reference to existing pro• have been omitted. cedure for designating public facilities, and thereby include not only currently planned facilities but facilities duly des• SCOPE AND APPLICATION ignated in the future. The privilege of imposing tolls on the use of facilities serving the public's DECLARATION OP POLICY right of passage requires positive leg• islative authorization. The technique Legislative statements of policy ar( of granting such authorization may, not consistently included in statutes au however, be either general or specific thorizing creation of toll facilities. More with reference to the facilities involved. over, when such statements do appea Thus Table 1 lists numerous instances they seldom contain recitals of the leg in which a political subdivision of the islature's findings of fact concernin state or a specially created public the situation being dealt with. As a r« 20 AUTHORIZATION 21

suit, most of the statutory declarations the draftsman should consider in this of policy summarized in Table 1 merely regard are: What service will the toll speak in terms of the general conven• facility furnish? Why is the toll facility ience and welfare of the communities necessary? How will the toll facility ac• served by the facilities to be created complish the objective of the public pol• without revealing much about the policy icy? What will be the characteristics of to be followed in their operation. Typi• the facility (if it is to be distinguished cal of this style is the statement of policy from other facilities serving the same in a Colorado law authorizing the crea• public objective) ? And why is the facil• tion of toll roads that the act is "to pro• ity deemed by the legislature to deserve vide" for the well-being and prosperity special tax exemptions or financing ad• of the State and its inhabitants by de• vantages? veloping and improving the highways and public roads within the State. AUTHORIZATION AND Among the statutes cited, however, PROCEDURAL MATTERS there are other examples of declarations which do establish policies and princi• State legislation varies in the degree ples to guide administration of the law. of detail used to delegate the legal Illustrative of this type is the simple, powers necessary for establishment and straightforward statement in an Ala• operation of toll facilities. Comparison bama turnpike statute that its purpose of the data in Table 1 shows that gen• is "to facilitate vehicular traffic in the erally these variations are the natural State by providing for the construction result of addressing the legislation in of safe and modern express highways question to activities which in some without taxes or pledge of State credit." cases are of broad scope and in others With even more brevity and candor a are very specific projects. For exam• Georgia toll ferry statute declares that ple, in creating the Massachusetts its intent and policy is "to try to make Turnpike Authority, the Massachusetts the system self supporting." Also illus• legislature broadly authorized that trative is the California toll bridge law's agency to acquire, construct, maintain, statement: "It is the policy of the State repair, reconstruct, and operate a toll to acquire and own all toll bridges upon express agency, to issue turnpike reve• or along any part of the highways of the nue bonds payable solely from revenues, State, and ultimately to eliminate all to collect tolls, do other necessary things (Acts & Resolves 1952, c. 354). In leg• toll charges thereon and to protect toll islation authorizing the Massachusetts crossing bondholders from competing Port Authority to assume title to the facilities." Mystic River Bridge and operate it as Review of Table 1 indicates that while a toll facility, however, it was necessary statutory declarations of policy have to deal specifically with numerous de• not been consistently used in toll facil• tails of the transfer, such as the obliga• ity legislation, such declarations are tion of the port authority to take over capable of serving a useful role in guid• the salary, insurance and pension rights ing the interpretation of the law on vari• of essential employees who came under ous aspects which may be questioned. the port authority's jurisdiction by rea• son of the transfer (Acts & Resolves, Since toll facilities constitute a special 1059, c. 599). .class within the total system of public transportation facilities, and often are Viewing Table 1 from the standpoint established and governed by specialized of what may be considered as the essen• egislation, various aspects of these fa- tial elements of authority and procedure iilities may be clarified by a declara- to be included in the basic legislation ion of policy. Among the matters which creating toll agencies, several general 22 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES conclusions may be offered." First, agencies' activities. In unusual circum• there must be specific legislative au• stances legislation has gone further in thorization to acquire property, and placing limitations on the toll agencies' construct, maintain, repair, reconstruct use of its funds, but normally when such and operate the facility. Also the legis• provisions appear they are explainable lation must contain specific authoriza• in terms of the toll facility's functional tion to issue the bonds necessary for relationship to other segments of the financing, and to fix and collect the tolls public transportation system. For ex• necessary to return the bonds and carry ample, in legislation establishing the on the operation of the facility. In the Wilbur Cross Parkway, the Connecti• majority of cases these powers have cut legislature provided that toll reve• been described in broad terms, leaving nues in excess of the amount needed for the authority for their implementation the turnpike must be deposited in the to stand on an accompanying provision state highway fund "for the planning, that the toll agency shall have power lay out, construction, reconstruction or to "do all other necessary things" maintenance of any trunk line highway or "perform all other necessary and in• or bridge." (Gen. Stats., 1958 ed. §13- cidental functions." In a few states 154.) {e.g., Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Vir• Several state statutes contain special ginia) the authority necessary to imple• provisions relating to toll agencies' ment the delegation of basic powers has authority to enter contracts and inter• been provided by endowing the toll fa• state agreements. Ordinary contrac• cility with "any power usually possessed tual powers are clearly essential for by a state public corporation." agencies operating facilities in their Where legislation of general charac• own name and right, and normally may ter (as opposed to legislation dealing be implied in the general grant of cor• solely with a specific facility) has in• porate status. Where interstate bridges cluded restrictive conditions upon toll are involved, however, toll agencies agencies, the conditions have usually must have necessary legal powers to dealt with the agencies' authority rather enter into agreements with other states. than procedural matters. The most In some states authorization to enter common restrictions are those intended into interstate compacts requires the to assure that the agencies' toll reve• approval of certain of the state's con• nues will be devoted to retirement of stitutional officers such as the gover• their bonded debt. Also common are nor (Delaware, Vermont), or the specific provisions that toll agencies attorney general (Arkansas). Occa• shall have no power to obligate directly sionally also, it has been necessary the credit of the state in its financing, specifically to authorize toll agencies or to exceed certain maximum limits of to negotiate directly with a neighbor• debt. Where approval of the issuance ing state for acquisition of land in such or marketing of bonds by instrumental• other state (Fla. Laws, 1941, ch. 21418, ities of the state must conform to proce• as amended), to contract with agencies dures prescribed elsewhere in the state of the Federal Government regarding law, legislation establishing toll agen• apportionment of construction costs cies may logically provide for applica• (Colo. R.S. 1953 ed. §120-8-2), and to tion of these procedures to the toll contract with state highway agencies to lease or construct toll facilities (Ga, "See Califoinia Toll Bridge Authority v Kuchel, 40 Code, §95-2308). Municipalities cus• Cal2d 43, 251 P 2d 4 (1932), Barton v Delaware Rivei Joint Toll Budge Commission, 120 F Supp 337 (1954), tomarily need specific authorization tol Tuinpike Authority of Kentucky v Wall, 366 S W.2d 551 (Ky 1960), State ex lel Oiegon State Highway Com• go beyond their normal contract power^ mission, Washington State Highway Commission and Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 47 Wash.2d to perform toll functions. 804, 289 P2d 1027 (1955), Bud v New Yoik State Thiuway Authority, 188 N Y S 2d 788 (1960), Solethei The qualification of toll agencies tJ V. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 133 N.E.2d 148 (Ohio App 1954). carry out their delegated powers iJ AUTHORIZATION

Responsibility for policing turnpike use and protecting turnpike property normally requires establishment of physical facilities for housing operational command posts, communication centers, and maintenance shops at locations adja• cent to the highway. normally considered as being beyond North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennes• the scope of the agency's basic legisla• see). tion, and is a matter that is generally left to the discretion of the appointing DEFINITIONS authority (usually the governor) or the political body having power to grant The toll facility legislation (Table 1) toll facility franchises. An unusual varies widely in the use of statutory provision appears in the Arkansas definitions for key terms, and compari• law, however, where, with respect to a son reveals little evidence that any com• minor toll road, the statute provides that mon pattern characterizes the ap• the state highway commission shall proach used by legislative draftsmen designate the "most responsible" bid• in this aspect of their work. Thus it is der to construct and operate the high• not warranted to say that definitions way in question (Ark. Acts, 1947, Nr. are more commonly deemed necessary 45). in general legislation than in specific, or that laws relating to any one particu• Various other aspects of toll agen• lar type of toll facility (turnpike, cies' authority and procedure have, bridge, ferry or tunnel) present from time to time, been covered in state semantic problems of greater complex• lauthorization statutes. These have in- ity than other types. [cluded the power to sue and be sued, (Fla. Stats., 1957, c. 340.06), to regulate Viewed in terms of the function they the type of traffic that may use the toll perform, the definitions appear to serve facility (Calif. Sts. and Hwy. Code, two purposes. Some definitions serve §30107), to promulgate traffic regula- to facilitate legislative style by estab• ;ions (Conn. Gen. Stats., 1958 ed„ §§13- lishing short forms of referring to ele• 161; 14-298), to adopt master plans for ment of the law that must be mentioned ;urnpike systems (Colo. R.S. §120- frequently in the statute. For example, 1-2), and to issue franchises for recon- "district" means the San Francisco Bay truction and operation of toll facilities Area Rapid Transit District (Calif. Sts. •(Arizona, Nebraska, New Mexico, & Hwys. Code, §30770) or "Authority" 24 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES means Louisiana Expressway Author• such notes (Conn. Gen. Stats. 1958, §13. ity (La. R.S. 1950, §148:1251). 192 e,h). Other definitions appear to be What terms in toll facility legislation included as an aid in determining bor• should have statutory definitions? And derline situations that may be antici• what definitions should be used for pated in carrying on the toll agency's these terms? Table 1 indicates that activities. For example, Maryland legis• legislative draftsmen apply pragmatic lation dealing with the authority of the tests to these problems, and utilize stat• Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Project de• utory definitions where they will serve fines "motorway" as follows: needs of stylistic convenience or provide The word "motorway" shall mean any clearer bases for application of the law superhighway, express highway or to situations calling for special treat• arterial highway constructed by the ment or for the description of particu• Commission under the provisions of lar working concepts in the use of the this subheading, and shall embrace all bridges, tunnels, overpasses, under• authority delegated by the legislation. passes, interchanges, entrance plazas, Significantly there has appeared to be approaches, toll houses, service stations, little need to define engineering terms and administration, storage and other and concepts in connection with toll fa-i buildings, and other structures which the Commission may deem necessary for cility activities. Most of the definitions the operation of such motorways, to• that relate to powers and procedures (as gether with all property, rights, ease• distinguished from stylistic short cuts) ments and interests acquired by the pertain to the jurisdictional and financ• Commission for the construction or the operation of such motor way. (Ann. ing aspects of the operations of the toll Code of Md., art. 89B, §1221.) agencies activity, and suggest that these are regarded by the state legislatures In another example, relating to the as the most sensitive aspects of toll powers granted to the New York State agencies' activities as far as public Thruway Authority, "real property" policy is concerned. The necessity of is defined by statute as including land specific authorization for many of the under water and riparian rights and all activities undertaken by toll agencies interests or rights less than full title, has also led the courts to interpret leg• legal or equitable (McKinney's Consol. islative delegations of power rather nar• Laws, N. Y., Ann. Bk. 42, Art, 2, §350). rowly, and thus has given particular im• Also, in connection with the grant of portance to statutory definitions in powers to finance certain toll bridges provisions relating to jurisdiction and in Connecticut, the legislature provided financing.^ ^ that the term "State moneys" should be understood as including proceeds of the *^ E g , Ellis V. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 162 Ohio I sale of bonds or of temporary notes in St 86, 120 N.E2d 719 (1954). See note in 1 So. Tex. anticipation of money from the sale of L Jour 405 (1955). Also, see CHERMAK, THE LAW ot\ REVENUE BONDS (NIMLO, Washington, 1954), Ch 4 ORGANIZATION OF TOLL AUTHORITIES

CORPORATE FORM mental agencies should not assume In certain instances the operation of primary responsibility.*' toll facilities has been undertaken by Although details of organization and political subdivisions of the state, such authority vary, all modern public au• as counties, townships and municipal thorities have certain common fea• corporations. In eight states direct tures. Public authorities have the le• responsibility for construction and gal status of public corporations. They operation of toll facilities is given to the undertake activities in which the public state highway department or commis• interest is involved to such an extent as sion, and in numerous other instances to require the exercise of certain impor• the chief administrative officer of the tant governmental powers. Normally state highway department or members these governmental powers are of a of the state highway commission are proprietary nature, but occasionally designated either regular or ex officio they must include regulatory powers. members of the governing body of the Within the scope of their functional jur• toll agency. The majority of toll facili• isdiction, public authorities may also ties, however, are operated by special enjoy general immunity from certain corporate instrumentalities of the state constitutional and legal limitations that which are neither governmental agen• normally apply to governmental agen• cies nor public corporations in the strict cies and public corporations. Thus they and traditional senses of these terms. customarily act independently in such "Public authorities," as these special matters as personnel administration, function agencies are customarily called, accounting, budgeting, contracting, fi• constitute one of the most striking de• nancial management and legal action. velopments in contemporary public af• Their most distinctive feature is, how• fairs, and represent one of the most ever, the power to use revenue bond fi• successful accommodations of the tradi• nancing and levy toll charges to support tional system of local government in their activities wholly independent of the United States to the pressures of state or local governmental budgets. urbanization and economic growth that In respect to this latter feature, legis• characterize the twentieth century.*^ lative controls are customarily imposed on the public authority, but such con• Essentially the public authority is a trols typically take the form of limita• corporate body, created and authorized tions on the authority's power to act by legislation, functioning outside the rather than supervision of the admin• regular structure of state and local gov• istration of its affairs. ernment and having legal powers to acquire, finance, construct and operate MEMBERSHIP OP GOVERNING BODIES as revenue-producing enterprises vari• ous types of facilities serving needs The general exemption of public au• which are not or cannot be met by pri• thorities from those legal and adminis• vate enterprise, and with respect to trative controls which normally apply to which it is determined that govern- governmental agencies, and the ab• sence of any direct responsibility of the «Discussion of the nature of public authorities and some of their political, legal and economic implications authority to the public comparable to may be seen m Nehemkis, "The Public Authority Some Lepial and Practical Aspects," 47 Yale L Jour. 14 " Shestack, note 42, mpra, at 553-557. Regardless of (1947), Netherton, R, "Area-Development Authorities the form prescribed by statute, judicial review of ques• A New Form of Government by Proclamation," 8 Vand tions relating to jurisdiction and powers of public L Eev 678 (1955), Shestack, J , "The Public Authority," agencies has regarded these features as being of prime 105 U. Pa L Rev 553 (1957), Bearing, C, "Turnpike importance. E g, Boxberger v. State Highway Depart• Authorities in the United States," 26 Law & Contemp ment, 126 Colo. 436, 250 P.2d 1007 (1952), Mettet v Prob. 741 (1961). City of Yankton, 71 S.D. 435, 25 N W.2d 460 (1945). 25 26 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES that of the political subdivisions of state 3. Selection of Officers. In 42 of the and local government, have meant that 85 state laws summarized in Table 2, critical importance must be attached to the statutes permit the board of direc• the process by which the governing bod• tors or other governing body of the toll ies of such agencies are constituted. agency to select the officers thereof, How large the membership of these specifying only what the principal cor• bodies is, how the members are se• porate offices shall be. In 11 instances lected, how long they serve, and how the chairman is designated by the ap• they are qualified for office and com• pointing authority, usually the governor pensated, all have an important bearing of the state. Seventeen of the toll agen• on the extent to which the public, acting cies studied are a part of the state high• through its political agencies of govern• way department, and the director or ment, is able to retain ultimate control commissioner of that organization is of the policy decisions and administra• responsible for administration of the tion of the toll authority's activities. toll facility. The remaining laws do not Data pertaining to the administrative specify how officers are to be selected. organization of the 85 toll agencies se• 4. Terms of Office, Quorum and Bond• lected for study in this report are ing Requirements. In 65 of the 85 laws given in Table 2, Appendix A. noted in Table 2, terms of office for the 1. Size of governing bodies. In 63 of toll agency's governing body are specif• the 85 toll agencies studied the govern• ically prescribed. In 18 cases the pre• ing bodies are commissions composed scribed terms are 6 years; in 21 cases, of from 2 to 7 members. Fifteen of the 4 years; in 13 cases, 10 years; in 5 remaining agencies have commissions of cases, 8 years; in 3 cases, 5 years; in 3 larger size, ranging up to 11 members, cases, 3 years; and in 2 cases, 9 years. and 5 of the remainder have a single In 11 instances members serve "while in commissioner to direct the agency's office." Almost without exception these activities. All instances where a single terms are staggered to assure continuity commissioner is responsible for admin• in the agency's administration. istration of a toll authority, involved sit• In 63 cases, the quorum necessary for uations where a bridge or turnpike was the governing body of the agency to administered by a state highway de• transact business is prescribed by the partment (Connecticut, Delaware, Ken• law. Customarily this provision re• tucky) . quires one member more than half the 2. Appointment of membership of membership, stating the requirement governing body. Table 2 shows five in this way or else merely defining a types of procedure for appointment of quorum as a majority of the members. members of the governing bodies of the In 45 cases, state law directs that cer• toll facilities studied. These are (1) tain persons involved in the administra• appointment by the governor of mem• tion of toll agencies file bonds for the bers in part from private life and in indemnity of the agency. Of the provi• part from officials of state executive or sions dealing with bonding, 36 require administrative agencies; (2) appoint• members of the agency's governing ment by the governor of all members body to be covered, 28 require bonds for from private life with certain qualifi• "officers," 5 require bonds for contrac• cations for eligibility; (3) legislative tors, and 3 require bonds for "employ• designation of certam state officials as ees." The usual minimum limit of constituting the governing body; (4) bonds for members is $25,000, and for legislative delegation of appointment the secretary and treasurer, $50,000. power to certain state or local officials; Statutory bonding requirements for and (5) selection of members by elec• contractors do not specify any minimum tion as prescribed by statute. amount except in the case of the Loui- ORGANIZATION OF TOLL AUTHORITIES 27

Reminders of the important role played by bridges in development of integrated rural road systems may still be seen today.

siana law which prescribes bond of $50,- Commission and the New York Thruway 000. Authority provides annual salaries of $15,000 and $19,000, respectively, for the 5. Compensation. In the great major• chairmen, and $13,000 and $17,000, re• ity of cases, members of the governing spectively, for members of the commis• bodies of toll agencies receive no salary sion (Purdon's Pa. Stats. Ann. tit. 36, compensation for their service in of• §665a; McKinney's Consol. Laws N.Y. fice. Customarily per diem allowances Ann., Bk. 42, §352). and reimbursement of expenses are provided. There are, however, several Members of the governing bodies of notable exceptions to this pattern (Ta• toll agencies have been considered ble 2). By statute the chairman of the "public oflficers" insofar as compensa• Florida State Turnpike Authority re• tion for performance of their duties is ceives a salary of $12,000 per year (Fla. concerned. Thus, in Delatvare River Stats., 1957, §340.05). By statute, also, Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. Car• the chairman of the Illinois State Toll ver, 399 Pa. 545, 160 A.2d 425 (1960), Commission receives a salary of $12,- the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania per• 000 annually, and commission members mitted the Commission to recover in an receive $10,000 (Smith-Hurd 111. Ann. action of assumpsit a sum previously Stats., c. 121, §314a29). Similar salar• paid a commission member for extra ies are provided for the chairman and services performed by him. As a "public members of the Massachusetts Turn• officer," the court said, the member pike Authority (Mass. Acts & Resolves, was not entitled to compensation un• 1952, c. 354; 1958, c. 598). Legislation less authorized by statute, ordinance or creating the Pennsylvania Turnpike specific agreement. POWERS AND DUTIES

Legislative provisions relating to the toll agencies has adhered to the tradi• powers and duties of toll agencies are tional rule that even when the power summarized in Table 3, Appendix A. has been expressly granted, the grant Twenty-two specific powers and duties itself and its extent will be construed are used as a basis for comparison and strictly against the grantee where it is analysis of selected laws. Some of these challenged.-** Such strict construction powers and duties have already been of the statutory is illustrated by the lan• noted in general discussion of the scope guage of the Ohio Supreme Court in of toll agencies' authority. In other in• Ellis V. Ohio Turnpike Commission, stances the categories of comparison holding that the turnpike's statutory au• relate to specific aspects of delegated thority to acquire private property by powers or duties deemed necessary for condemnation did not include acquisi• sound administration and control of toll tions to prohibit or regulate outdoor activities. The following comments are advertising on adjacent land of the same not intended to provide comprehensive landowner. The court said: analysis of the data in Table 3; but True, Section 5537.23, Revised Code, rather to suggest patterns that may be states that the Turnpike Act, being discerned from comparison of these necessary for the welfare of the state data and to furnish some perspective and its inhabitants, shall be liberally for evaluation of the application that construed to effect the purposes there• of, but to what does a liberal con• has been given to these laws. struction extend? Undoubtedly, such liberal construction pertains to the establishment of turnpikes and their ACQUISITION OP PROPERTY BY facilities, but we do not believe it can EMINENT DOMAIN reasonably be said to comprehend the appropriation of lands and the uses The propriety of delegating eminent thereof such as are involved here which domain authority to toll agencies was are not necessary in the construction established early in United States his• and operation of a turnpike proper."' tory." Thus all states make the power The line of distinction between situa• of eminent domain available to the toll tions which "pertain to the establish• agencies created by state law, and in ment" of toll facilities and those which the vast majority of cases the toll agen• do not is, necessarily, one that must be cies are authorized to exercise this pow• drawn as successive cases arise, and so er directly and at their own discretion. may not be stated as an absolute mat• In most cases, also, the statutory dele• ter. Proceeding in this fashion, there• gation speaks in general terms, leaving fore, courts have held that the delegated the toll agency to look to the same pro• power of eminent domain may be used cedure used in condemnation of land by toll agencies to provide roads sepa• for public highway rights-of-way to rate from a turnpike in order to reroute provide the guidance necessary to imple• traffic,*' to condemn temporary ease- ment the grant. «1 NICHOLS, EMINENT DOMAIN (3d ed.) §3 213 [1]. Judicial interpretation of statutory * Ellis V. Ohio Turnpike Ckimmission, 162 Ohio St. 86, 120 NE. 2d 719 at 724 (1964). Judicial doctrine is grants of eminent domain powers to uncertain, however, as to whether the necessity for Congressional consent to interstate compacts may be used to limit new proposed uses of eminent domain by "BreckbiU v Lancaster Turnpike Co., 3 Dallas (Pa.) agencies of such compacts. Tobin v. United States, 306 496 (1799) As to recent turnpikes, see- State ex rel F.2d 270, cert. den. 371 U.S 902 (1961). As to possible Allen V. Ferguson, 155 Ohio St. 26, 97 N.E.2d 660 compact limitations on power to use eminent domain for (1951), state ex rel Ohio Turnpike Commission v. acquisition of land for construction of a "world trade Allen, 158 Ohio St. 168, 107 N.E.2d 345 (1952), cert. center," a facility which would be almost entirely revenue d«n. 344 U.S. 865, (1952). Application of Oklahoma producing, see Courtesy Sandwich Shop Inc v. Port of Turnpike Authority, 203 Okla 335, 221 P.2d 795 (1960), New York Authority,—U.S—(1963). State ex rel Fatzer v Kansas Turnpike Authority, 176 •"New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Jersey City, 36 Kan 683, 273 P 2d 198 (1954) N.J. 232, 177 A.2d 639 (1962). 28 POWERS AND DUTIES 29

ments for diversion of streams,** to in New York before that agency may condemn land adjacent to the highway condemn land owned by such local gov• right-of-way for automotive service and ernments (McKinney's Consol. Laws, restaurant facilities to be operated by N.Y., Bk. 24, §§450-471). private enterprise,*^ and, by decisions Within the limitations imposed on the as to route location, to determine permissible scope of their eminent do• what land shall be subjected to con- main powers, toll agencies generally demnation.'o may proceed in the same way that the Limitations or conditions upon emi• state's highway or public works agen• nent domain powers as set forth in the cies may." toll agency's basic authorization are essential elements of jurisdiction and RIGHT OP IMMEDIATE POSSESSION must be complied with in any condem• nation proceeding. Illustrative of such Where land acquisition is carried out limitations are the provisions of Kansas through judicial proceedings the time and New Jersey law restricting turn• when a condemnor may actually enter pike agencies' use of eminent domain into possession of the land in question to private property (Kan. R. S., 1961, is considered arf important matter." In §68-2006; N.J.S.A., §27:23-5), and the case of acquisition for toll facility of Oklahoma law permitting only sur• construction the condemnor's need for face rights to be condemned by toll early right of possession is sharpened agencies (Okla. Stats. Ann., 1962, tit. by the fact that interest is accruing on 69, §658). Texas law limits turnpike the revenue bonds which have been use of eminent domain to acquisition sold to finance the project. Table 3 notes of existing roads and land for new right- 26 instances of legislation specifically of-way (Vernon's Tex. Civ. Stats., art. conferring upon toll agencies the right 6674V, §5). Most toll agencies are au• of entry an(i possession prior to final thorized to carry out condemnation in determination of the award of compen• their own right and name, with the pro• sation in condemnation proceedings. In viso that they are subject to the same several other instances early entry is procedure and restrictions applicable to possible because the state highway the state highway department in such agency performs the toll agency's con• matters {e.g. Burns' Ind. Stats. Ann., demnation, or because of statutory §36-3208). In some cases, however, declarations that toll agencies may ac• permission of the state highway de• quire right-of-way "in the same man• partment must be obtained before land ner" as the state. In 12 states, however, for toll roads or bridges may be ac• the right of accelerated entry and pos• quired in this way (Burns' Ind, Stats. session is specifically denied to toll Ann., §36-3007a), and in a few in• agencies. stances condemnation proceedings on Where accelerated possession is al• behalf of the toll agency must by law be lowed various points in the condem• initiated and carried out by the state nation proceedings have been desig• highway department itself (Calif. Sts. nated as the time when possession may & Hwys. Code, §§30150,30403; McKin- be taken by 'the condemnor. In this ney's Consol. Laws N. Y., Bk. 42, §529; respect the rule for toll agencies fol• Wash. R.C., §47.56.090). Specific con• lows that applied to state highway de- sent of local governmental units must °' Campbell v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, be obtained by the thruway authority 183 Ark 780, 38 S.W. 2d 753 (1931), Smith v. Kansa> Turnpike Authority, 183 Kan. 158, 326 P 2d 63 (1958), Tinberg v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 181 Kan. 139, Koch V. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 208 Okla. 310 P2d 217 (1957), People v Illinois State Toll High• 556, 257 P.2d 790 (1953) way Commission, 3 III 2d 218, 120 N E.2d 35 (1954); Illinois State Toll Highway Commission v. Eden Applications of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 277 P.2d Cemeteiy Association, 16 111 2d 539, 158 N.E 2d 766 176 (Okla. 1954) (1959) ^ Time of possession is discussed in detail in HRB "City of Newark v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Special Report 33, "Condemnation of Property for High• 7 NJ. 377, 81 A.2d 705 (1951), way Purposes." Part 2, pp, 19-43 (1968). 30 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES partment, and thus may be either at the forbids toll agencies from advance and moment when proceedings are com• excess condemnation. menced or at a subsequent time when a deposit equal to the appraised price of SALE OR LEASE OF UNNEEDED LAND the land in question is deposited with the court.^^ Somewhat more flexibility appears to be provided for dealing with the situa• tion in which land lawfully acquired by EXCESS CONDEMNATION toll agencies is no longer needed for toll The attempt to condemn more land facility operations. In some states, also, than is needed immediately for right-of- operating toll facilities, once construc• way use frequently has resulted in the ted, may be sold or leased to state bridge condemnor's jurisdiction being chal• or highway agencies.'^ Table 3 indi• lenged on grounds that he is exceeding cates that 25 of the agencies listed are his statutory power or that he is mis• authorized to lease or sell unneeded land using it by acquiring land without de• and use whatever money is recovered voting it to a public purpose. The from such transactions. In states where merits of both sides of this policy con• excess condemnation is allowed this troversy are familiar. In favor of lim• legislation complements the toll agency's iting acquisition to the measure of im• power to reserve land for future needs mediate need is the traditional rule of and thereafter dispose of portions found statutory construction that eminent to be unneeded. The ultimate rationale domain power should be strictly con• of these laws is, however, deeper. It strued lest the sovereign extend its use recognizes that initial planning of proj• to the point where unnecessary private ects as vast and complex as modern hardship results. In favor of a liberal toll facilities is inevitably somewhat in• policy of acquisition is the recognized exact, and that legal means for disposal need of highway agencies to secure land of unneeded land serves a legitimate for foreseeable future expansion so that and useful purpose not inconsistent with planning and programing may go for• the general policy against excess con• ward with certainty in advance of demnation. actual construction. Resolution of the controversy created ROUTE LOCATION by these opposing pressures has been re• Legislation authorizing establishment garded as a policy question for the legis• of toll facilities must indicate where latures, and relatively few courts have such facilities are to be located, but sought to deal with it through interpre• necessarily speaks in general terms tation of general delegations of the emi• since detailed description of the loca• nent domain power. Where statutes tion is too complex a matter to be un• have specifically authorized condemna• dertaken in statutory drafting. Turn• tion in excess of immediate need, the pike legislation typically speaks in terms tendency has been to accept the legisla• of the terminal points contemplated. ture's decision of the matter and uphold For example, Florida legislation author• the condemnor's power.'* Table 3 izes the Ocean Highway and Port shows, however, that only 13 of the 85 Authority to construct a toll road "from toll agencies listed have this power, and Fernandina Beach, Nassau County, in several states (California, Indiana northerly to Brunswick, Georgia" (Fla. and Oklahoma) the law specifically Laws, 1941, c, 2418). In other instances mileage has been included, as in the Ar• " E.g, Kowhuff v Kansas Turnpike Authority, 182 Kan. 748, 324 P.2d 147 (1958); Oklahoma Turnpike kansas law authorizing "a 15 mile toll Authority v. Byrum, 206 Okla. 541, 244 P 2d 1145 (1952) E.g., New Jersey Turnpike Authority v Washington °' state V Florida State Improvement Commission. 159 Mercer County, 16 N.J 38, 106 A 2d 4 (1954). Fla 338, 31 So.2d 548 (1947). POWERS AND DUTIES 31 gravel highway from a point near Snow lic control of the decision-making proc• Lake to a point near Watson, both in ess have been provided in the legislation Aisha County" (Ark. Acts, 1947, c. summarized in Table 3. In a few in• 345), Where the intention of the legisla• stances control of the location of the fa• ture is to delegate power of broader cilities to be constructed is retained en• scope the route locations may be omitted tirely by the state legislature or the altogether. Thus the statute establishing state highway department particularly the Illinois' State Toll Highway Com• in the case of the Massachusetts mission speaks only of "a system of toll Turnpike."'" A more common practice of highways within and through Illinois" the states is to permit the toll agency (Smith-Hurd 111. Ann. Stats, c. 121, to designate locations with the approval §314a28). of the state highway department, the Legislation authorizing toll bridges, governor or both." In several states tunnels and ferries follows this same locations are determined by "agreement general pattern. Thus legislation estab• with" designated state or Federal agen• cies.'" And in still others the toll agency lishing the International Bridge Author• is directed to locate its facilities with ity of Michigan speaks of the construc• the assistance of certain public or pro• tion of a "tunnel or bridge from the fessional agencies.''*' upper peninsula of Michigan to the province of Ontario, Canada" (Mich. In performing the various formal Stats. Ann., §9.1331(1) et seq.). Where steps required by law for the official advance engineering studies permit designation of routes, toll agencies ap• more precise description, legislation pear to occupy the same position as the sometimes takes advantage of this fact. states' official highway agencies. Thus A California statute illustrates this ap• it has been held that the New Jersey proach in authorizing "an additional toll Highway Authority is not subject to lo• Bay highway crossing (rapid transit cal zoning ordinances in planning areas tube or other) from between Howard and for motorist services adjacent to its Jackson streets in San Francisco to turnpike.''" Southern Pacific mole in Almeda coun• And, in matters relating to procedure ty" (Calif. Sts. & Hwys. Code, §30771). generally, the courts have refused to The problem of describing facilities in interfere with the discretionary actions precise terms has, of course, been sim• of toll agencies within the scope of their plest where legislation authorizes toll powers unless fraud, bad faith, corrup• agencies to assume control of existing tion, manifest oppression, or clear abuse roads, bridges or tunnels. However, of discretion is shown."^ since the purpose of such legislation •* See legislation m Table 3 relatinB to the Connecticut normally is to provide means for recon• Turnpike. New York State Thruway, and Cape May structing or expanding these existing (N J ) parkway and feriy. See data in Table 3 reUtirK to Georgia, Indiana, facilities the legislative language is Kanbas, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, likely to leave room for some discretion Rhode Island, Texas, Vireinia and West Virginia ^''California (agieement with the Depaitment of Public by the toll agency in the location of the Woiks), Colorado (agreement with the US. Buieau of Public Roads, the state highway commission and gover• facilities to be constructed. nor), and Kentucky (agreement with the state highway depaitment) ™ Alabama (the state highway depaitment), Coloiado Final determination of the location of (chief engineer of the state highway department) , Con• necticut (in consultation with local planning boaids, toll facilities within the areas described state highway commisaionei and traffic engineeis) , in the statutes is, in most instances left Michigan (consulting engineers) '"Town of Bloomfield v. New Jeisey Highway to the governing body of the toll agency Authoiity, 18 N J 237, 113 A 2d 658 (1955) '•'City of Newark v New Jersey Turnpike Authoiity, itself. Since these decisions are likely 7 NJ 377, 81 A 2d 705 (1951) See also Combs v Illinois State Toll Highway Commission, 128 K Supp to directly affect other public facilities 30.) (1955), denying injunction to pievent defendants use of a route that would prevent Illinois toll load from or other community interests, however, connecting with Indiana toll load system at the state line Compare Rindge Co v. Los Angeles County, 262 various means for retaining some pub• U.S. 700 (1923). 32 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

1 """<*,

Toll agencies frequently must acquire extensive areas of land for approaches to bridge or tunnel structures. Dense development of urban land makes this acquisition costly both to the condemnor and to the community and encourages land use combinations wherever possible.

RELOCATION AND VACATION OF location, and 33 of the toll facility laws STATE HIGHWAYS (Table 3) contain authorization for such action. Since some state laws es• Closely related to the location of toll tablish special administrative or quasi- roads and bridges is the problem of re• judicial procedures for vacation of locating existing state highways to ac• streets, it is sometimes deemed neces• commodate construction or facilitate sary to specify compliance with these operation of the toll facilities. Table 3 procedures when toll agencies initiate indicates that 45 of the toll agencies street and road vacations (Indiana, have power by law to relocate and re• Ohio, West Virginia). construct existing state highways to the extent needed for proper coordination with new toll facilities. Generally this CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE process is left entirely to the toll agency. In Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Penn• Control of the construction and main• sylvania, however, such relocation is tenance of toll facilities is, in 81 of the made subject to approval by the state 85 examples (Table 3), delegated by law highway department, and in West Vir• to the toll agency with no qualifications ginia it is requirecl that the state's or limitations. These laws have been highway agency actually carry out the construed as imposing positive duties on relocation at the toll agency's request. toll agencies to maintain their facilities in a safe condition."^ Vacation of the local streets and McCabe v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 36 N.J. roads ig sometimes preferrable to re• 26, 170 A.2d 810 (1961). POWERS AND DUTIES 33

Where sole responsibility and discre• that 5 days notice must be given to tion for construction and maintenance enter railroad property. is not reposed in the toll agency, various special arrangements have been estab• CONTROL OF ACCESS lished. In Montana and Washington the state director of highways and chief Control of highway access is an es• engineer, respectively, are directed to sential feature of toll road design, and construct and maintain the toll facilities serves the dual purpose of expediting which are created (Mont. R.C. 1947, traffic flow and preventing entry or §32-1912; Wash. R.C, §47.56.036). exit from the road except at authorized points or toll gates. Yet, because toll Legislation relating to the Pennsylvania facilities have the legal status of public Turnpike provides that construction and highways, circumstances may arise maintenance shall be performed by the where abutting landowners' rights of state highway department under the access to the public highway are im• direction of the turnpike commission. paired. A lawful basis for the toll Unusual situations may also arise where agency to control access to the highway toll agencies are authorized to assume is necessary to avoid or resolve such responsibility for partially constructed questions. facilities and therefore assume control of construction and maintenance (Bald• Early nineteenth century turnpike win's Ohio R.C. §5593.08). laws imposed penalties for evasion of tolls or the opening of private access to detour around toll gates,"' and such laws sufficed for the purposes of those times. ENTRY ON LAND FOR SURVEY Toll roads of the present era, however, The right to enter and traverse priv• systematically acquire private rights of ate property is a necessity in connection access to the highway when the right- with various aspects of planning, locat• of-way itself is acquired, and protect ing and designing toll facilities. Nor• this right-of-way from trespassory en• try and unauthorized exit by fences, mally the consent of the landowner is ditches and other barriers along the readily obtainable and, when given, margins. such consent provides a basis for law• ful entry and performance of survey It is arguable that the power of a toll operations. Where consent is not readily road agency to regulate entry and exit obtainable because of absentee owner• from its highway may be based on state ship of the land in question or other laws providing generally for control reasons, undesirable delay in the toll of access to the public highway system. Equally arguable is the proposition that facilities preliminary engineering may power to control access is implicit in a occur. To avoid such situations 54 of general authorization to establish a toll the state laws (Table 3) specifically expressway, since access control is an authorize the toll agencies involved to inherent feature of expressway design. enter private property for the purpose In preference to relying on such theo• of making surveys. Typically the ries, however, 38 of the toll agencies scope of this authorization is general, (Table 3) have been given specific although in a few instances qualifica• authority to control access to the toll tions are expressed as to the type of facility and to its entry and exit ramps. surveys to be conducted or notice to be These authorizations are general in furnished to the landowners. For ex• their terms, and only in Connecticut is ample, a Colorado law limits the right this power made subject to the approval to entry for conducting "engineering of the state highway commissioner. surveys," and an Indiana law requires "'See DUBRE^BEI«iER, TURNPIKES (Valdosta 1931). 34 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

CONTROL OF PUBLIC UTILITIES procedure to be followed. Thus Con• ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY necticut law provides that the rates for toll facilities administered by the state Where public utilities are permitted may be fixed either by the state highway to occupy the right-of-way of turnpikes commission or by direction of the legis• or other property of toll agencies situa• lature with notice to the bondholders. tions may arise in which these fixtures The discretion of the Greater Hartford must be moved to accommodate con• (Conn.) Bridge Authority is by law struction of toll facilities. Sixty-two of subject to agreement with the Author• the toll agencies are empowered by ity's bondholders. The statute creating statute to control the location, installa• the Jacksonville (Fla.) Expressway tion and relocation of public utilities on Authority provides that the Authority's their pi'operty. In general, this legisla• power to fix tolls may either be exer• tion follows a pattern of providing the cised directly or delegated and assigned toll agency authority to carry on con• to the State Road Department. Rates struction of its project without interfer• of toll for the Illinois State Toll High• ence from existing public utilities on its way Commission must, by law, be based property. In some instances this author• on semiannual estimates of anticipated ity has been coupled with a require• revenue. Kansas law relating to tolls ment that the toll agency assume cer• on interstate bridges specifies that rates tain responsibilities for the expenses for fixed by the toll agency are subject to relocation of utilities caused by toll reduction by Federal law. The Kentucky facility construction {E.g., N.J.S.A., Turnpike Authority is authorized to §27:23-6; McKinney's Consol. Laws, surrender its power over toll rates to N.Y., Bk. 42 §358). the state highway department if it should so desire. In New Hampshire ESTABLISHMENT OF TOLLS rates for charges on toll facilities oper• ated by the state are subject to approval The function of fixing the rates of by the Governor and council. Ohio toll toll charges is critical in the successful bridge agencies must comply with Fed• operation of a toll facility and through• eral bridge law or state public utility out the history of toll agencies in the laws in fixing toll rates. And in Wash• United States legislation has recognized ington State the toll bridge authority this fact by surrounding the toll agen• is required to justify changes of toll cies' discretion with safeguards. Nine• rates by engineering studies before teenth century toll bridge and turnpike promulgating them. laws showed concern for the protection Legislative limitations have, in a few of investors in toll company stocks and instances, contained absolute limits on bonds, and often included extensive toll rates and exceptions for certain regulation of the processes of fixing classes of roads and users. Thus New toll rates and using toll revenues. As York law prescribes maximum charge corporation law and practice became of 25 cents for private passenger cars more mature many of these early using the Taconic State Parkway Sys• dangers disappeared, and no longer need tem, and permits increase of tolls by the concern state legislatures. Typically, Jones Beach Parkway Authority and therefore, modern legislation (Table 3) the New York State Bridge Authority delegates broad discretion to the gov• only according to a statutory formula. erning bodies of toll agencies in the The State Toll Bridge Authority Act of matter of determining and levying toll Georgia requires that toll rates favor charges. daily users of its facilities. Other states Where conditions are imposed by law exempt from toll charges public vehicles on the discretion of the toll agency, and members of the state militia travel• such conditions normally apply to the ing on official duty {e.g., Ann. Code of POWERS AND DUTIES

Elevated roadways expedite vehicular traffic from interregional expressways into centers of metropolitan areas while permitting utilization of waterways, railroads, and local street systems to serve the industry located in the metropolitan fringe.

Md., art. 65, §54). In Louisiana the money advanced from various public power to levy tolls on feeder roads serv• funds, or financing other projects of the ing toll facilities is specifically denied toll agency. Authority to continue tolls by law, but in New Jersey it is speci• to finance other projects makes pos• fically granted with respect to feeder sible so-called "pooling" arrangements roads up to 6 miles from the main toll under which bondholders are secured by facility. pledging the revenue from several toll facilities in support of one which might CONTINUATION OF TOLLS AFTER otherwise be unable to obtain financing BOND RETIREMENT or unable to obtain favorable rates of interest. Major issues of public policy are in• The decision as to whether tolls shall volved in the question of whether toll or shall not be continued is generally agencies may continue to levy tolls left to the governing body of the toll after the indebtedness incurred to con• agency, but in a few instances ap• struct a toll facility is paid, and 60 of proval for continuation of tolls must be the 85 laws (Table 3) contain some pro• secured from other state agencies. Thus vision for dealing with this question. the decision to continue tolls on facili• In 25 cases, continuation of toll charges ties operated by the Connecticut high• after retirement of the toll facility's way commissioner must come from the bonded debt is specifically prohibited. state legislature. In 35 cases, continuation of toll charges is permitted either with no limitations or for certain stated purposes. Most of INCORPORATION OF TOLL FACILITIES INTO the instances in which toll charges are THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM allowed to continue specify that it shall To some extent the need for continu• be for the purpose of meeting costs of ing toll charges after retirement of the maintenance and operations, repaying indebtedness incurred for construction 36 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES is lessened by provisions for incorporat• devote Federal-aid funds to toll proj• ing toll facilities into the state highway ects. Similarly toll agencies must system. In 57 of the laws (Table 3) strictly comply with the terms on which there is authority for toll facilities to they have received their delegated be incorporated into the state highway powers, but must also observe the terms system, and so become a legal responsi• of bond agreements made in connection bility of the state, once the toll agency's with their activities. Also, the special boncied debt is paid. Aside from the nature of Federal aid calls for use of requirement that such facilities be free special procedures which must be pro• of debt, few prerequisites are prescribed vided for by statute. for approval of such transfers of re• Most of the statutory provisions on sponsibility. The principal requirement Federal aid (Table 3) relate to the (in 24 of the laws) is that the facility authority of toll agencies to accept and must be in good condition, use Federal-aid funds. The most fre• quent limitation provides that the gov• FEDERAL AID ernor approve acceptance of Federal-aid funds for use in toll projects. Proce• The circumstances in which Federal dural matters typically are not pre• aid may be used for the construction scribed by statute but are set forth in of toll roads and bridges have been agreements between the state highway summarized elsewhere in this report. department (or other appropriate agen• These provisions constitute basic limita• cies) and the toll agency. These agree• tions on the use of Federal aid and may ments and pertinent state legislation only be modified by an act of Congress. become, in turn, the supporting evidence In addition, the fact that funds provided of the state's intention to comply with for under the Federal-Aid Highway the terms of Federal-aid laws when the Acts are available only for reimburse• agreements directly involving the grant ment of state highway department ex• of Federal aid are made between the penditures means that toll road agen• state and the Federal government. cies presently have no legal standing to negotiate directly with the Federal Government for grants-in-aid." Thus, INCORPORATION OF STATE HIGHWAYS at first impression, it may appear to be INTO TOLL PROJECTS unusual that 53 of the 85 examples of The possibility that existing segments the state legislation contain provisions of state highways may be incorporated relating to the use of Federal aid in into and become part of toll facilities is connection with the toll facility in ques• limited since, without specific Congres• tion. sional approval, it cannot apply to any This body of law relating to use of road or street in which Federal-aid Federal aid is almost entirely attribut• highway funds have participated."' And able to other constitutional and statu• even with Congressional consent a speci• tory provisions of the state itself relat• fic agreement for repayment of the ing to Federal aid, and the authority of Federal-aid funds involved is normally the state highway agency and toll required. One example of Congressional agency. For example, the state highway approval may be seen in the Federal-Aid agency exercises delegated powers, and Highway Act of 1959. Here land ini• thus may need specific authorization to tially purchased with Federal-aid funds as right-of-way for a free road was "Prior to enactment ot the present law a few in• stances of direct use of Federal aid to assist toll projects desired for use by the New Jersey Turn• did occur For example, under the National Recovery Act in the 19S0's Federal-aid grants were made through pike Authority, In authorizing incor• the Works Progress Administration to assist in the con• struction and reconstruction of certain toll bridges Also poration of this right-of-way into the during the period 1938-1947 instances occurred in which certain toll bridges were converted into free facilities by «See Title 23, US Code, 'Highways," §301, with use of Federal funds to retire bonded indebtedness. exceptions noted in §129. POWERS AND DUTIES 37 turnpike Congress provided for transfer lishing a toll facility. A survey (Table of future allocations of highway funds 3 reveals, however, that only in a rela• to repay the Federal aid involved. tively few instances have toll agencies The prohibition against use of Fed• been left in a position where their legal eral-aid funds for toll facilities extends authorization regarding contracts must only to cases where funds have actually be based on implications. In 78 of the 85 been expended. Therefore segments of cases studied the toll agencies' powers the state highway system or the state's and procedures regarding contracts are Federal-aid highway system, with re• subject to some type of provision in the spect to which no Federal-aid funds state law. have been used, may be incorporated into toll facilities if this is deemed to be Most of these provisions relate to the in the public interest and in accordance scope of the toll agency's contractual with state law. power, indicating with what parties, or with respect to what matters contracts With respect to this body of state law, can lawfully be made."' In certain in• Table 3 gives 21 instances in which stances the toll agency's contractual toll agencies are authorized to incor• authority is limited to construction porate state highways into toll projects. (Delaware), or construction approved Understandably, these authorizations by the state highway department (New are frequently subject to various limita• York, Pennsylvania). In some instances tions for the protection of the public the power to enter into contracts has interest in its highway system. Most been specified in terms of the parties frequently it is required that the state thereto. Typically these situations have highway department or the governor involved particular projects or unusual approve the transfer. Maryland law types of agreements. Thus New Jersey permits incorporation of segments of law authorizes its toll road agency to the state highways into toll projects make agreements with the State of but requires that the project shall be• Delaware relating to the Cape May- long to the state. Colorado and Con• Lewes ferry, and Kentucky law author• necticut laws provide that in the event izes its cities to make contracts with of such action the project is considered other states regarding interstate a part of the state highway system. bridges. California law establishing the Laws authorizing incorporation of state's toll bridge authority permits the state highways into toll facilities should authority to contract with the United be read in conjunction with other pro• States or other agencies for loans. The visions of the state law relating to the Colorado state highway department is locations of state highways and toll authorized by statute to enter into con• facilities. These often control the legal tracts with the United States, and other authority and procedure for actually states relating to toll turnpikes in areas designating routes to be transferred outside incorporated municipalities. In from one system to another. several instances provision is made for contractual agreements between the toll POWER TO CONTRACT agency and the agencies, political sub• divisions or incorporated municipalities Legal capacity to enter into, perform, of the state. and compel performance of contracts is essential to implementation of most of A few of the statutes noted deny the the powers and duties vested in corpora• toll agency the power to enter into con• tions. Arguably, therefore, such capa• tracts in its own right, and provide city might be regarded as inherent in a either that the agency's contracts be toll agency's corporate form of organ• '* E.o, Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning Con• ization, and implicit in the general tractors' Ass'n V. New York State Thruway Authority, grant of this status in legislation estab• 5 NY. 2d 420, 158 N E 2d 238 (1959), Cahfornia Toll Bridge Authority v. Kelly, 218 Cal, 7, 21 P.2d 425 (1933). 38 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

Turnpikes serving interregional traffic frequently provide sites for concessionaires to operate facilities furnishing food, fuel, and automotive services to travelers. Where these facilities are not allowed to occupy sites within the right-of-way, planning to assure that they are available in convenient locations near interchanges is important. made in the name and on behalf of the Since not all toll agencies need or de• state (Maryland, New Hampshire) or sire extensive staffs of technical per• designated the state highway depart• sonnel, the occasional use of consultants ment as the agency to contract for con• meets their need for these services. In struction of the toll facility (Montana). 72 of the 85 cases (Table 3), toll Various aspects of contract procedure agencies are authorized by law to em• are subject to special regulation in cer• ploy consultants. In the remainder, the tain states. For example, California law is either silent on this matter or else law requires compliance with the State expresses the policy that the state high• Contract Act. Georgia law requires that way department shall provide needed construction contracts of the state toll professional and technical assistance bridge authority be awarded only on (e.g., California). Washington state competitive bids on plans approved by law prohibits employment of consult• the state highway department. Louisi• ants by toll agencies and requires use of ana law prescribes a 100 percent bond state professional engineering person• requirement for contracts of the state nel. Oklahoma authorizes use of con• expressway authority. sultants by toll agencies but declares that their use shall be held to a min• imum and reported to the legislature. AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY CONSULTANTS Procurement of technical engineering AUDITING AND REPORTING services is a matter of importance to toll agencies, and in many respects pre• In most matters of internal manage• sents special contractual problems. ment the state laws summarized in POWERS AND DUTIES 39

Table 3 leave wide discretion in the rant services through concessionaires, governing body of the toll agency. The while the Louisiana Expressway Au• functions of auditing and reporting are, thority is authorized to provide only however, not only matters of import• gasoline stations by this means. ance in internal management, but also The general policy favoring competi• essential to effective review of the tion and discouraging the creation of operations and policies of the authority monopolies of services needed by high• by responsible political agencies of the way users appears in the provisions of state. In Table 3, 33 state statutes direct several state laws. Alabama and Idaho toll agencies to submit periodic reports. laws require toll facilities to award Normally it is expected that these re• concession contracts by competitive bid• ports will be similar to the annual re• ding. Kansas law declares that promo• ports submitted by corporations under tion of competition and prevention of the terms of the state's corporation law, monopoly shall be the policy of the and held on file available for public Kansas Turnpike Authority. inspection. Several states require, The tax status of private concessions however, that toll agencies' reports shall on toll road right-of-way generally pre• be made to the legislature or the gov• sents a question that is governed by the ernor, or both. interpretation of each state's several tax Thirty-eight toll agencies are re• laws and the laws creating the toll road quired by law to submit annual audits to agency. Only in Oklahoma is there a the state, and in 5 cases the law requires specific provision stating that real and that the state auditor or another desig• personal property of concessionaires nated state official make the audit operating on a toll road (Oklahoma (Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Turnpike) is subject to taxation in the Rhode Island). Washington law pro• same manner as other privately owned vides that the books and records of its property. state toll bridge authority be open at The presence of highway user services all times for inspection by the author• on or adjacent to the right-of-way has ity's bondholders. not been regarded as preventing turn• pikes which are otherwise qualified from being incorporated into the National PRIVATE CONCESSIONS System of Interstate and Defense High• Turnpikes have relied on private con• ways. Application of the provision of cessions to furnish services needed by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, motorists during travel, and this activ• which specifies that standards for this ity has involved various special prob• system shall prohibit roadside business lems of planning, land acquisition and establishments on the right-of-way, is contracting. In 42 cases noted in Table limited to determinations regarding 3, legislation has been enacted to author• eligibility of projects for Federal-aid ize use of private concessions on toll funds. Thus this provision does not bar projects. Typically these laws have incorporation of existing toll roads dealt with the types of services to be which comply with the other criteria of provided. For example, the Maine Turn• the law."' pike Authority is authorized specifically to provide gasoline, repair and restau• "'Title 23, U.S Code, "Highways," §129 (b). Sec also Ibtd., ^111, FINANCING

If the term "financing" is used in its combination of factors has compelled broadest sense, contemplating the en• states to seek funds for toll facilties out• tire range of expenses involved in con• side the traditional scope of borrowing structing and operating a toll facility against their own public credit, and to and the entire range of ways and means provide the toll agency with power to used to meet these expenses, it is appar• borrow in its own right as an indepen• ent that modern toll agencies use a vast dent corporate body. and varied apparatus of legal and con• Judicial acceptance of this theory of tractual arrangements to carry out their independent borrowing status was financing functions. Income for meet• established in the 1930's by the decisions ing necessary expenses may be obtained in Tranter v. Allegheny County Author• in varying amounts and circumstances ity, 316 Pa. 65,173 Atl. 289 (1934), and from public funds (local, state or Fed• Robertson v. Zimmerman, 268, N.Y. 52, eral) through legislative appropriations, 196 N.E. 740 (1935). Subsequent deci• from rentals to public or private agen• sions provided precedents for use of in• cies, from licenses or other special fees, dependent bond financing even for non- and from loans. If, however, financing revenue producing facilities, and set a is used in a narrower sense, and limited pattern for expanded use of this type of to the ways and means used for secur• borrowing in states where financing ing the major investments needed to needs could not be met through normal build such costly facilities as turnpikes, public borrowing.The view that bridges and tunnels, the area of activity revenue bonds issued by toll agencies do is necessarily much more restricted not constitute "debts" of the state has since funds of this magnitude can only been applied even though state agencies be obtained through issuance of revenue and state funds are used in the opera• bonds secured by the pledge of tolls. The tion and maintenance of the toll facility, portion of the report that follows deals or the facility is leased to and thereafter with financing in this latter and re• operated by a state highway commission stricted sense. Thus Table 4, Appendix and rental paid from state motor fuel A, sets forth data pertaining to twenty tax funds.'" Illustrative of the extent features or aspects of the laws relating to which courts have permitted revenue to the issuance of revenue bonds by the bond financing to avoid constitutional toll agencies listed. limitations on public debt is the Mich• igan Supreme Court's decision in CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT LIMITATIONS Nichols V. WiUiams, 338 Mich. 617, 62 N.W.2d 103 (1954), which involved the The predominant role played by Mackinac Bridge Authority. The Bridge revenue bonds in toll facility financing Authority was created by the state to is chiefly attributable to constitutional carry out construction and operation of debt limitations which prevent states one of the world's longest bridges across and municipalities from pledging public credit in the amounts needed in toll "^The terms and rationale of constitutional debt limita• tions are discussed m CHERMAK, THE LAW or REVENUE facility construction. In addition, some BONDS (Washinerton 1954), p 85 et t,eq "1 See Shestack, J , "The Public Authority," 105 U. states prohibit subsidies or loans of Pa. L Rev. 553, 558-559 (1957) and cases cited theiein. credit to or m aid of private corpora• ™ California Toll Bridge Authority v. Wentworth, 212 Gal 298, 298 Pac 485 (1931), California Toll Biidee tions, and impose special limitations on Authority v. Kelly, 218 Cal 7, 21 P 2d 425 (1933), Scott V. Alabama State Bridge Corp., 233 Ala 12, 169 So 273 the terms of state debts or prescribe (1936), New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Parsons, 5 N.J. Super 596, 68 A.2d 580, modified 3 N.J 235. 69 special procedures for borrowing.^^ This A.2d 875 (1949). 40 FINANCING 41 the Straits of Mackinac, and was fund to be used as a guarantee for pay• authorized by statute to issue revenue ment of interest on turnpike bonds to bonds in an estimate amount of $100,- be issued in the future for construction 000,000. The Authority's steps to issue of additional turnpikes. In a closely these bonds were attacked as a violation divided decision, the court held that this of the state constitutional provision that allocation of motor fuel tax funds was the state cannot, without a vote of the not a permanent pledge of tax revenues people, incur indebtedness of more than but rather an apportionment of funds as $50,000,000 for the improvement of they actually accumulated. highways. The Michigan supreme court held that although the bridge authority was an agency of the state the constitu• BOND PROVISIONS tional limitation did not apply because Limits on Type and Amount of Issue both the bonds and the statute authoriz• ing their issuance specified that they The statutes summarized in Table 4 were to be revenue bonds and not gen• invariably include provisions prescrib• eral obligations of the state. The court ing how or when the power of the toll went on to uphold the validity of a agency to issue bonds shall be used. The statute which provided that if all the majority of cases provide that the time bonds were sold before a certain date and circumstances of bond issues shall the state would pay, by annual appro• be determined by the discretion of the priations from highway funds, the ex• toll agency, some statutes specifying penses of maintenance, operation and that the agency may issue bonds "from repair of the bridge. The bridge was by time to time" and others merely confer• law made a part of the state highway ring authorization to issue in general system, and all appropriations made terms. In other cases, however, limita• under this statutory authorization were tions on toll agencies' discretion on issu- to be repaid from toll revenue following mg bonds are implied in statutory pre• retirement of the bonds. The court ruled scription of the purposes for which bond that such a pledge of special funds did financing may be used, the procedure for not constitute indebtedness within the issuing bonds, or maximum amounts of meaning of the constitutional limitation. various types of debts that the agency Also, it said, since this pledge was relied may incur. upon by purchasers of the bonds, it was Examples of restrictive language re• in the nature of a contract between the lating to the purpose of the financing state and the bondholders which was are the statutory authorization of the binding upon future legislatures. Alabama Bridge Commission to issue State constitutional prohibitions bonds for projects connected with cer• against the creation of debts or obliga• tain bridges (Code of Ala. 1940, tit. 23, tions by the state for unauthorized pur• §§97-98), and the authorization of the poses have been examined in relation to Indiana Toll Road Commission to issue pledges of state tax revenue to secure bonds from time to time to reimburse toll agency bonds. The wide range of the Indiana interstate bridge fund or factual situations that may be imagined other state funds which have been used in connection with such legislation for the Commission's activities (Burns' makes generalized comment hazardous. Ind. Stats. Ann. §§ 36-3010a, 36-3013b). Illustrative of the type of question that Since the financing of toll facilities may arise, however, is the decision in frequently is a large, lengthy and com• Application of Oklahoma Turnpike plex process, and the need for working Authority, 348 P.2d 510 (Okla., 1960). funds to carry on preliminary develop• There legislation authorized apportion• mental activities is likely to be immedi• ment of taxes collected on motor fuel ate, means of obtaining interim or tem• consumed on several turnpikes to a trust porary financing are highly desirable. 42 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

All major toll agencies surveyed in pike Authority. The Georgia State Table 4 therefore have legal authority Bridge Authority Act specifies the bids to issue interim or temporary bonds in on bonds shall be competitive with connection with their activities. Such respect to the interest rate and that the temporary bonds are typically issued bond issuing agency shall accept the for short periods of time with provi• lowest responsible bid (Code of Ga. sion that they shall be exchanged for Ann. §§95-2315, 95-2413). In the case of equal numbers of the definitive bond the Wisconsin Turnpike Commission issue when that series ultimately be• the legislation creating the toll agency comes available. has no provision regarding interest, Implicit restrictions in procedural leaving the interest rate subject only to requirements typically arise from speci• the general legal limits on interest set fications that toll agency bond issues forth in state law. must be approved by the governor or In the remaining cases, interest rates that the bond declaration must be on toll agency bond are subject to maxi• signed by the state treasurer (Conn. mum limits specified in the agency's Gen. Stats. 1958, §§13-167, 13-178); or enabling legislation. These limits range by the state attorney general (Vernon's from 3 percent in one state to rates of Tex. Civ. Stats. 1948, art. 6795b). 5 and 6 percent in the majority of cases. The bond-issuing poAver of toll agen• cies may also be indirectly but never• Amortization Period theless significantly affected by statu• tory requirements which make the The attractiveness of bonds in the agencies' bonds more or less attractive in securities market frequently is in- the securities market. Such indirect in• fiuenced by the length of time they will fluences may be exerted by require• earn interest for their purchasers. In ments relating to interest rates, period practice, therefore, the period of amor• of amortization, restrictions on sale tization tends to be as long as permitted price, eligibility for purchase by public by law. In 50 of the 85 toll agency institutions, exemption of bonds from statutes (Table 4) specific limits are taxation, and the like. Provisions relat• imposed on the period of amortization ing to these and other conditions in the of the toll agency's bonds. For major terms of the bond are common in the bond issues these limits generally are cases summarized in Table 4. from 20 to 40 years, with no case of more than 50 years. For notes and minor bond issues the limits specified INTEREST RATES are from 3 to 5 years. In cases where Specification of maximum rates of no statutory maximum limit for amort• interest to be paid on toll agency bonds ization is prescribed, this period is de• is a common feature of state toll facility termined by the bond resolution and legislation. The relatively few toll agen• declaration of the issuing agency. A cies that are authorized to set interest singular exception appears in the 'Texas rates on their own bonds without refer• law governing financing of toll cause• ence to any maximum limits in• ways and bridges in certain Gulf Coast clude Maine-New Hampshire Interstate counties, which provides that bond Bridge Authority, the New Hampshire maturity dates shall be determined by and Connecticut state highway depart• the county's Commissioner's Court ments, the New York Thruway Author• (Vernon's Texas Civil Stats. §6795b). ity, New York State Bridge Authority, Jones Beach (N.Y.) Parkway Author• ity, Idaho Turnpike Control, Maine RESTRICTIONS ON SALE PRICE Turnpike Authority, Michigan Turn• The desire of investment houses to pike Authority, and New Jersey Turn• purchase large bond issues at a dis- FINANCING 43

Informational sign on Wilbur Cross Parkway, informing u sers of exits to parallel highways serving local areas, illus• trates signing importance. count is in apparent conflict with the hibits sale of municipal toll facility interest of the toll agency to obtain bonds at less than 92 cents on the dol• full value for the debt it incurs and the lar plus accrued interest (Iowa Code interest of the state legislature to see Ann, §383.10). More flexible procedure that public transportation facilities are for control of sale price is provided in not burdened with toll charges unneces• a few states by making sale prices sub• sarily. Notwithstanding the occasional ject to approval by the issuing agency possibility of savings when the cost of or by a judicial or executive authority. preliminary preparation of the bond Thus Texas requires approval of certain issue is undertaken by an investment county bond sales by the commissioner's house in return for an opportunity to court, and New Hampshire requires ap• purchase the issue at a discount price, proval by the governor and council most state toll agency statutes limit the (Vernon's Tex. Civ. Stats. 1948, §6795b; extent that bond sale prices may be N. H. Rev. Stats. Ann. §257:6). Both discounted. Typical of these restric• methods may be combined as illustrated tions is the provision relating to the by the statutory provision authorizing California Toll Bridge Authority that the Jones Beach (N.Y.) Parkway Au• its bonds may be sold below par value thority to sell bonds at the lowest inter• provided that the sale price shall yield est, or highest price, as the Authority the purchaser not more than 6 percent shall determine, but not for less than 98 interest per year according to a stand• percent of par value plus accrued ard table of bond values and interest interest. accrued to the date of delivery (Deer- ings' Calif. Sts. & Hwys., Code §30212). INVESTMENT BY PUBLIC Limitation of the sale discount by INSTITUTIONS reference to a maximum interest rate Fiduciary institutions (such as banks, appears to be the favored method of trust companies, insurance companies, controlling sale prices, but in a few in• savings and loan companies, investment stances price limits are stated in other companies, public bodies, and political terms. Iowa law, for example, pro• subdivisions and their agencies, operate 44 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES under various restrictions regarding in• Negotiability of Bonds vestment of their funds.^^ Generally Legislative declarations that the they may invest only when expressly bonds or certificates of indebtedness is• authorized and when necessary to carry sued by toll agencies shall have the legal on their functions. To permit wide in• status of negotiable instruments are vestment in the bonds of toll agencies, common features of the statutes (Table therefore, their governing laws cus• 4), and no instance is found in which tomarily declare that financial institu• such securities are specifically denied tions and fiduciaries are authorized to negotiability. There is, moreover, judi• purchase and hold the toll agency's cial precedent for the view that express bonds. In Table 4, 61 of the 85 exam• authorization to issue bonds includes ples of legislation contain such author• the authority to make them negotiable.'-' ization. The use of public money is treated similarly except in the Wash• Negotiability must, however, be con• ington statute prohibiting use of school ferred by inclusion in the bond itself of funds or motor vehicle tax funds for the language required by the state nego• purchase of bonds of the Washington tiable instruments law. The words of Toll Bridge Authority. negotiability must be selected with care so that references to the security agree• ment, provisions for payment from cer• Tax Exempt Status tain assets or revenue of the debtor, provision for redemption prior to State taxation may apply to various maturity, and recitals concerned with aspects of toll agency bonds, including numerous other collateral matters do income from interest, profits from sale, not introduce conditions which destroy or transfer of ownership as a gift or negotiability." In this regard it has bequest. Exemption of bonds from been said that "legislation could never some or all of these tax liabilities en• confer the facts of negotiability, but hances their attractiveness in the only the attributes of negotiability." '' securities market, and in the examples Accordingly, the fact that a bond re• (Table 4) almost all provide some cites that it is payable from the reve• degree of exemption. nues of a particular fund is not changed Tax liability is a matter covered by by making it negotiable, and does not the opinion of bond counsel in the pros• impose a fatal condition on the bond's pectus of the bond issue, and thus is obligation, for an example, see Gate addressed specifically to the circum• City Garage v. City of Jacksonville, 66 stances and character of each individual So.2d 653 (Fla. 1953). issue. Generalizations regarding the ap• Customarily toll facility legislation plication and scope of these laws thus does not qualify the negotiability ac• serve no purpose. Suffice to say, how• ever, the positions of the Attorney Gen• corded to toll agency bonds. In one in• eral of the United States, relating to the stance, however, the law creating the principle of the immunity of states and New York State Thruway Authority their instrumentalities from Federal specifies that the agency's bonds must tax laws, have not always coincided be registered. with the positions of the Attorneys '-Eo, Gaiter V Sutton, 120 US 517 (1886). See also General of the states regarding this the asseition that where the power to issue bonds does not specifically provide that the bonds be negotiBble, the point. The resulting body of state and issuing auency logically is expected to do what is neces• sary to secure a puichasei foi them Denver v. Home Federal court decisions on this subject Savings Bank. 236 US 101 (1914) make individual treatment of each case "As to impairment of the elements of negotiability, see BRANNAN, NEOOTIABIE INSTRUMENTS LAW (5th ed , 1932) mandatory. y • . ^ • Non-Negotiable Revenue Bond," 22 N.Y.SBA. 49 (1950), Pershing, J., "Revenue Bond Remedies," 22 Cornell L Q. 64 (1936). "See CHEBMAK, THE LAW OF REVENUE BONDS (Wdsh- "CHERMAK, THE LAW OP REVENUE BONDS (Washington ington 1954) pp 191-193 1954), p, 148. FINANCING 45

Pledges of State Credit specified by the law (Ga. Code Ann., §95-2627). The necessity of avoiding violation of state constitutional limitations on pub• lic debts has led almost without excep• PROTECTION OF BONDHOLDERS tion to the enactment of specific statu• Because large amounts of money are tory prohibitions against pledging the involved in toll facility revenue bond full faith and credit of the state as issues, and the full faith and credit of security for a toll agency's bonds. In the state may not be pledged directly certain instances these statutory pro• as security therefor, there has naturally hibitions have extended to the credit developed an extensive system of de• of municipal corporations as well as the vices to minimize the risk of financial state (Ky. Rev. Stats., §181.854; Fla. loss which purchasers of toll facility Laws, Extraordinary Session, 1949, c. bonds assume. Typically these provi• 26426; Iowa Code, 1958, §382.1). Where sions which protect the security of the the statutory prohibition does not speci• bondholder are found in covenants fically refer to the full faith and credit undertaken by the bond-issuing agency of the state, it may be implied in pro• and written into the bond agreement or hibitions against use of tax revenues to the bond itself, and in various limita• pay bonded debts (Kan. Gen. Stats., tions on the power of the bond-issuing 1949, §§10-1207, 13-14d08), or use of agency imposed by statute. Illustrative taxes to pay debts not authorized by the of the protective covenants which state constitution (Mich. Stats. Ann. normally appear in all revenue bonds §9.1361 (4)). are those relating to maintaining the Among the examples given in Table rates, fees or rentals charged for the 4, the legislation relating to the Con• service furnished by the toll agency. necticut and New Hampshire Turn• Illustrative of the type of bondholder pikes, all of which are toll facilities protective devices imposed by statute built and operated oy the state highway are the provisions relating to mortgag• commissioners, are the only cases m ing, sinking funds, assignment of which a specific authorization for pledg• revenue, and rights to redress. Table 4 ing the state's credit appears. (Conn. summarizes these latter provisions as Gen. Stats., 1958, §13-189; N. H. Rev. they appear in the legislation surveyed. Stats. Ann., §§256:5, 257:4). To what extent may the credit of the Impairment of Security state be pledged for obligations of the The statutes relating to the surveyed toll agency which are not considered toll agencies frequently require that the bonded debts ? The Georgia Rural Roads agencies' trust indenture or resolution Authority Act suggests an unusual form contain covenants against conveyance of indirect pledge. This law establishes or mortgage of property acting as an arrangement whereby the toll agency security for the agencies' bonds. Nor• may construct roads with funds ob• mally these prohibitions are recited in tained from revenue bonds and there• general terms, describing the property after lease its facilities to the state subject to the covenants variously as highway department for periods up to "any project or part thereof" (Alabama 50 years. With respect to the toll Turnpike Authority), "any of [the agency's bonds the law prohibits a Authority's] real estate, personal prop• pledge of the states' credit, but with erty, or franchises" (Florida Ocean respect to the rental charges under the Parkway and Port Authority), "any highway department's lease of the toll turnpike project" (Idaho Turnpike Con• agency's facilities, the state may pledge trol), or "any assets" (Louisiana its credit up to a maximum amount Bridge and Ferry Authority). Where 46 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES exceptions are made the steps required that bond proceeds and toll revenues for authorizing the mortgage or con• shall be held solely for the purposes veyance are invariably indicated and set forth in the toll agency's enabling become essential elements for the val• legislation and that bonds shall con• idity of the action. Thus, for example, tain guarantees that tolls will be col• the Florida Ocean Parkway and Port lected until maturity or payment of the Authority may mortgage or pledge its bonds (N. H. Rev. Stats. Ann., §§256:5; property only if authorized by election. 257:49). Under Iowa law, property of publicly owned interstate toll bridges may be Sinking Funds mortgaged or conveyed only if formally authorized by the local governing bodies Preservation of monies assigned to concerned (Code of Iowa 1958, §383.1). or earmarked for payment of revenue bonds pending the actual maturity of In accordance with normal revenue the bonds is customarily accomplished bond practice general covenants against by the use of sinking funds. Except in conveyances or mortgage of a toll rare cases, authorization for the toll agency's property may, if desired, in• agency to establish and maintain sink• clude a proviso that certain facilities ing funds for the benefit of its bonds may be sold or mortgaged if necessary is contained in the statutes in Table 4. to pay debt service and on condition Typically the statutory langauge is per• that the proceeds therefrom are applied missive in its character and general in to debt service. The inclusion of such its scope, allowing the toll agency dis• a proviso is naturally dependent on cretion to determine the details of the many circumstances affecting the mar• arrangement in its bond resolution or keting of the bonds in question, and its trust agreement. Occasionally, however, occasional appearance in the terms of statutes provide that the toll agency's trust indentures reflects the flexibility sinking fund shall be for the benefit of of the revenue bond as a financing de• all bonds without distinction or priority vice. among the various issues (e.g., Ann. Code of Md., art. 89B, §129; Del. Code ASSIGNMENT OF TOLLS AND REVENUE Ann., tit. 17, §§301-330). Toll agency trust indentures normally Sinking fund requirements of, toll extend additional protection to bond• agency legislation generally apply only holders by containing specific pledges of to income derived from the agency's toll income and other revenue to the toll facilities. Some instances are noted, service and payment of the agency's however, in which other revenue may bonds. Significantly, in most of the in• be directed into this protected status. stances in Table 4 assignment of toll Under Colorado law monies from the agency income is authorized by per• state highway fund may be placed in missive language, so that bond market• sinking funds for bonds issued to finance ing practices rather than the direct construction of toll tunnels (Colo. Rev. mandate of the legislature have been Stats. 1953, §120-8-2); under Kentucky responsible for the regularity with law motor fuel tax revenue may be used which such assignments appear. In a for bonds of state highway projects few cases, however, the language of the (Ky. Rev. Stats., §177.480); and under statutes specifically declares that the Maryland law excess toll revenue from toll agency's bonds shall be first liens on ferries may be diverted into sinking all revenues derived from the facilities funds for bridge and tunnel projects for which they were issued (e.g., In• (Ann. Code of Md., art 89B, §176). diana Toll Road Commission). Sub• In all cases where tax revenue may be stantially similar protection has also used for payment of toll facility bonds, been achieved by statutory requirements however, the toll agency is one of the FINANCING 47 regular public agencies or departments 4. Operation and Maintenance—As of the state. an additional means of assuring long- term flow of revenue income, the bond Covenants agreement may require the toll agency to establish and enforce regulations The flexibility inherent in bond cove• covering the use and operation of the nants has led to their use for enhancing toll facility. Occasionally covenants of the protection of bondholders in many this type also recite that the toll agency special situations. Among the covenants will operate its facilities in an eflficient which are pertinent to, and sometimes and economical manner, and will at all included' in, toll bridge and turnpike times maintain its facilities in good re• bonds, the following may be noted: pair and operating condition. 1. Taxes and Assessments—To pre• 5. Application of Fmids—To cover vent the possibility of tax liens having any contingencies not met by specific priority over the bondholders' rights, provisions relating to deposit and use of the toll agency may covenant to pay all revenue, toll agency trust agreements taxes, assessments, and other govern• may also contain covenants that none of mental charges levied upon its facilities. the gross revenues of the toll facility Where legislative exemption of toll may be used for purposes other than agency property has not been provided, those provided for in the agency's bond such a covenant gives bondholders a resolution, and that the agency will right to proceed against the agency to make no contract which diminishes or secure protection of their interests. impairs the rights of its bondholders. 2. Completion of Facilities—Since completion of the toll facilities accord• 6. Retention of Consultants—Be• ing to specifications and time schedules cause of the size and complexity of may have an important bearing on the many toll facilities it is desirable to earnings record of the toll agency, bond• secure the services of consulting en• holders may require covenants that the gineers in addition to the normal engi• agency will proceed without delay to neering staff of the toll agency, and construct its facilities according to agencies may covenant to employ con• plans, and put these facilities to use. sultants for specified projects or aspects Also, to minimize risks of the creation of their activities. Customarily such of liens superior to those of the bond• covenants cover use of consulting engi• holders, the toll agency may covenant neers to make estimates and plans pre• to pay all lawful claims of laborers, liminary to construction, supervise con• suppliers and materialmen involved in struction of facilities; make estimates the construction of toll agency's facili• and recommendations regarding stand• ties. ards of maintenance, repair, and opera• tion of facilities; and advise regarding 3. Performance Bonds — Protection formulation of operating policies. of the toll agency against default by Covenants of this sort must, of course, contractors and suppliers involved in be drafted with care to avoid delegation construction operations may be achieved by requiring such contractors to pro• of the toll agency's legal powers to its vide performance bonds. Therefore, the consultants. Although realities of busi• toll agency may covenant to require ness management have induced courts performance bonds from its contrac• to recognize that a certain amount of tors which assure full coverage of the discretion must be allowed in these mat• bond proceeds until the toll facility is ters, delegation of any of the ultimate completed and opened to use."' powers or legal responsibilities of the agency must be avoided." Consultants As to when a supplier's right of action or hen against a toll agency arises, see Morris County Indus• trial Bank v Nicol, 64 N J Super 381, 166 A 2d 180 ™ See State v City of Key West, IBS Fla. 226, 14 So.2d (1960). 707 (1943). 48 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

TE

Regulations applying to use of turnpikes frequently dliler from the states' general highway and trafllc laws; therefore, informational signs are particularly important. may also assist in the fiscal management struction may also be contemplated by of toll agencies, and covenants may these covenants." obligate the agency to prepare prelimi• 8. Competition—Since toll facility nary annual budgets which shall be sub• earnings are directly affected by the mitted to consultants for advice in presence of competing facilities in close preparation of the agency's final budget. proximity to it, trust agreements may It is possible, also, that covenants may include covenants obligating the toll prohibit incurring expenses in excess of agency not to construct, acquire, or the amounts provided for in the annual operate, or consent to construction or budget, except as provided for under operation of facilities which compete certain circumstances. with any of the facilities financed by 7. Insurance and Reconstruction—To the bonds which are the subject of the protect the income-producing power of agreement. Historically, toll bridges and toll facilities, the agency may covenant turnpikes have been more sensitive to to maintain reasonable insurance competition from other facilities than against their loss or damage. The duty have facilities in the field of public utili• to reconstruct or replace parts of ties since competing bridges and high• damaged toll facilities is a natural com• ways are more likely to be constructed panion to the duty to insure and fre• as free public facilities than are utili- quently is includeci to give these cove• '"^ As to application of the

of the State or granted hereunder or ™Ann Code of Md. 1957, art 89B, §131 under such trust agreement or the ••"See eg, KXAPPEN, BE\E^UB BONDS AND THE INVESTOR resolution authorizing the issuance of (NY 193')), pp o7-,58, Foidham, J B , "Revenue Bond Sanctions," 42 Colum. L. Rev. 395 (1942), Foidham, such bonds, and may enforce and J B , "Methods of Enforcinpr Satisfaction of Obligations, of Public Corporations," 33 Colum L. Rev 28 (1933), " Public Utility Disti let v Town of Newport, 38 Peishmg, J , "Revenue Bond Remedies," 22 Cornell L Q Wash 2d 221, 228 P 2d 766 (1951), 27 Wash. L Rev 159 64 (1936) See also Davis v Washington Toll Bridge (1952). Authoiitv. 57 Wash 2d 428, 357 P.2d 710 (1960). 50 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

only the facilities' deficit operations of Specific authorization for such action is the past but also the effects of taxes, frequently found in the bond agreement, rate regulation and possible reconstruc• indenture or statute, and is normally tion costs in the future, and therefore broad enough to permit bondholders not are likely to leave as little as possible only to demand an accounting but at for the bondholders. the same time to sue for restoration of Potentially more effective in protect• funds diverted or misapplied. ing the rights of bondholders are vari• The reluctance to permit foreclosure ous forms of direct action which the and liquidation of a toll facility has been bondholders can take individually or in noted. To a great extent the reluctance a representative capacity. These include to use this ultimate remedy has been the remedy of mandamus where it can offset by statutory provision for the be directed to the failure of a public establishment of receiverships for fiscal official to perform a ministerial act re• management of the toll agency in ques• quired by law. It has been held that tion. Court-appointed receivers may mandamus is a proper remedy to en• not, however, exercise greater powers force the duty of municipal toll officials than the bond-issuing authority has by to "impose and collect adequate rates of law or contract. For example, if the tolls and charges," and it has been pre• toll agency's basic authority includes dicted that this remedy will become in• the power to fix rates and charges so creasingly important in the protection as to secure adequate income, a court- of toll agency bondholders' rights." Suc• appointed receiver may be directed to cessful use of mandamus requires care• overhaul the agency's rate-structure to ful distinction between defaults which produce more income. If, however, the result from failure to exercise the toll agency's enabling statute did not necessary corporate management judg• permit it to revise rates, a court would ment or engineering judgment, and de• exceed its authority to direct a receiver faults resulting from failure to per• to make rate changes. form an act required by law.^^ Also, where the law requires that formal de• mand for performance must be made, ADVANCE BORROWING . such demand is a jurisdictional require• The natural flow of income seldom ment for the remedy. correlates exactly with the need for ex• The remedy of injunction generally penditures and therefore the majority will not be allowed to interfere with of statutes in Table 4 provide some legislative actions by public or quasi- degree of authority for the toll agency public bodies, but may appropriately be to borrow against its future revenues applied to unlawful, unconstitutional or in order to meet current expenses. Typi• ultra vires acts of a toll agency. Pro• cally these statutes deal with two as• hibitory injunction is also the specific pects of this activity—the source of remedy to restrain actions prohibited funds, and the maximum amounts to be in the restrictive covenants of a bond borrowed. agreement or trust indenture. In most instances state highway de• Where an issue arises over the ap• partment funds are designated as the plication of toll facility income in ac• source from which toll agencies may cordance with the provisions of the borrow, and in a few cases, the statu• bond agreement, bondholders' may re• tory language refers not only to funds quire an accounting by the toll agency. but manpower and equipment of the state highway agency. Where several »• Fordham, J. B, "Revenue Bond Sanctions," 42 Column L Rev 395, 415 (1942). See also, California facilities are operated by a single toll Toll Bridge Authority v Kelly, 218 Cal 7, 21 P 2d 425 (1933) agency, statutory authority for "pool• " McMullen v Glenn-Colusa Irrigation Dist, 17 Cal. App.2d 696, 62 P.2d 1083 (1963). ing" revenue of several facilities for the FINANCING 51 benefit of one may be given. Other in• rather than limited to specific dol• stance contain authority to simply use lar amounts. Discretionary determina• "any funds available." tion is almost invariably made by the Maximum amounts of authorized bor• toll agency itself, there being only one rowing in anticipation of future toll instance in Table 4 where such borrow• revenues are normally left to discretion• ing had to be approved by the gover• ary determination of what is necessary nor (Colo. Rev. Stats. 1953, §120-8-3). MISCELLANEOUS MAJOR PROVISIONS

METHODS OF POLICING TOLL FACILITIES salaries and other allowances, and oper• ating expenses of these police. This ex• Because toll agencies are special- pense is considered clearly a legitimate purpose instrumentalities of govern• part of the cost of operation of the toll ment, they must show specific author• facility. ization in order to undertake certain Three unusual provisions which do activities which normally would be ac• not come within the scope of these cepted as implicit in the power of a major classifications may be noted. A general-purpose unit of government provision of the law relating to Kansas such as a municipal corporation. Thus municipal toll bridges authorizes use of in the basically important activity of the regular city police force to police policing its facilities, toll agencies must the bridges (Gen. Stats, of Kan. 1949, show specific statutory authority or else §13-14dl5). The New York law author• implied authority from their status as izes the East Hudson Parkway Author• a municipal corporation. ity to contract and pay either state or Statutes relating to policing the 85 county police to supervise traflSc on its turnpike and toll bridge facilities Westchester toll facilities (McKinney's selected for study are given in Table 5. Consol. Laws of N. Y. Ann., Bk. 42, In 62 instances, the statutes specificially art. 2, §454). Virginia law directs the authorize the agency to perform police Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel functions. In practice this power has Commission to employ both commission typically been implemented either by and local police (Code of Va. 1950, §33- creation of a special police force or by 191.1). arranging to have a detachment from the state police force assigned to the toll facility. In 32 cases, the toll agency is AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENTAL UNITS TO authorized to establish and maintain its LEASE OR CONVEY PROPERTY TO own police force; in 13 cases, statutes TOLL AGENCIES direct that state police shall be used on Forty-two of the 85 statutes (Table the toll facility; and in 8 cases, the toll 5) give the toll agency concerned the agency is given discretion to use the advantage of being able to obtain prop• state police or create its own force. erty from other governmental units by Where a toll agency conducts police lease, purchase, loan or grant without operations by its own force, it also the necessity of formal administration controls all pei'sonnel matters that are or judicial proceedings. As a result, the involved since the police personnel are formalities of advertising, judicial considered employees of the agency. scrutiny of the sale, and administrative Where a toll agency is directed to use findings that the property in question state police or local law enforcement serves no current purpose need not be personnel, operational control of the considered essential to the validity of police force is exercised by the toll the transfer. Also, the necessary show• agency but all matters relating to as• ing that the land to be acquired will be signments, discipline, promotions, and used to further some function of the toll civil service aspects of these personnel agency may be accomplished by action remain under the control of the state. of the agencies involved, and the terms When state or local police are used for of the transfer may thereafter be toll facility operations the toll agency worked out by negotiation. The power invariably arranges to pay the cost of to thus provide for transfers of real 52 MISCELLANEOUS MAJOR PROVISIONS 53 j property to toll agencies may extend to vergence of the Pennsylvania decisions [transfer of public streets and roads noted here thus arises over the Federal as well as other types of land being held court's interpretation of whether under by governmental units for public use. state law the commission is sufficiently a creature of the state to share its ! RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE immunity to liability for personal in- i AND PERSONAL INJURY jUj.y,85 Pennsylvania's uncertain situation To what extent are toll agencies may be contrasted to that of New York legally liable for property damage or where the New York State Thruway personal injury due to the construction Authority statute confers exclusive or operation of their facilities ? General• jurisdiction on the State Court of izations regarding this question are dif• Claims for all claims against the Au• ficult because applicability of the doc• thority for its tortious acts and those trine of sovereign immunity as a of its agents. This authorization is defense against tort claims varies sub• regarded as broad enough to include stantially under differing state laws and personal injury claims as well as prop• fact situations. erty damage (New York Public Author• Absent express provisions in the stat• ities Law, §361-6). Among other major ute establishing it, the toll authority turnpike authority laws, the Oklahoma may be subjected to varying rules as its Turnpike Authority law and Ohio Turn• operations extend into the jurisdiction pike Commission law specifically recite of more than one court. Thus the Penn• that although these agencies are con• sylvania Turnpike in 1958 was sub• stituted as state instrumentalities which jected to diametrically opposed deci• perform essential governmental func• sions by Federal district courts at tions they shall not be relieved from opposite ends of the state. In both cases liability for personal injuries or prop• the issue was the Turnpike's liability erty damage caused by their negligence for personal injuries, yet the United or that of their agents. (Okla. Stats. States District court for the Western Ann. 1954, tit. 69, §653; Pages' Ohio District of Pennsylvania denied the Rev. Code Ann., §5537.02). Turnpike Commission's motion to dis• miss, while the United States District Statutory authorization for damage court for the Eastern District granted suits against toll agencies controls the dismissal." Both courts agreed that types of situations in which suit may be the turnpike commission was not a brought. Thus several types of provi• "state" within the meaning of the sions are found in the 57 instances of Eleventh Amendment to the Constitu• authorization noted in Table 5.^'' tion of the United States and hence Legislation in Florida, Indiana, Iowa, could not avoid suit under diversity of Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, citizenship. However, the prohibition Pennsylvania and Virginia requires toll of the Eleventh Amendment extends to agencies to compensate where public or cases where the state, although not ""Under Eiie v Tompkins, 304 US. 62, 114 ALR 1487 (1938) the Federal courts must apply the appro- named as defendant, is the real party pi late state law to such diversity cases As to the cases cited in note 83, see the Western Pennsylvania Turnpike in interest, and on that issue the court's Extension Act of 1941 (Purdons' Pa Stats. Ann , tit 36, §654 et leq ) As to the effect of statutoiy analysis of the attributes and limita• authority to sue and be sued, see Keifei & Keifcr v tions prescribed in the toll agency's RFC, 306 US 381, 396 (1939) Sec also Holbrook v Massachusetts Turnpike Authoi- basic legislation is decisive.^' The di• ity, 338 Mass 218, 154 N E 2d 605 (1958), Anderson Cattle Co V Kansas Turnpike Authoiity, 180 Kan. 749, 308 P2d 172 (1957), Beinekc v. Terminal Railroad Assn Compare Linger v Pennsylvania Turnpike Commis• of St. Louis, 340 SW2d 683 (Mo. 1980), Montana sion, 158 F Supp 900 (W.D. Pa 1958) and Masse v. Mining Co v State Highway Commission, 128 Mont Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 163 F Supp 510 65, 270 P2d 738 (1954), Edgecomb Steel of New Eng• (ED Pa 1958) Also, Geir v Emrick, 283 F 2d 293 land V State, 100 NH 480, 131 A 2d 70 (1957), Cziier (1960) v New York State Thruway Authority, 202 N.Y S.2d See Lowes v, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 480 (1960), Allstate Insurance Co v. Alford, 206 N.Y S 2d 125 F Supp 681 (M D Pa 1954) , Eastern Motor Ex• 388 (I960), Hydes Feriy Turnpike Co v Davidson press V Espenshade, 138 F. Supp 426 (E.D. Pa. 1956) County, 91 Tenn. 291, 18 S.W. 626 (1892). 54 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES private property is damaged, or to re• given to regulation of traffic so that toll { store or repair the property if possible. facility operations will be as safe and Comparable provisions limited to efficient as possible. Also, since toll damage or destruction of private prop• facilities are often highly specialized erty are found in the laws of Kentucky, structures, and may involve more thani Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, one state, existing general laws and Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia ordinances may not provide a satis-j and West Virginia. factory legal framework for achieving' Where public or private property is the most eflScient control of traffic. Ac• damaged as a result of making surveys cordingly the basic legislation relating or entering land, Georgia, Idaho, Kan• to many toll agencies authorizes these sas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, agencies to promulgate rules and regu• Michigan, New Jersey, West Virginia lations governing public use of their and Wisconsin direct that reimburse• facilities. Typically such provisions are ment be made for such damage. broad in their scope, leaving the toll When construction by a toll agency agency substantial latitude to cope with causes relocation of a public road, pub• any traffic regulatory problems that lic utility, or other obstruction, the toll may arise. In accordance with princi• agency is required to compensate the ples of constitutional law, however, the other governmental agency or private purpose of this delegated power and owner concerned under the laws of the penalties imposed for violation oi Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, traffic regulations are specified more Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, precisely.*' Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wis• One problem which modern toll agen• consin. cies share with toll roads and toll Statutes establishing various toll bridges throughout history is that of agencies in Alabama, Illinois, Massa• dealing with users who evade payment chusetts, New York and Washington of tolls. Many statutes noted in Table provide that these agencies may be 5 deal specifically with this subject. sued in tort for property damage or Some include evasion of tolls as an personal injury caused by any act of aspect of the use of the facility within the agency or its personnel. the scope of the authority to regulate Authorization to acquire insurance traffic; others recognized it as a special against liability for damages due to offense and provide specifically for its negligence of toll agency personnel is punishment. contained in laws relating to certain toll The penalties prescribed for violation agencies in Delaware, New York and of toll agencies' traffic regulations or Washington, and in Georgia, where evasion of toll charges usually take the lease of certain toll facilities to the state form of fines, although some statutes IS allowed, the toll agency may lawfully provide, additionally or alternatively, require its lessee to provide protection for imprisonment. A few provide for against liability for property damage or personal injury claims arising from a lien on the offender's vehicle to assure construction or operation of the toll payment of a fine. facility. A summary of the penalty provisions contained in the laws of 23 states fol• REGULATION OF TOLL FACILITY USE lows: Since toll facilities normally are built ^' Delegation of power to turnpike authority held not where traffic volumes are high it is in conflict with other laws, i elating to public finance and traffic regulation State v Florida State Turnpike necessary that special consideration be Authority, 80 So.2d 337 (1955). MISCELLANEOUS MAJOR PROVISIONS 55

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS OR EVASION OF TOLL

Penalties

Authority * Evasion of Tolls Violation of Authority (where treated separately Rules and Regulations from violation of regulations)

Alabama (1) Misdemeanor, $500; 6 months hard labor California (1) Misdemeanor Misdemeanor—$10 (applies generally) Connecticut $10 (applies generally) Delaware (1) & (2) $100 $100; 30 days Florida (2) & (5) $200; 90 days Illinois (1) Misdemeanor, $1 to $100, $6 to $100 more for additional con• victions within year Kansas (1) $100; 30 days (3) Penalties as provided by ordnance Kentucky (1) & (2) $100; 30 days lien on vehicle till paid Louisiana (1) $300; 90 days Maine (1) Misdemeanor, $20 Maryland (1) $100 $10 to $100 (3) Massachusetts (1) (2) $50 May arrest without warrant Michigan (1) $100; 30 days lien on vehicle (3) Misdemeanor New Hampshire (3) Misdemeanor, $10 New Jersey (1) & (2) $200; 30 days; if result is Unlawful death or damage over $5,000: high misdemeanor New York (2) Misdemeanor, $250; 30 days (4) $50; 30 days (5) Misdemeanor Ohio (1) $50; $500 for subsequent vio• lations Oklahoma (1) Misdemeanor Rhode Island $100; 30 days Texas $100; hen on vehicle Virginia (2) Misdemeanor, punished as if on public street (3) $100; 30 days (4) & (5) Same as if on public road; or misdemeanor West Virginia Misdemeanor $50 Wisconsin (1) Same as for Class A high• ways

Numbers in parentheses indicate agency given in Table 2. 56 TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES A Maryland statute, which applies to affect public officials, in the legislation certain toll bridges and a tunnel, for• governing 24 toll authorities (Table 5). bids the transportation on those facili• Most of the provisions are substantially ties of various dangerous materials, in• similar, stating that members, agents cluding explosives, compressed gases, and employees of the authority are pro• and poisonous articles, except in accord• hibited from having an interest in con• ance with rules and regulations adopted tracts and transactions in which the by the State Roads Commission. Viola• authority is involved. Many of the stat• tion of these rules and regulations is a utes declare that a violation is a mis• misdemeanor punishable by a fine of demeanor and specify a penalty, usually $100 to $500, or 6 months in jail, or a fine of $1,000 or one year in jail, or both. For second offenses, the fine is both. Idaho and Oklahoma declare the $500 to $1,000 and a jail sentence of violation a felony and provide for a 1 year. penalty of $5,000 fine and five years in A New Jersey statute provides that jail. In Oklahoma, knowing partici• explosives, inflammable solids, and pants in the transaction are subject to poisonous or radioactive substances the same sanctions as the offending shall not be transported on any turnpike member or employee of the authority. in a manner or condition that is likely Ohio statutes pertaining to two authori• to unreasonably endanger persons or ties prohibit authority foremen or engi• property. The penalty is a $200 fine or neers from holding other public office or 30 days in jail, or both, except that if employment. Louisiana pi'ovides that the violation would also be a violation an authority member's, agent's or em• of a local ordinance, it shall be punished ployee's interest in an authority con• as such. tract makes it void. An Illinois statute, in addition to pro• CONFLICT OP INTEREST hibiting interest in contracts by officers Toll agencies, in providing highway or commissioners of a toll authority, transportation facilities, perform a provides that they are subject to a function which has traditionally been $5,000 fine, one year in jail, and re• a governmental responsibility. They are moval for misconduct or malfeasance in legal instrumentalities of the state gov• office. Indiana provides that commis• ernments and, therefore, there is a sion members may be removed for mis• strong public interest in seeing that feasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance, they are operated with high standards and New Jersey provides, in addition of integrity. In response to this need, to the usual conflict of interest statute, 14 states have included conflict of in• that the governor may remove commis• terest provisions, similar to those that sion members after a hearing. APPENDIX A

TABULAR SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATE LAWS

57 58

111]

lit Iff .Hi Is! m s lis §• {I 11^ illpl 1^ I I til Us illii lii: mm llil llif 111! I S ** ^ i IVI m nil Eg s • ling llf = list 3^5 'I! it itsi i 55 I si 111 "IS ml m it! hit IB 1.1 .1 ills ill I "An 1 ! II f i 11 ^6 nil iti^lll jWill 3?3 3o I la c If sill S2 S s-sa

: i I lis III i si lip i a1 | 3 o in IS P S m I fiil ^11 5s

a a. III! ill 3 o 11! t if 111 m •sss III till ill S 0°' S. "ill mi a I a 11'i lisi M

Hi U S O 59

ft

lii 11} mt

^ S I. P 3§ iiJi •s ?s Ill ill! ijli ! n i jjj lis •a -li ill am fit llliii i i 8h ill! £ U S o 5||s|l ILli ill I!! is 3 s PH •SSl pf jljl si's! jlll m ' • 2 ". 5" ml iliffl III! la «i E- Ml If ill lllll lo lis lis I

as s 1

If SS.« as 11 gill ill IS 11 lit! II I I it IP !f Hi? lit! ill si s§ -1 2 •a 3,5 llO tfii 111 III

s|| 60

ii!

lllillll sill n a ^ Hi fill 1=-I :3 <> Mil 41i 11 llJl m fill Nil Ii Sr 'IS -Ills sis m I fiii-ip|i tip Pill Ml 1^^ Hill II Ii II •9 a. Hill lis Sis " "sis lii' •s ! =5 II I .... Ii .ill II •s III a S a I 2 g = Ji Ifi III el. m iji g Id n S

ii

It' liii fill

I? I! t HI tip 3S = mi 1 ^ IIP III ilillriJ ili « S

Ill 61

^! 111 mi s 8 ss s s

it!Ill

1 ill !:tii nm

a !5 62

ii ifli

Ui- IS

{{JI = £. til I 81 JtlWlli III ?l3 0 2?a i. t o f an y to l Escambi a highwa y o t y northe r stud y a s p rnpik e pr t te d feasible , t n g fund s f c nil tat e mi ntro l F-ll o U 01 Is m Authorize d t o lin e wit h an y t u

1,5 ge s i f economicall y ize d t o pom in ] turnpik e re s tri rsh i Usboroug h Cou n r Stat e advertis u o ^ m •sal a 0 I! jiii ||a2

.fa jiji Pinella s o r H i Expenditur e o l road s an d bri e m authorize d o r Ida-Alabam a advertisin g o n Lat e stud y and , ; here m autho r o acquir e own 13" UI s i"s He"-' itffi orize d t wit h th e !p

lii o m a poin t i n n t o turnpik i constructe d mak e immed : 1 turnpik e he i jomtur e a t F l d Municipa l -iif^ 2 S2 0 C: 9 0 u b V lit m syste m

S a o 0 tj connectio n ill •5o u» ;"S e1 S -a5 J31 rtmen t aut h II ^ lil 3 ii « £ •§ i; a E 2

!iir, use d i n Pill, t y d i (. t a sec t ojec t o r t ( auth < jec t la d dep s if? Autho i 1 conbti u t o mte r Count y jected , an y pr o facilit y SUt e r Stat e p a Pi Uli II Hill 11 in § s * lili ! 'is II Mm 2 "I m ill Ui h i!! m 3ft a's a S c C o il « „ S illlil gas lla S2 a I.

-I ^21 lis l!l!fflji|l Mill dill ifii im S5 II a IP

ii 63

1

11, fit m a = S 3 p 1^1 i| .Up If i'S s as HI a? s 2 efl II !f iiii •3^6 si •Elll !ir!. iiiii I "-sl Pi fit I 5.S a 5. if'M liS mi n s S s ^11- si ° 5 " 1 5 ifai 1} is i! iPl llnl HI si ll = e S 3 111 le^ii III •g OJS s - fe 5 i Is- ll ill! nil'. n 9 ^ u 111 f all Hi Ilk a s a II mi ^5 Is III (Ssw as till ml U O.^ ^ O S B fillip 5SS IS ^ 1 i S S S .•

IPII lil t III

ill Ii ,i ml! i S a film ilirl III

= sag- £ a ti s I 'I 11 6| a sl U II ll II III 1^ ill ll 11

III

1= 64

3 J an d "own e an d "own e "turnpik e ] 'turnpik e p tructe d "turnpik e p waya, " "b o ways. " "b o Djec t whic h t h o r doe s o »"m - * >*iS " y o w S c " 11

i S h E.5 ord s "pr o ty, " "pro j ost, " "pu l e revenu wit h turn p y ) no t includ < a n 5 mile s • I iij . thor i mpi k 'author i 'turnpi k

S u S !Ct , " c (Note , y, connec t = 11 = ect " d o 1 mor e th i Authori t lllli III

ii i i"oi till th 5.0 £• S-5 a 8 as- 5 -I2 sR | l°is|iiii I? 53s HJ!i II ill II iiffl las fijtl'ti a S S-g I ° lii S- a* l!l f.ii mil -sis s P ill iiiiiifi I] Is s p ifiiiiii liltiilif SI mill II •= § a s-3 ; . " S 13 iiflitpIL i. 111 IIP^I if-reii^ip O • mm "'alas iHi! ftilli ? i iS! II iiHiiiyi III 525 is il ft Hliiilliii III!el |i2«i -^1 !ll III 111 SI |a: it it! m nil ^ a Id ill ifljj s s-g s. SllJ Hi "a a-a 1^3 tl 111f 1: lii fa Pt I U 9 Sl^ i si's 111 si li U o < 151 ili ill Si a

£5 o < 65

=^1 11 - a. 1-1* 11 if til as m n m "i} h itf B o 3 *; lis I nil 1? mi I 4 -Is as.- 23 llflp if Iff I' ill iii 1 SI Ifl lil-illii! !; : I "till III! 1^ illil •I i iilJ:K||lj ^1 Jl Jjlilf Is SSI |ii im liii III f|i||i 111 iill as| "•ail iitJl •a-as = ll| pifL III \]{] ill I! 13 III fill in 111 sir" ^Si 111 irl! ifl Ill if- liiailiiiii Sl2il2l|321 111 I ^1 11 c PII I* ii|fi s|l» fri Hl •liifi sii?i 111. ^ I m I ill ill Isfg m a E fi jif I'M flll^j i|lp iMss !iiL l! III I III! saii |ls ^illl 1111^ mm ^illl a If I ill fill- II ill t Ii I-i2l5«! ! .8 iili! ° i; ' 8 a c <|aa 2i: " I 2 2 ill l^|2 It* o 3aa nil! liii

0, &, J 66

^ e

nil ail

; 1 11 lift flflil mm llllil III

lis. as o llpiL Ill's lllii! S" o3.3 „a - S- II 1.|S i ^plla = •5 111 ll « 3 Q _ i filii fiiii a t it S 3' ill 11' f Is If {I ii!-i^ all9i^ •s s aM s og^ ^e «3 « ^ o II t=t,s s ifilil fill liiitl 'Pi "II M^.i ilifl I $1 •s = !S|e III til til If iiii III iiill iii Hill ^': ° s §, {If ifiiii llllill filllil < 5 U w o CO •si Iiii -till III 111.,. I II !!a2*t u E 3 g am I! c 3 = :^ s l||sl«: 9 S 1 mi

Mil ! "g E -tf « fttM i 11^ IIIII ll|l: •iitti :iM ^!?| li!!! l|43 i^ii I asS S e•s' ua I, „ lllll iii 5 s a o a I I ill filli.1 |2 ? 111 3 m !1L a a 5 5»S,S III! lis m m 9 c J mi li!! pi lil! ml i!^fi Ills ill S2 i0. 5g t -a Ills ;1t jlin •lit Ill lllil Ills mis 11! ill III! 1. a » 67

Its

Ml = 1 as It a i^: li! i!l II Ii 5SS 1p !0i III It Si" 1^ s ^11 lU •§2 si 1H « 5 III Ii "li!! S S " t! mil rji ill i|i III! h S2 Bo :i a&l "„ ^ S S 6 n Hill! ' a ° si IP Ifli 5|| 5 Ea }f! IM m 1^ * " t. SB" o u sr^sa 2'8a S-sa " Is ' nils i II ^' II lis 111 ii'. f c c a a„- 3 s 8

III i 3

n

III!

is s . • BS m la] la > llll H HI: -sail III! il "23-5 mi I5si| 5 a a " " HI ilii 111 §2 •S 5 68

1^ =1 ill li 5i ill m 11 ! ^ = E S * « i-"-a5 Mi fjj Ifli! I'HI tlla nil

ai^,-i^ §7; ai .«|2|| .slli^ las Hip lii- mm rii. Ml If HI nn: lis! tu III |l3SS Hill ; 33 h jljl ' I-' iiiif Ml l-f i II 1 11 ^li 11 ° Ill 5!il •a m HI ilfi SSI a o » . 1 Ul m 8 3 s lip il 1^ i! Hip iiil ^llllal III! §3. II si

lis. mil liHli ii |i n 11 i nil j'.iiti ill It 5§1M i tl ll

ii4 Iff 11 11" I ills- p, illl "Sl III if I!l|f{ ll = Hit 'sill It! iri.ll Ili ll! mil iiliiii

i'ss2 IM 69 mi lis Ifl mil ft - •p mil }m II III Ii 'IK it! s;ii2 il pit!, irrii s-.> "•J I Ifrll til ft! i III 511 H. If I 1- Pll'a 2 S if! IS* if So i i!!fil l I fi 1^1 ill ^1 4 -ji • Si til S.t^2 t II Hi ill lifil '1 !| •I ^= l?i: 1 II! yit! II 11°. jji'lii , ,11! HP III

1. 2 a g:2 g s it! fittS Ill 2ii ilil

11! iiti lljill III I

SSI fill Jthu

Pllll B i Jif - la I llll{{ h IP ill J,—- • si B ^ tlti! III I li Ilil I: 70

i

III ill

l&§a nip. 11 im il 11 If it Ilh mi |Ead S £ pill a . Si ii St J « £ I Is = 11" s?a- n mi II fi- fill ill in si iji ml lUi! 2^1 ill• las | m 5r? 111 •8? |S.£2S| if 3? ii li: ^1 i = 11 11^ iii

Hi Is Sii III! 111 iiitl 11 ' I s 111 a-2| : £ as lis P III li ^ a|2 m ill 1^ •S .?° § 6 s a Itll 2 3 8 3 lllfla ^5 -ills o = i !! sa§P rtaE 011 Ill 2iafa " ^ s-ISa ill I^.lijll s-i la S imi< 1*1 m If HHit, ill tit III mm Hill •o U Is iHiflfi =o aos m ^111! II S S tiiiE'sir I fl I n P. » SgSl'l-3 «a1 " 1*1 1 iHl Ils So s£5 riiil:L"l 71

aa: hi i ai lis

1-J Si IiflP J fa 2 l!i 111 5-1 2-.3

nil 111 all ill! If 11 la ill pit a * i II ill III •a-S llll "ii lif 11 •I 6^ Ii 1^^ ill* Ills' 1:1 t,5 y Ills ai°' Jill- Hill jf{: ^ifiii 0.11 3 a „ n Ifj IS-a III*

.3 I sl So i! « i: ills i> a II Ill- fij II

S » c i 5 4, :a CI c 1 ipill lit S»2s|| III?!I ll i = » ai 11.1 •« E " 2 o o•Am lillitit fililll ir a. St I IIII liii llllllil llllill 72

3>r

Is 1 lilil |5 •ill Mi II 2 i i iO! II « o • la i ill's ll •si S - lis- ^^1 litis HI plri •s si ! I ill Hit m ' j ftp il II If nil •82 & m Il fl iljllt Q?2 lip In IB Ill pi =•» s Iftll •is; nil lilt il 10 3 < o i nil S 5.6 S t t S2tsl.S-3 ss ^: 11 il'i il

^11 ?1I

!l!rr- If ir!l III 5 I'll i ill

51 : 1 s I IP Oil i s t ilfl If it iilt ill! fl mil Ir il m !l ill S ^ I s lis 53 - Jl!p S.11 o ill's

PS

llllll 73

9 Ih 'If 11 If? i IS

^.5 1° ill I lilll ii II. V. ia! ilii ill til fill o e I: ii! 6| SI E ^ y ! pi go. fs .on ir|5 ijtl Hi S2 5 11 ,11! o. " ii! II lit 11 1 "l" III tl » a i| f2 «It?! lil Iff m ill Hi 11'ill mi „•=•=• I«» 11 itil I'M 51! P.I 1»» 5.1 itiM Hi 115 ill I Ii Ssl

la I i Jljj fi =11 II i III! lliil a 111! nil stasis111 §2

3 ll II III 5 3 n 1^ £ S Ml 11 Its III HI |l|^ ». aa 5 Si III ill PI fill III III o lie III

1 io." in 74

s o g If 11

If ft! J |2 a = .

as-! I!f1 hi. lit l|t| a ^ Hi I II!! III! • I 3^ It 111 nil slat 2*1 I! IS si 6 s a a 1^1 iij W III! Ill •sM I"III ! ill I I* s III 11 111 i°l|| nil! Is a c ill Mi!! ,11 lull •9 o 9 £ If fl sis •s's = tj f >• 01 o. Ml m 8 S| ^1! . o u - iliiii Si's lllli

11

Si 55 SI ij II

Ill 5.5

III 11 Road s an d ict ) a t loca - gini a n I'll" a PI ilfl

ridge s t Dist r y Stat e Pi ission ) npike s es t Vir i Z 3 = 1 us n ^ II! ^0 Dm to y " -g I. c 1 -5--if" i II! ^ s £ g 3 u ih go. lilt

tion s lillrl tunn e Gen e Com j Tur n Hi Gen e iiil 75

nm I S-S. III

It, III

^ c si e si si lilit

s i a. I g J, a " I III

i S ri Is

if! III its ill 2? Ik I:' i!! ill mil > o " tit Ilk mi mil i|i t I ' m ^ g E litis g?°sl| in g g-3 Hi - 8.S Si -Mil iifi " 3 t ^'S III 6=11 mm Iifi IP Is! mil MS lij > « 3 S !i ill! " E s i s s * " III? Hi, fillil III.^1 1 3 c Ill III 11 si, u g ti till!! 111; mm ml 76

ii ^ go 21

ll

Km mm

1!

-•1 §E |g. in " s. •3 J - if ill il llilltllil la o >, . il I III

J! _ II , •= a e » i|| is si IIP III |1JI| :1 fiii I 1^ 1%. I; 1 I ° i !f siai Jifli 1! ili 1?^ Mil aE2£E || •S S5 2 Ih 11 • 2 §1 nil J. • « m If if 11 I'S I'S SiJ s I s sill 111 I ill ess =!1 ill ill II til if! S 6 S.>-5| P ill i! Hi ill li lis III 2 3 s s. II III' II 5 = 1 31 la

1 = 77

21 nil nil Hi il

Mils Is II '11 Ills

SI-. Itil si IL IP e lis* si il^ii •II S s £ 1 6" s 8

.1 I I So 3 li 8 ° > a iass|: ••s ii a s II Is fllii 1.1 |g|s? y § !i n II lit D ggs in as m -PI 'III r-i! 'ill' lij ill If ll!l in. Is 9 lit ills -•ill lgl^ u 2 si ^ II asl ^ 'I "111 Nil i^ll! .:-s Spfi! ^ s ° s a Un 2 g s- g 5-S E 5 iiii ;iif If I iill i a s 3 . mi u cn n Il>| <« at I SB'S 1 g I SI! liii si llll II • pi Ml 3 a B 111 ill ssa igiii I"" mil •I pill lip IIP I ^1^ U'ogSlssi if I Irlllill lit• E? 5 1 Im I liii oil ulll - Su =

f IS a n I'i I \'i ^1 t: 1 I! Iti II 33 78

a B ; i s S

E il 1 ^ E

^E Ii IS 4| lio|,| II iltl S B-o till ^ es ° ml sill

E f, EE 6 « £ 1. 5 !l £ « » 21 i 1 •a £ 91 •o a an as 1 i s 1 1 " 5 « « o ^^^^ year s (s U >. -a V S « u .. 3 !f c

!!! Orig : suc o thre t

,|1 ia'S Ilii hill. •< a -as §•1 E 3 " 2 ip l| ili lis lip S-l a a s I I* l-s •S c" ^ 2 I 3. III a^l-! 2 o.g-S a - HI J .= S b E s •a |a Is m Iili '" t a III!" flit m g g g » g g £ 0) S 1 S S 5 'S 8- = - Si's i-g-S!= g 1" III I! E s s s S-2 E g a

•o § > 5 Oil Governo r i

3 « 5 J, a 0 tieaaurer . re e membe : ic h durin g i r a t leas o o f senat e vt n d ma y app c 5a fo ^1 ° rt'^s :^ os a p m a a jiiti! III o s V g cs e (h ill! ilif shal l elec t secretar y e an d tieasu r n o mor e th s a n t o serv e it y consists d compose hu e an d th r work s an d h o r wit h con s

nil y fo r unexp i actor s ther e n sam e ma 3 t b e memb member s 2 ts c y c w N II o a tl ^ a It e a - M-o-" lis- 151 Ha i A b tho : clc : ne e no t in pu b va c ca u Au t go v fill . ch a ele <

Il3 US f S's-a. •i h y !lt III ll f SI a 1^1 I IT! •' = 2 S .. " E i» S-E SfflZ »2 oa s " Z X u Hi 79

lis =" -a , 1 nil Mi II

U 56 II I Is If lil

fill b" £ s a-

In |||{ Iii "I fill till mi

gill I 111 sllll 11 ^1 lil 6" s a ill ^1 lijjjj ijii ''is lit If 11 Ilfl irii In mil ill s!! ^ iJll .til si m ill Iii III fill: I 6 3: mi I iPi :i 1 Ml if! lil! 1§l ilii age il ii^i sill! ° a s ill 111!

4 3 S ill m EL'S 3 g Ilfl ^ 3 c a PI 1= it nil §1 80

3 g »4 IIIo a 2

sa:l^

I Pi

ill

1^1 Ila^::! If* if! i p IS l!i nil lip s a 3 V S sir -SI 8 « s " {lii m jjfE III 51 s; a|i|r: I! III "3 _ 5 S E-g a s 2 s»= 9«a ilii il i ipi "log il. i-i: if i||2 s s 1 a 2 g III > i 1 ? lllllM also hi Ili! 1 1^ III! |5 im aril 11 P ^1 1^ 11"^ ii! II: Ijfii ill O U U Q £ »a B 81 (10 ) T o Stat e

Relocat e a Ye s Ye s Ye a iM Ye a (9 ) Projec t T o B e Incorporate d I n Syate m Whe n Bond s Yes , i f n goo d Ye s Ye s Include d m trun k lin e syate m o f Stat Bridge s an d ap • ar e Stat prc^rt y an d mclude d m th e trun k Im e syste m pai r aatisfactor y t o th e Stat roa d highway s proache s constructe d Yes , i f m goo d re • departmen t

0 cn bad. S K 5 1 Ye s I f existm g bridg e i s a Stat e highwa y <7 ) T o Accen t Fi>ri(>ra 1 Air i Ye a Yes , ma y contrac t fo r ai d wit h U S A o r it a agencie s trac t loan s an d borro w o r It a agencie s throug h sal e o f bond s sam e characte r b e firs t offere d a publi c sal e Bond s sol d t o th U b A o r It s agencie nee d no t b e firs offere d a publi c sal e governo r Ye s Ye s N o provisio n Ye s Authorit y ma con • mone y fro m th e UnitedState a authorize d b y Act . bond s t o Yes . i f approve d b y Ye a Ye s Ye s (6 ) T o Emplo y Ye s ma y con • trac t fo r "pro • fessiona l services " Ye a N o provision , bu t commissio n act s a consul • tant s t o count y boards,governo r an d legislatur e trac t basi s Departmen t Ye s Sam e a s abov Yes , o n a con • ma y emplo Ye s

t i in G — c U 0 join t ownershi p an d operatio n trac t Act , authorit y con • tract s fo r bridg e us an d m accordanc e wit h bon d Ye s Yes , an d wit h th e highwa y departmen t Yea , an d wit h th e U S A an d wit h adjomm g Stat e r Ye s Departmen t build i n accordanc e wit h State Con • fo r loan s fro m th e Unite d Ye a Yes , an d wit h th e Federa l governmen t Yes , an d wit h th e Federa l governmen t an d othe r Yes . i n nam e o f Stat a s approve d b y governo r an shal l le t contract s an d supervis e constructio n Departmen t ma y contrac fo r constructio n Divisio n ma y contrac t fo r constructio n Yes , an d ente r mt o lease - purchas e agreement s wit h Ye s State a o r agencie s State s Yes . bu t i f highwa y com • missione r design s i t h e State roa d depa t tmen (4 ) T o Contro l Acces s Ye s Ye s Ye s approve d b y highwa commis • sione r Yes , a Ye s Ye a (3 ) T o Locat e It s legislativ e bod y Ye s Yes , wit h approva l o f high • wa y departmen t Yea . wher e neede d Wher e agree d b y depart • additiona l transportatio n facilitie s withi n count y o r cit y mus t b e approve d men t an d autho i ity , y A s agree d betwee n com • missio n an d governo r Yes , wit h assistanc e o f chie f engmee r T o mak e plan s No , legislatur e designate s location s an d termm i an y loca l plannin g board , th e highwa y commissione r Yes , i n consultatio wit h an d traffi c engineer s Yes , (exac t rout e an d exac t termmi ) Yes , (exac t rout e an d exac t termini ) 1 (2 ) ant t Mamta m T o Construc t Yes , an d t o reconstruc Shal l authoriz e an d direc t departmen t o buil d r acquire , maintai n Yes , an d t o contro l Ye s improv e bridg Yea , highwa y commissione r ma y desig n Departmen t o construc an d mainta m divisio n t o supervis e constructio n Divisio n t o mamta m an d Ye s Ye a 1 IYS S (1 ) Uui d b y T o Acquir e Emmen t Domai n n otherwis e 196 3 Yes , o r b y purchas e Ye s Ye s befor e acquisitio n i t de • Yes , departmen t acquiies . clare s publi c necessit y Yes , fro m privat e parties withou t tende r Yes , Chie f enginee r ac • quires , i n nam e o f depart • men t o f highways , a s ap • prove d b y commissio n Ye s Sam e a s abov Yes , bu t no afte r Jun e 30 . # Ye s Ye s Ye s

C " In Id ^ n V — e3 (1 ) (1 ) SUt e 5 < " < — Cali f Col o U Q |3 82 (22 ) Researc h T o Conduc t an d Studie s Ye s Ye s specification s an d survey s (studies ) Ye s Ye & T o mak e plans , ;YC S (21 ) T o Charg e Toll s Afte r Bond s Pai d Ye s N o Ye s I f o directe d b y genera l assembl y repai d N o o r loca l politica subdivi - aio n funds , labo r o i prop • ert y advanced hav e bee n Yes , i f commissio n s o determme s Yes , bu t shal l no becom e fre e bridge s unti l bond pai d o r unti l an y State fund a No , shal l b e maintame d y fre e o f toll s Ye s State highwa y departmen t (20 ) tor Projec t T o Acquir e Mor Lan d Tha n Necessar y V Note , ma y acquir e connect - mg servic e road s Ye s lea l propert y fo r exchang e take , i n fe e o r otherwise fo r other rea l propert y No , bu t ma y i ondem n an d tectio n o f projects , includin g pits , et c Yes , an y propert necesar fo r preservatio n an d pro • drainag e lan d an grave l > > (19 ) o f Lan d T o Tak e Immediat e Possessio n mteicst s prej • require d Ye s No . bu t addi • proceedmg s N o tiona l referee s authorize d t o expedit e con • demnatio n Ye s i f publi c udice d h y delay , deposi t N o Ye s No . a s provide d unde r prio la w (18 ) Audi t Annua l Ye s Yes , b y Slat e budge t com • missio n Ye s mspectio n b y sheet s fo r eac h crossin g shal l b e annuall y pre • pare d b y bot h authorit y an d Ye s Balanc e departmen t fo r Ye s Mak e (17 ) o a T o gove t - nor,b y de • partmen t latur e Yes , t o governo r an d legis • (16 ) T o Authoriz e Concession s N o Ye s tivel y tha t gasolin e stationi . oper • at e competi • Yes . specifi c (15 ) T o Fi x Ye s Ye s Department , Ye s o f an y change s agreemen t wit h bondholder s ye a bl y an d notif bon d committe e Yes , subjec t o Yes , o r fi x b y directio n o f genera l assem • Ye s To U Kate s o r Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s a-

X ™"° (14 )

Lan d 3 « ^ T o Sel l o r Leas e Unneedc d g M ^ Ye s Ye s Sam e a s abov lesso r interes t sold , o r ex • change d ma y b e leased , Ye s I'e e o i >* o 3 (13 ) fo r Installatio n o r Relocatio n f

T o Contro l r Provid e s Ye s locate d cost s t o b e share Ye s publi c seivio e facilitie s re • b y th e authorit Yes , Authorit y m<* orde r

require d t o obtai n permi >< bridge , bu t an y use r sub • jec t o Publi c Utilitie s Yes . an d wit h sam e right s a t ne w locatio n Ma y peimi t bridg e us, b y utilitie s Ma y contrac t fo r us e o f Commissio n jurisdictio h " ^ I - o£ E Ye s Ye s Ye s T o conduc t engmcerm g Ye s i n Stat e Yes , an y (11 ) Whe n

i Ye a Affecte d Highway s Ye s Ye s T o Vacat e

% -H ^ « State

(1 ) S (1 ) 3 8

Col o 83^ 1 " 1^3 Cali f Q " 83

1 g >,ii T o (10 ) Stat e Highway s Relocat e 1 >! >-i a o u o 1

•g a

(9 ) BO

Pai d S c

Stat e roa d de - 3 Projec t T o B e Stat e Highwa y Incorporate d I n , i f n goo d . I f i n goo d , i f n goo d ste m Whe n Bond s tmen t ma y leas e o r chas e th highwa y n th e authorit y ditio n dltio n l e a s abov ditio n v >* "c A g t: pa r pu r Ye s Yea , i f n goo d Ye s fro i S3 Ye s conditio n II li i ** a 3 u T o (8 ) State 0 Highway i i n Proie Incorpora 1

•s < a "3 o ? V S 2 c "S c 1 o a 3 V 2 % u vit h approva l vit h approva l ^ it h approva l lo r ) f mone y o r :t y 3 1" ^u h f- •1 10 n n « S. a " :s , an d ma y b e f i instructe d aubsta i erefru m si V 1 S E >! >> >1 BO si >H a T o I Cor n 1 1 01 £ s >! >! I >•

S S.S S a u I. th e proj - leas e - It s wit h Len t no o 1 g; g. io n con - •e d b y d rac t wit h iri s io n fo r L t ; highwa y hId s § ilil en U E 3 EE * 1 o •e N H 12»a c n

1 , an d t o mak e ] chas e agreeme i t e roa d depart m jxcee d 4 0 year s 1 , bu t conbtru c Lt h t o b e le y • ! bid s o n plan ( Stat e highwa y d < 1 , bu t construc ct s t o b e appr m t e highwa y boa r la S S a "1 o ^ s g >* 1. o&. J i os ;H 1 1 T o (4 ) ; ontro l Acces s V V V S O >1 >< >t >i >H > >!

2

•a •3 JI cat e • » ate d o n rt y « o 5 a o i 1 H li .a Q. •d a :t s a loc i 'it y prope l make s fm i nination

o I 0 01 Proje i autho i Yes , 1 Yes , 1 gover i I deter r It Sam e T o Construc t an d Maintai n ilitie s hwa y boai d highwa y commissio n 5 , an d t o leas e State 5 , an d leas e piojcct s 5 , an d sha U hav e ful l ! o f Divisio n Highway s s , designe d a approve V !u s o >! SH

S tt S 1

bi : d b y S t S, Uin d

T o Ac t al 0 u Eminen t C . 5 o 0«1 fi9,> 01 V > >* i >i 1 >* >*

0 a n a Itat e tint'd ) 1 ) b. Ji — o - 2 — 1- 0 —- 84 (22 ) Researc h T o Conduc t an d Studie s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s (21 ) T o Charg e Toll s Afte r Bond s Pai d N o tion s retire d become fre e o f rentals , includin g toll s No , sam e a s abov N o Ye s No , whe n projec t obliga • N o N o t o reimbuts e State fund s tion , extension et c o f N o Yes . ma y fo r operatio n an d an d mteratat e bridg fun Yes , t o financ e reconstruc • bridg e owne d b y cit Yes , fo r operatio n an d policm g o r fo other proj • ect s an d t o reimburs e N o Stat e highwa y fun d Sam e a s abov (20 ) Fo r Projec t T o Acquir e Mor Lan d Tha n Necessar y Ye s Yes , fo r feede road s N o N o (IS ) o f Lan d T o Tak e Immediat e Possessio n No , i n genera l conformit y wit h existin g statute s N o N o Yes , upo n deposi t Sam e a s abov (18 ) Audi t Annua l Yes . b y Stat e Audito r Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Yes , b y Stat e Audito r Genera l Ye s annua l Ye s Semi • Ye s Ye s Ye s (17 ) Mak e Repor t Annua l Yes . t o governo r an d legis • latur e Yes , t o Yes , t o governo r governo r an d genera l assembl y newspape r statemen t governo r Ye s Semiannua l Yes . t o a s abov e Yes . t o governo r an d genera l Sam e (16 ) o n Projec t

T o AuthoriJE e Concession s s Ye s Yes , an d t o pr Sam e a s abov t o b e operate d sien t lodgin g o n o r adjacen t projec t prohibite d t o construc ga s olm e station competitivel y Yes , bu t tran • Yes . bu t coitro l >< , mot e competitio t ' an d preven t , monopol y (15 ) T o FI X Tol l Rate s o r Othe r Charge s Federa l la w t o reductio n b y Yes . subjec t Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s s emiann u a l e s timate Ye s Ye s o r delegat e | righ t o State i roaddepartmen t lowes t rat e t o fi x renta l an d othe r charge s whic h depart • men t wil l pa y i f fo r us e o f eac h projec t Ye s Yes , base d o n Yes , o r assig n ' Yes , bu t dail y user s t o ge Ye s Authorize d Ye s Yes . sam e a s abov e (14 ) Lan d T o Sel l o r Leas e Unneede d

>* (13 ) Publi c Utilitie s fo r Installatio n o r Relocatio n f T o Contro l r Provid e Yes . wher e relocated , t o hav e sam right s a befor Sam e a s abov Ye s Ye s Yes , additiona l ta x fo r projec t us e b y taxe d publi c Ye s Ye s Ye s 1 Ye s utilit y prcdiibite d ^! (12 ) fo r Survey s T o Ente r Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s i f railroa d propert y Yes . fiv e day s notic e (11 )

Whe n s Affecte d Highway s Necessar y Ye s T o Vacat e t o count y circui t coir t Yes . b y petitio n Ye s 1 >*

Stat e — (cont'd ) n

a — (1 ) (1 ) (3 ) (1 ) Iow a Kansa s Fl a (cont'd ) Idah o 1- 85 (10 ) T o State Relocat e Highway s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s approve d Instat e de • Yes , wher e partmen t o f publi c work s Yes . an y publi c highwa y Ye s (9 ) Pai d Projec t T o B e Stat e Highwa y Incorporate d I n Syste m Whe n Bond s Ye s Yes , i f approve d b y boar d o f highway s highwa y department , i f n goo d conditio conditio n Yes , a t optio n o f Yea , i f m goo d Yes , i f m goo d conditio n Yea , i f n goo d conditio n repai r repai r Sam e a s abov Yes , I f m goo d Ye s Yes , I f m goo d Ye s T o SUt e Highway s m Projec t Incorporat e publi c work s b y Stat e de • Yea , wher e approve d partmen t o f (7 ) T o Accep t Federa l Ai d V Ye a Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s governo r >* Ye a (6 ) T o Emplo y Consultant s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 1 Ye s Ye s Ye s T o Contrac t o f al l contractor s Yes , an d wit h othe r State s Yes , 100 % bon d require Ye s Yes , an d wit h departmen t Ye s Yea , a s approve d b y nam e o f Stat State highwa y commissio n Yes , an d purchas e neede propert y an d tak e titl m Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Ye a Ye s No , State highwa y Ye s Ye s Ye s constructio n (4 ) T o Acces s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 1 Ye s (3 ) T o Locat e Yes , a s agree d wit h highwa y departmen t Yes , wit h approva l o f highwa y departmen t an d governo r Perhap s b y implicatio n Yes . wit h approva l o f departmen t o f highway s Yes , motorways . Ba y bridg e locatio n designate d m Ac t bridg e supervisor y Ye s Yea , wit h approva l o f committe e No , a determine d b y work s No . accordin g t o previousl y Stat e departmen t o f publi c prepare d plan s Ye s o f consultin g engineer s t determin e wher feasibl exac t termmi ) ^ Yes , authorit y an d boar Yes , (exac t rout e an d Ye s 1 (2 ) T o Construc t an d Mamta m Yes , a s agree d wit h fo r Ye s Ye s Yes , an d t o contrac wit h departmen t o f highway s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s highwa y departmen t No , authorit y authorize s bridge s Yes , wit h ai d o f State Ye s Ye s an d Stat e highwa y enginee r construct s an d operate (1 ) Lan d b y T o Acquir e Emmen t Domai n n Ye a Ye s N o provision , expropriatio n Ye s authorize d authorize d b y Congres s Yes , aii d m othe r State s a Ye s Yea , an d i n adjomin g Columbia , a s permitte d Ye s State s an d Distric t o f Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 1

Stat e m

2=- Mas s Mic h Mon t 86 (22 ) Researc h T o Conduc t an d Studie s feasibl e rout Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Yes , o f mos t Ye s Ye s Ye s (21 ) T o Charg e Toll s Afte r Bond s Pai d N o N o N o No , conveye d t o State Yes , t o reimburs e an y highwa y departmen t advance s Yes , fo r operatio n bridges , i f no t prohibite d b y Federa l la w Yes , bu t onl y o reimburs e Commissio n an y money s expende d fo r operatio n Yes , i f nee d fo r operatio n an d no t contrar y o Federa l la w contiguou s project N o Commo n carriers , yes an d fo r operatio n Yes , fo r othe existin g Yes . fo r othe project s Yes , fo r additiona l bridge s j Yes , fo r operatio n an d (20 ) Fo r Projec t T o Acquir e Mor Lan d Tha n Necessar y Ye s Yes , feede r road s o part (19 ) o f Lan d T o Tak e Immediat e Possessio n No , bu t i f opera • limitation s N o la y authorize d i n hardshi p case s tio n commence d withou t objectio n ma y continue , OKne r t o hav e actio n fo r Yes , wit h Ye s Yes , 6 0 da y de • damage s >! (18 ) Audi t Annua l o o f authorit y Ye s b y la w a t expense ! Yes , a s require d Ye s Ye s Ye s >i (17 ) Mak e Repor t Ye s No , quarterl y Ye s abov e Sam e a s Ye s Ye s Ye s >i (16 ) o n Projec t Concession s T o Authoriz e 0) vertism g sign s Ye s station s an d restaurant s Yes , an d ad - station s onl y Yea , gasolin e an d repai r Ye s Ye s Yes , gasolin e

Ye s > (15 ) T o Fi x Tol l Rdte s o r Othe r Charge s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s feede r road s o f Ye s Ye s Yes , unles s surrendere d t o departmen t unde r leas e Ye s Yes , ba t toll s o n projec t p i ohibite d

01 -a ^ -a o „ S ^ Tl tj

H o 5 (13 ) Publi c Utilitie s fo r Installatio n O I Relocatio n o f T o Contro l i Provid e u Ye s Ye s Ye s us e o f crossin g Ye s Ye s Ye s Ma y condem n Yes , maycontiac t fo r Ye s 1 1 (12 ) fo r 1 £ T o Ente r Survey s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s >!

1 1 (11 ) £ Affecte d Highway s Necessar y publi c highwa y Ye s T o Vacat e Ye s Yes , an y Ye s Ye s

1 Whe n >*

Stat e n (cont'd ) (1 ) (1 ) (3 ) (1 ) (cont'd ) (2 ) Mon t 3 ^3 3 Mas s Mic h

K y s- 5 87 T o (10) Stat e Relocat e Hiflhwav i b e com - bmed , re • located , ove r o 1 Yea . ma y carrie d unde r (9 ) Pai d Stat e Highwa y Projec t T o B e Incorporate d I n Syste m Whe n Bond s Yes , I f m conditio n satisfactor y t o Stat e highwa y departmen t Ye s Authorit y asset s pas t o State Whe n authority (ri >liga - I tion s paid , parkway pas s t o Stat e an d be • com e subjec t o th jurisdictio n o f Lon g Islan d Stat e Par k Commissio n Ves , passe s t o Stat e T o (8) Stat e Highway s

m Projec t s Incorporat e s. >* I •I 1 Ai d r o Accep t Federa : 1 , wit h approva l o erno r l e a abov 3 in iS (6 )

T o Emplo y Consultant a n

tiona l officer s t) Yes . an d addi • Sam e a s abov Yea . us e Stat employee s advisor s r e bond s 1 1 1 Yea , fmancia l Transfe r t o authorit y o f cit y officer s an d employee s authorize d >*

o s 1 u 0

Bl s V V Yea , o n behal f Stat e Yes , o n behal f Stat e r e ferr y projec t >• Yes , an d wit h Delawar e Yes , bu t constructio n con - supermtenden t 1 i tract s t o b e approve d y >*

P S (4 ) T o Acce t Cont i s 1 s 1

•a S "3 ^ c S 3 H 3 o Yes , wit h approv i governo r an d cou i Locatio n eatablis l Ye a (exac t rout e f exac t termmi ) la w No , locatio n establishe d b y la w bu t advisabl e 1 deviation s permitte d Yes , a s approve d supermtenden t (2 ) T o Construc t an d Mamta m

V S o f citie s an d town Yes , with m compac t area s May-Lewe s Ferr y Yes , parkwa y an d Cap e Yes . t o reconstruc Yes , an d ma y hav e a s authorit y agen t 1 >* 1 1 Yes , Throg s Nec k Bridg e an d t o mak e agreemen wit h Por t Authorit y r e Narrow s Bridg e >* (1 ) Lan d T o Acquir e Emmen t Doma m

u Yea , bu t no Stat e propert y Yea , bu t fo r loca l publi c propert y mus t ge consen Yea , an y lan d no t owne 1 ^ city , ua e o f desirabl State lan d an ai r spac e unde r wate authorized , cit y lan d assignmen t o authorit y authorize d No , State superintenden t o f publi c work s acquires , mcludm g b y eminen t 1 1 withou t consideratio n doma m

in _ Stat e S5 ^ — — 1 88 (22 ) Researc h T o Conduc t an d Studie s « Beaco n Bridg e Yes , fo r Newburgh - expens e Yes . b y Depart • men t a authorit y >* Ye s (21 ) T o Charg e Toll s Afte r Buml b Pai d No , bu t i f Federa l hind s bridge , qualifie d yes unti l authority' s shar e o f cos t paid , bu t non e o f bridge s shal l b e fre fro m toll s unti l al ar e fre use d o n Newburgh-Beaco Yes , fo r othe project s o r project s fun d fo r operatio n Yes . fo r anothe projec t advance d b y departmen t o f publi c work s an d highway an d fro m th e State' s genera l fund , an d fo r extension s Yes , t o establis h trus Yes , t o reimburs e an y fund s advance d b y departmen t o f publi c work s an d highway an d fo r extension s Yes , t o reimburs e an y fund s

1 (20 ) Fo r Projec t T o Acquir e Mor Lan d Tha n Necessar y 9 ing s an d othe r structure Yes , ne w site s fo r dwell • t» Ye s (19 ) o f Lan d T o Tak e Possessio n Immediat e s u p e r mtend n t file s ma p an d secretar y o f Yes , upo n Yes , whe n descriptio n wit h State Yes . upo n deposi t deposi t (18 ) Audi t Annua l Ye s Ye s (17 ) Mak e Repor t Annua l trolle r an d legisla • ture , comp • o f budge t lature b an d legi s - latur e abov e Yes , t o governor , directo r No , bi • annual , t o bot h legi s - Yes , t o governo r Sam e a s (16 ) o n Projec t T o Authoriz e Concession s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s (15 ) T o Fi x Tol l Rate s o r Othe r Charge s t o b e th sam clif f an d Ri p Va n Winkl e Bridge s msufficien t Narrow s Bridg e rate s a pro • vide d m leas e wit h Por t Authorit y Yes , bu t toll s o n Mid-Hudson . fo r Souther n o r par t prove s Yes , bu t Kmgsto n - Rhine fee s fo r thru - wa y o r par t Yes . i f 10 $ tol l Stat e Parkwa y feede r road s ove r SI X mile s Yes , bu t no o excee d 25 $ pe r privat e ca r Yes . an d annua l Yes , an d fo r Ye s Ye s Yes . wit h approva l o f governo r an d counci l Sam e a s abov Ye s 1 (14 ) Lan d T o Sel l o r Leas e Unneede d s mg s an d othe r structure s Yes , an d t o se U site s o f dwell - Ye s ' m connectio n bac k t o an y authoritie s tur n bac k t o loca l authoritie s road o r portion s take n wit h feede r road s excep t tur n Ye s Authorize d t o Sam e a s above , (13 ) Publi c Utilitie s fo r InsUllatio n o r Relocatio n f T o Contro l r Provid e Ye s Yes , an d gran t license s an d easement s Ye s les s cos t o f rea l propert y an d othe r right s pai b y th e authorit y Yes , t o b e don owne r a t expens e o f authorit y Yes . a t cos o f authority , Yes , a t cos o f authorit y Ye s (12 ) fo r £ T o Ente r >• >* 1 1 (11 ) Affecte d Highway s Ye s T o Vacat e Ye s Ye s

JB _

State 3? & = 3 Z ^ Z ^ 89

3 T o (10 ) Stat e HiBhway s Relocat e b y Stat e

Yes , a s approve d highwa y commis • sio n ii jec t o ap •

>i Yes,sub • prova l departmen t o f highway s abov e Sam e a s abov e abov e Sam e a s Sam e a s Sam e a s abov e abov e abov e Sam e a s Sam e a s abov e Sam e a s m t (9 ) Pai d Projec t T o B e State Highwa y Incorporate d I i

Syste m Whe n Bo S S Ye a Conveye d t o t o charg e toll s State , includm g ri f Yes , i f n goo d conditio n Yei i f n goo d conditio n Ye s Ye s >! >I >^ Ye s 1 (8 ) T o State Highway s i n Projec t Incorporat e Ye s therewit h Yes , i f connecte d a t bot h end s Ye s (7 ) prova l o f wa y ai d rule s ) t Federa l Ai d mpl y wit h wit h a [ no r "3 S > Acce c 1 . a -3 u !H (6 ) T o Emplo y Consultant s 01 Yes , an d lega l consultant a i n Canad a Ye s reporte d t o Ye s Yes , bu t o b e kep t a mini • mu m an d legislatur e Ye s Ye s Ye s 1 >> >! !« Ye s 1 > (5 ) certai n restric - tructio n contract s

bov e 1 bov e onstructio n con - 1 b e approve d bov e limitation s bov e bov e bov e ' o Contrac t •ove d b y depart - ighway s dien t •a a

con s app i 3 fl fl fl n M ; o f h i § fl1 Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Yes , men t tract s sh a ti y depart ] Yes , al l e Sam e Sam e Sam e m Sam e Sam e Sam e >i S (4 ) T o Contro l Ye s Ye s

- R o a •a c (3 ) T o Locat e Yes , a s approve d b y Locatio n t o b e approve d b y an d desig n standard s approve d b y directo r o f highway s Yes , mos t feasibl e ro i betwee n designate d termin i Termin i indicated , ex locatio n t o b e approve c b y departmen t o f high v an d governo r Locatio n t o b e approv governo r an d departm e o f highway s Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov (2 > T o Construc t an d Mainta m

V Ye s No , t o improv e an d mam - tam existin g bridge s t o b e approve d y depart • Yes , consti-uctio n contract a men t o f highway s an d con • structio n t o b e unde r it s supervision , t o b e mam - taine d b y department , unde r contro l o f commissio n Yes , constructio n an d mamtenanc e t o b y de • partmen t o f highway s unde r contro l o f commissio n o f departmen t highways , Sam e a b abov Ye t Turnpik e o b con • structe d unde r 8upervu>io n maintenanc e b y an d unde r contro l o f commissio n throug h th e departmen t Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov s 5 a u K 1

" al l power s c e right s o i n adjomin g :ongres s no J S5

^ a sur f a

« s 2 !S V S 1 1 >! 1 1

3

(6 ) (1 ) ri (1 ) (cont'd ) N Y Ohi o Okl a (10 ) N y (cont'd ) (6 ) Stat e s w SI s? =1 (cont'd ) locate d where m cour t t o count y petitio n Yes,upo n Necessar y T o Vacat e Highway s Affecte d

# # # # Whe n

n « (11 > 1 Survey s j fo r ! T o Ente r Yes , an d I n Canad a •< *< •< •< A tf (12 ) n a • 1 Publi c Utilitie s 1 o r Relocatio n f 1 T o Contrc A r Provid e 1 (13 ) X f a # • ? • fo r Installatio n

•4 • Unneede d

• » « 3 o r Leas e ? ToSe U Lan d (14 ) Yes , afte r Stat e SUt e publi c mus t approv e budge t directo r theret o Stat e advance s re • utilit y la w jec t o an y Yes , bu t sub • imbursed , prio r requirement s Federa l o r Othe r Charge s

•< *< Tol l Rata s o r # a n # • M

t s n T o Fi x (IS ) solease d subjec t personalpropert y Yes , an d rea l othe r privatel y t o taxatio n a s T o Autho r u e

•< Concession s

s « o n Projec t o a # N (16 ) 1 Repor t 1 1 (1» ) Annua l s Mak e ' Audi t Stat e bridg com • Yes , book s o f visio n a s t o auditor , n o pro • missio n b y Stat e commission s count y an d cit s Annua l (lA ) Sam e a s abov Yes , upo n de • posi t o f su m Yes . upo n de • b e espedite d proceeding s t o posi t o f th e assesse d >< •4 ><

If n IB Possessio n n s a T o Tak e M s o f Lan d (16 )

0 Lan d Tha n Necessar y T o Acquir e Mor Fo r Projec t j tinne d o n B U project s unti l , No bu t i f bond s fo r an y Yes . fo r operatio n an d t o bond s fo r al l proj e t pai d projec t unpai d toll s ccm - repa y an deb t o Stat e o n Afte r Bond s Pai d T o Charg e Toll s (Si ) T o Conduc t an d Studie s Researc h (22 )

06 91 T o SUt e n Relocat e Highway s Ye s Ye a Ye a Ye s Ye s commis • sion , SUt e roa d com - Upo n re • ques t o f shall ^ locat e an y roa d Ye a I Ye s Pai d Projec t T o B e Incorporate d I n Syste m Whe n Boixi a Ye a Ye s Yea . i f m goo d conditio n conditio n Yes , I f m goo d Yes , i f n goo d conditio n Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov conditio n Yea . i f m goo d Ye s (B ) T o Stat e

lorporat e [ighway s 1 Projec t .J M u >! >< !H

(7 ) I 8

:ep t Federa l Ai d n

T o Ac c s Fro m an y Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye a Ye a >< Ye s Ye a IYC S (6 ) T o Emplo y Consultant s mteres t m con • Ye s Ye s Ye a trac t an d ael l t o authorit y No . t o us e Yea . an d the y Ye a 1 1 Stat e personne l Ye s

1 1 {permitte d t o hav e T o Contrac t . bu t ove r $1,00 0 l e a abov r wit h approva l o f erno r s 8 9 t o b e approve d depart • men t o f highw^r a Yes , constructio n contract s If 5 Ye a Ye s Directo r o f highway s sha U Authorit y an d Stat e official s ma y mak e desirabl agreement s Ye s >* cmtrac t fo r conatructic m Ye s >* 1 1 1 (0 •3 5 "V H *S• S8 o < 3 « ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a >* (4 ) T o Locat e Parkwa y t o b e constructe d m accordanc e wit h aurve y mad e b y departmen t o f highway s 1 Yes , wit h approva l o f directo r o f publi c work s highwa y commissio n Yes , a approve d b y governo r Yes , a approve d b y Stat e highwa y commiasio n Sam e a s abov requirin g specifi c authori • zatio n Sam e a s abov Yea , excep t project s Ye s Yea , wit h approva l o f exac t termmi ) SUt e roa d eommiaaio n Yea , (exac t rout e an d

is as :io n an d • b e throug h highway s f commissio n ' o f highway s - |3 Si ontro l a mstruc t lanc e t o len t o f 1 lirecto r 1 abov e « s 1 Yes , c mamte r depart n unde r c Ye a Ye s Ye a Ye a Ye a No , by e Ye s Ye a >* {Ye a 1 cn (1 ) Lan d b y T o Acquir e Eminen t Domai n s Ye a right-of-wa y purpose s Ye s Yes , bu t onl y fo r roa d an Ye s Ye a Yea , directo r o f highway s acquire s o n order f authori ^ authorize s projec t Yea . whe n legislatur e {Ye s { 1 >* 1

n M (11 ) Stat e « 5 > ^ s =

P a (cont'd ) M (1 )

s= Was h s- 92 (22 ) Researc h an d Studie s T o Conduc t mt o contrac t fo r studie s Ye a Ye a Ye a Ma y ente r Ye a Ye a Ye a (21 ) T o Charg e Ttdl s Afte r Bond s Pai d

o N o N o N o N o Ye s Ye s 1 Yes . t o pa y bond s issue d fo r other project a N o Ye s Z (20 ) Fo r Projec t T o Acquir e Mor Lan d Tha n Necessar y Yes . severe d lan (19 ) o f Lan d T o Tak e Immediat e Possessio n o No . bu t ex • upo n deposi t mt o cour t pedite d N o Afte r failur e t o purchase , yes . Ye s Z (18 ) Audi t Annua l inspection o f bondholder s ad m mistratio n Ye s Ye s Ye s Accoun U shal l b e kep t ope n o Ye s Yes . b y State directo r o f Ye a Ye a (17 ) Mak e Annua l Repor t governo r throug h Ye s governo r governo r an d legis • latur e Yes , l o governo r Yes , t o an d politi • ca l sub - pasae a Ye s Yes , t o Yea , t o Ye s (16 ) o n Projec t T o Authoriz e Cmceaaion s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 1 (15 ) T o Fi x Tol l Rate s o r Othe r Charge s Ye s Ye s o f consultin g en - gmee r require d fo r tarttl chang e Ye s Ye a Ye a Ye a Ye s Ye a Yes.bu t approva l Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s i 1 (14 ) Lan d T o Sel l o r Leas e Unneede d Ye s reconve y Ye s Ye s Ye s T o Ye s (13 ) Publi c UtUitie s fo r InsUUatio n o r Relocatio n f T o Contro l i Provid e Ye s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye a (12 ) fo r T o Ente r Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a , Survey s

Whe n o Affecte d Highway s T o Vacat e roa d ques t o f commis • sion . SUt e missione r shal l va • cat e an y Upo n re • Yea . an d street s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a 1 Necessar y

> K — ^ (cont'd ) SUt e (11 ) n (1 ) (cont'd ) Was h P a > — 93 (12 ) Othe r R e o r afte 1 0 year s bon d proceed s b e pai t o Stat e treasure r Bond s maturm g o n Al l money s receive d fro m proceed s o f sal e fund s deeme d t o b e trus (11 ) RetUndm g Provision s 3ond s refunde d Yea. a t leas 1/4% lea s mteres t tha n Yea , ma y issu e re • fundin g bond s o f Stat e Refunde d b y genera l obligatio n bond a o f Stat e in g ouUtandm bond s refundin g bond s ma y m par t i n exchang e fo r th e holder s o f 1 bond s t o b e exchange d . consen t Warrant o ma y b e redeeme d Ma y issu e fo r refund • Wher e bond s ar caU - able . o r wher e holder s consen t o thei r re • tirement , th e Authorit y ma y issu e an d sel l fundin g o r refundm bcmd s Th e fundin g o r b e delivere d wholl y o r outstandin g bond s i f { (10 ) b y Publi c Ye a Institution s Ye s fo r State schoo l Investmen t Yes.an d fund s Ye s (B )

fro m v Taxatio n Exemptio n Yes , fro m com e taxe s Yes , Bond s an d mter - ea t exemp fro m taxe s other tha n transfer , inheritenc e an d esUt e Uxe a Ye s Stat e in • (8 )

Credi t o Pledgin g o f SUt e N o N o N o N o N o N o Z

a (7 ) Publi c o r Privat e Sal lol d b y treasure r o n advertisemen t the n to negotiat e a privat Publi c B y privat e sal t o Federa l governmen t o r agenc y Stat e o r agenc y politica l subdivision , o r b y publi c sal e wit h righ t o reject , i f n o bi d r bid s rejected , sal e o r ma y readvertis Eithe r Public , o n seale d bid s Publi c sal e afte r advertise • ment , wit h righ t o rejec an d sel l a t pri'vat e sal bu no t fo r les s tha n bes re • jecte d bi Prio r publi c offerin g no t require d fo r sal e t o U S r agenc y Publi c sal e o n aealc d bid s o r a t publi c auctio n Eithe r { (6 ) Restriction s o n Sal e Pric Fo r cas h a t no les tha n N o NcHi e o f th warrant s t b sol d fo r les s tha n pa an pa r an d accrue mteres t A s departmen t determme a Fo r suc h pric e o price a Bond a ma y b e sol d t lea s tha n par , bu t mteres cos no t to excee d 6% , compute t o absolut e maturit y m accordanc e wit h standar d Ubl e o f bon d value s Sal e pric shal l yiel d pur • chase r no t mor e tha n 6 % a yea r accordm g to sUndar d Ubl e o f bon d value s an shal l includ e mteres t ac • crue d toth e dat o f delivery , subjec t to thes e limitations , bond s ma y b e sol d belo w pa r o fac e valu accrue d mteres t T o b e sol d t bi reflectin g lowes t interes cost , com • pute d t o maturit y a s commissio n determines , bu t interes cos o maturit y no t o excee d 6 % (5 ) Negotiabl e In s trument Ye s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s (4 ) Bond a Interi m o r Temporar y Temporar y note s o f Yea , o f an y SUt e Ye s Yes . o r note s denominatio n (3 ) Perio d o f Amortizatio n Fro m fiv e t o thre e o r mor tha n 3 0 yeara , No t mor e tha n 3 0 years , pro • redemptio n No t o excee d 4 0 year s 3 0 year a No t les s tha n payabl e m annua l msUll - ment s visio n ma y b e mad e fo r pno No t o excee d 4 0 year s No t o excee d 4 0 year a A s authorit y preacribea No t o excee d 4 0 year s i (2 ) Rat e o f Interes t rat e no t o ex • No t o excee d 3-3/4 % No t to excee d 4 % cee d 3 % o n fac e valu e A s declaratio n ma y provid e No t o excee d G % payabl e s e m lann u all y No t mor e tha n No t ove r 6% , bu t rat e nee d no t b e unifor m fo r sam e issu A t a n effectiv e Shal l no t excee d 6 % (1 ) t o Issu e Authorit y ticipatio n bond s o f th e State , b y B y bon d declara • tio n aigne d b y treasure r in g improvement s Revenu e anticipa • tio n warrant s fro m tim e t o Yes . revenu e an • majorit y vot e an d approva l o f governo r Yes , bond s o f th e mou s approva l o f governo r o r fro m tim e t tim e Yes , fo r particu • la r bridge s Yes . an d additiona l bonda , a t 1 time o r fro m tim e t tim e Yes , an d additiona l bond a fo r cross • State , wit h unani • member s an d Yes , a t on e tim

H (1 ) H (1 ) SUt e Con n < " < — u - Col o 94 (20 ) N o right s aris e unde r Ac t unti l bond s issue d an actuall y sol Ac t provide s protectio n fro m competin g facilitie s revenue s ar e anticipate d fro m Bond s shal l designat e projec t u connectio n wit h Nationa l Syste m $26 0 miUio n bon d issuanc e authorize o f Interstat e an d Defens Highway s

I

V Loca l taxe s continue d o n an y acquire d existin g bridg e Ye s >* (IS ) Sourc e t o Stat e Highwa y Ou t o f fund s availabl e : Departmen t b e reimburse d fro m toU s Ma y reques t loca l advance s o r Appropriatio n fro m Stat e highwa y fund , t o contribution s A s approve d b y governo r Treasure r ma y th e Stat 1 i i 1 (17 ) Amoun t no r t o $100,00 0 iprove d b y D «50,00 0 apprc^riate d a s permanen t re - volvm g fun d A s a i gove i (16 ) Provision s Sinkin g Fun d No , trus t agreemen revenu e o r money s ' Bon d resolutio n ma y fun d t o provid e fo r toll s m Stat e treasur y an d fo r paymen t o f bond s permissibl e t o safe • guard securit y o f bond • holder s includm g pledg e o f toll s r othe , mad e b y th Authorit conta m sinking ftin d provisio n Ye s Accrue d mteres t pai d whe n bond s de • livere d credite t o sinkin g fun d Shal l pledg e par t o f revenu a t o r prio issuanc e o f bond s t sinkin g paymen t o f interes an d prmcipa l whe n du e Yes , create d fro m Create d b y Commis • sio n a t o r befor e warran t issuanc e an d adde d t o a mterval fro m toU s an d Stat e highwa y ftin d Al l ne t projec mcom e pai d mt o smkm g fiin pledge d fo r paymen t o f bond s fro m toU s an d taxe Sinfcm g fun d create

s £ s An y truste e an d holde r o f Warrant s a firs t lie n o reve • nues . Stat e covenant s i t wil l no o r trus t indentur e lutio n befor e isBuanc agains t State , commissione r o treasure r bond s o r f an y coupon ma compe l performanc e dutie s unde r trus t agreemen o b e performe d b y Authorit An y bondholde r an d truste e ma b y proceeding s a t la w o r i n equit enforc e hi s right an d compe l b y Ac t I f defaul t o n bonds , receive r ma y b e appomte d t o manag bridg e o r ferr y fo commissio n ' An y bondholde r ma b mandamu s formanc e o f dutie s impose d b y chang e law s t o impai r revenue equit y protec t an righ d com - quire d b y law . hand resolutio n Yes , bu t ma y restric b reso • a s agains t partie havin g claim Act , includin g thos e r deposi t an d disbursemen t o f bon pro • ceed s an d toll i (14 ) Revenu e fro m Bond s o r ToU Assignmen t o f sroceed s Al l o r par t f revenue s ma y b e sufficien t amoun o f th e gros s Trus t indentur e ma y pledg o r pledge d i n bon declaratio tn d othe r revenue s ah bon Bon d resolutio n ma y pledg e toll s Shal l se t asid e an d pledg a Pledg e o f toll s an d revenue aha U no t b e affecte d y fundin g o r refUndm g bond s Ma y pledg e ne t iiic(»n fro m toll s t o pa y warrant assig n toll s an d revenu e t o b Sam e a s abov

n

5 |S i: o SS oi trus t indentur e i I f bond s secure d b y shal l no t conve y o r mortgag e an y projec t o r par t Trus t agreemen o r Sam e a s abov resolutio n shal l no t conve y o r mortgag e an y projec t o r par

o ^ nt'd ) at e

"3 « Si (1 ) 15 ^ u ^ Con n SUt e Con n (cont'd ) (1 ) 2 3 |Yes , wit h department , yes approva l o f $46.550,00 0 no t ove r Division . No , govemoi k Not e Treate d a Ye s $4,600,00 0 to U Ye s Bond a here • Division , Ye s leaa e o f facilitie s operation , sal e o r solel y fro m reve - cate s payabl e Revenu e certifi • on e authorit y (1948 ) validate d roa d revenu e bond a mcUidin g tofor e issue d

°l - ! S 1 payabl e semi • A s restflutio n No t ove r 4% . provide s payabl e semi - No t ove r 5% , 6% . payabl e No t o excee d 5 % No t to excee d 6 % No t to excee d Interes t Rat e o f (2 ) departmen t 4 0 year s No t o excee d A s fixe d b y maturit y abl e befor b e mad redee m 4 0 years , ma y No t exceedm g 4 0 year s No t exceedm g 4 0 year s No t exceedm g

s' > Amortisatio n pi » Perio d o f (3 ) • -(4 ) Ye s Ye s Ye s ment , ye s tificate a temporary tificate s o r ceipU , cer • Interim re - No , depart • revenu e cer - ' Temporar y bteri m o r Bond s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Instrument s Negotiabl e (5 ) Sam e a s abov A s departmen t determines , A s determine d b y authorit Ye s Uble s m accordanc e wit h standar d tha n 4 % mterest , compute d to requir e paymen t o f mor but no t a pric e s o lo w cludin g amoun t o f an y certificat e values , an d ex • sUndar d Uble s o f revenu e compute d m accordanc e wit h mor e tha n B% pe r annum , lo w a t o requir e paymen f No t o b e sol d a pric s discoun t exceed s 5% Bond s no t to b e sol d i f interes t o b e pai d plu s Restriction s o n Sal e Pric (• ) Eithe r Either Autho r 1 ^ pric e a s determine d b y Publi c o r privat e Eithe r Publi c o r privat e I n suc h manne r an d fo Privat e Sal Publi c o r (7 ) divisio n sub • politica l No , no r N o N o cit y o r county , N o N o tow n o f an y No . no r Pledgai g o t Stat e Credi t Yes . an d Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s mcom e Taxatio n Exemptio n fro m (8 ) Yes . an d Ye s bank s savmg s Yes , m - Institution s Investmen t office r o municipa l count y o r an y State , posi t wit h fo r de • cludm g Ye s byla w thorize d agenc y au • b y Publi c (10 ) prio r la w Yea , o r unde an y Yes , an d partl y to Ye s holder s thereo f con - maturi ^ o r wher e ma y b e use d t o pa other purpos e refun d an fo r y certificate s Ma y issu e refundin g redeemabl e prio r to thos e maturin g o r Refundin g obligation s Provision s Refundin g (U ) bond s thorization , valida • mine d prio r t o au • exac t rout e b deter • No t requisit e tha tio n o r sal e f an y Securitie s Othe r H e (12 )

96 96

I : S_ ^ Si 1 in authorit y t o detrimen f bondholders , competin g facilitie s prohibite d bridg e o r tunne l with m 1 0 mile s n shor e fro m terminu s o f bridg ex • t o impai r powe f Departmen m Stat e pledge s i t wil l no restric Stat e pledge s bondholder no t con • struc t o r allo w b e constructe d an y nort h o f rive r 2 0 mile s n sout cep t i f authorize d b y Ac o Congres s operatio n o f bridg e an d limit a col • lectio n o f revenue s a lon g indebt • State covenant a wit h bondholder s no t ednes s outstandin g Departmen t au - $46,550,00 0 fo r constructio n o f bridg e I n connectio wit h project a lyin g o f Georgi a respectively , relatin g t partl y withi n Stat e o f Florid a an d part ^ with m State o f Georgia , Au • thorit y I S authorize d t o ente r mt an y par t o f revenue-producin g proj • ect s locate d with m th e respectiv Florid a i s authorize d t o ente r mt State roa d departmen t o f Florid a an State s Stat e roa d departmen t o f al l debt s o f operation , maintenanc e an d repai r o f project a locate with m Stat e o f Florid a Authorize d t o ente r mt lease - purchas e contract a wit h Stat roa d nanc e an d operatio n o f highway , t o leas e r sel l i departmen t fo r construction , mainte • Isuc h agreement s wit th e Authorit y .an d t o agre e wit h Authorit y pa (19 ) Propert y fro m Taxe s Ye s Ye s Ye s Al l propertie s o f Authority , rea l o r personal , an d al l ex • pense s an d mcom e tie s shal l b e exemp t o f Florid a an d y derive d fro m facili • fro m taxatio n b y State county , municipalit y divisio n thereo f 1 (18 ) Sourc e Cas h m Stat e highwa y fun d •V Exoense s (17 ) Amoun t Maximu m Authorit y ma borro w mone o n anticipate d receip t o f fund s fro m an y sourc e d ma issu e notes , warrant s o r debenture therefor bearm g mterea t a rat e no exceedm 6 % an d maturin g with m fiv e year s neede d (16 ) Provision s 1 Sinkin g Fun d It s dispositio n Bon d o r not e resolutio n ma y conta m provision s fo r smkm g fund , an d tmctio n on e ove r th other Yes , fo r th e benefi t o f al l bond s withou t di - Ye s Ye s i (15 ) Redres s Federa l o r Stat e la w thi s Act , Bon d o r not e resolutio n ma y con • tam provision s fo r protectio n o f bondholder s i mcludm g receivershi p An y bondholde r an d truste e ma y b proceedmg s a t la w o r m equit y enforc e an righ t d com • pe l performanc e o f an y dut unde r Sam e a s abov shal l b e entitle d t o appomtmen f roa d departmen t i n connectio Florid a an d partl y i n Georgia , th e I n even t o f default , bondholder s a receive r t o tak e ove an d oper • at e properties , an d bondholder s ma y enforc e nght a agains t Au • thorit y I n lease-purchas e agree • ment s betwee n Authorit y an d Stat e wit h project s lym g partl y m tw o bodie s ma y ente r mt furthe Ye a Certificat e issuanc resolutio n o r trus t agreement ma y conta m pro • an d truste e ma y b proceedmg s a t la w o r i n equit y enforc e al l right s vision s protectin g holders , the y [agreement s t o secur e bondholder (14 ) Assignmen t o f Bond s o r Toll Yes , revenues subjec t o exist - mg contract s wit h bondholder Yes , trus t indentur e ma y pledg o r assig n toll s an d revenue Sam e a s abov m Florid a an d partl y Georgia , tw o bodie s ma y ente r mt agree • revenue s Revenu e certificat |l n lease-purchas e agreement s be • twee n Authori ^ an d State roa pactio n wit h project s lym g partl y ment s m regar d t o deposi f [proceed s o f bond wit h a ban k [o r trus t compan y a s truste e 1 Ma y pledg e o r assig n toll s an d proceed s t o b e use d solel y fo r constructio n o f highwa y (13 ) Mortgagin g Restriction s R e Trus t mdenhir e shal l , no t conve y o r mort • gag e bridg o r an y par t Trus t indentur e shal l o r maintame d b y no t conve y o r mort • gag e tol l crossin g o r an y propert operate d Divisio n I f authorize d m elec • tion . Authorit y ma mortgag e o r pledg an y o f it s rea l estate , persona l piopert y o r franchise s Ma y no t mortgag e mortgag e o r encum • be r an y par t o f high • wa y Shal l no t convey ,

•8^ TJ " (2 ) Stat e (cont'd ) Con n (cont'd ) Q *- 97 (12 ) Othe r Re Count y require d fo r ta x fund s Bon d issuanc e an Consen t o f Duva l pledg e o f l U gasolin Ac t a n irrevocabl e contrac t wit h bond • holder s Sam e a s abov Directe d bon pro • resolutio n o r trus t Sam e a s abov ceed s b e disburse d a s provide d m bon agreemen t e x offici o custodia n Stat e treasure r a Bu t Ac no o b e construe d t o chang e limit s o f amount permitte d mveste m obligation s o f an y on e obligo r b y variou s financia l institution s 1 Directe d bon pro - 1 ceed s b e pai d t o (H ) Refundin g o f l U bond s t o authorit y Yes , refundm g power s transferre d Ye s Ye s Ye s Bon d resolutio n ma y provid e fo r refUndm g bond s a t leas 1/ 4 o f 1 % les a mteres t revenues , fo r im - Yes . tol l roa d reve • nu e refundm g bond s o f th e State payabl fro m 'Yes , an d t o refun (10 ) b y Publi c Investmen t Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a insuranc e Yea , m - cludm g ever y financia l an d trus t fun d compan y (9 ) fro m Exemptio n Ye s , Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s transfe r an d m - com e an d an y sal e profi t lYes . an d 1 (8 ) Credi t Pledgin g N o N o 1 N o rentals , Bonds , no over$8-l/ 2 pe r yea N o yeSftnitno t N o No . no r politica l sub - io f an y (7 ) Publi c o r Eithe r Publi c Publi c Publi c I n suc h manne r a s contro l ma y determin e I n suc h manne r a s commissio n ma y determin e I n suc h manne r a s commissio n ma y determm e (6 ) Restriction s A s authorit y ma deter • mme , bu t mteres cos o n bond a no t o excee d 6 % pe r A t no les a tha n pa r plu s accrue d mteres t mteres t A t pa r plu s accrue d A t no lea s tha n pa r plu accrue d interes t Fo r suc h pric e a s contro l ma y determm e 5 % interes t bearm g bond a thos e bearm g les s tha n 5 % no t o b e sol d fo r les s tha n pa r an d accrue mterest , ar d table s o f bon value No t o b e sol d a pric s lo w a s t o requir e paymen o f mor e tha n 5 % interes t mone y received , compute d wit h relatio n t o absolut e maturit y m accordanc e wit h standar d table s o f bon values , excluding premiu m pai d o n bond a redeeme prio r t o maturit y |no t o b e sol d a pric s ilo w tha t interes cos shal l 'excee d 5 % compute t o imaturit y accordm g t o stand • (5 ) Negotiabl e Ye s Ye s Ye s 1 >! Ye s (4 ) , Bond s Interim o r

Temporar y V Ye s >* >!

o N (3 ) V z

Perio d o f Sa g «> o S year s No t ove r 4 0 jrear s No t ove r 4 0 No t ove r 2 0 year s No t ove r 2 5 year s Z ^ z It (2 ) Rat e o f Interes t 6% , payabl e No t o excee d No t to excee d lega l limi t o f th e Stat Bid s o n bond t o mteres rat e 1 competitiv e a s offere d Sam e a s abov A s determine d b y contro l No t ove r 5% , payabl e bemi - annuall y iNo t ove r 5 % <1 ) 1 t o I^su ^ Authorit y Sam e a s abov Yes , a t on e tim o r fro m tim e t Yes . a t on e tim i o r fro m tim e t time , t o $10 0 mil • lion , t o excee d $3 0 millio n ouUtand - m g require s proc • lamatio n b y governo r Sam e a s abov tun e tim e t o pa y fo r al l o r par t f an y on e o r mor e project s 1 Yea , afte r gover • no r approve s plan s Yes , a t on e tim o r fro m tim e t

(4 ) H 8 (1 ) Fl a (cont'd ) Idah o

Stat e o — 98 (20 ) righ t o f contro l to collec revenue s bon d proceed s an revenue pai to orde r o f commissio n an d m sam e ban k o r trus t ccwapan y an d applie solel y a s provide d m Ac t Directe d eac h projec t bea r al l ex - penae a o f contro l board , includin g Directe d bond s b e issue m separat aerie s fo r eac h tol l highwa y Cros wa y Fund , i f bonded disburse d o n manne r a s Stat e fund deeme d trus t fund s o b e he U y bondholder s lie n Al l money s receive d b y contro SUt e covenan U i t wil l no impai r Stat e treasure r fo specia l Tol High • tive s o f bondholder to approv e Al l money s receive d unde r Ac t holder s lie n deeme d trus t fund s subjec to projec t budge deeme d trus t fiind s subjec o b<»ul - SUt e covenan U no t to impai r j |Sam e a s abov

•si

|i (19) Ye s

si Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s (18 ) Sourc e Force s o f Stat e high - | t o t> e reimburse d frcm reasonabl e valu fro m legislatur e t o b re - i wa y commissio n an d an y ftind s available , al l bond proceed s equipmen t available . sio n t o b e reimburse d firs t revenue s o r amoun t advance d repai fro m bon d proceed s Appropriatio n b y pai d fro m bon o r tol l ' o r department , re • imburse d fro m bon Sam e a s abov An y fiind s o r me n an d SUt e highwa y commi s - t o departmen An y fiind s availabl e Sam e a s abov ' f it o SUt e highwa y boar d

s(17 ) ;

I Amoun t Maximu m

9 A s necessar y A s necessar y $375,00 0 (IS ) Proviaion s Sinkin g Fun d l)on d resolutio n Yea . a s provide d m Yes , a provide d b y bon d resolutio n o r trus t agreemen resolutio n o r trus t indentur e Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov bond s o f give n issu e withou t distinctio n o r Yes , fo r benefi t o f a U priori ^ o f on e ove r another , unles s other - Iwis e provide d m bon

V o (15 ) Redres s require d b y Ac t o r bon res right s an d compe l performanc e o f agreement Specifi c tha t bon d issuance s no t subjec o an y othe r la w trua t agreemen equit y t o protec an righ r tio n o r enjo m actio An y bondholde r an d truste e ma y b proceeding s a t la w o r m equit y protec t an d enforc e al l dutie a require d b y Ac t o r trua ma y b civi l proceedm g enforc e an y righ t d compe l performanc e o f dutie s require d b y statut e r An y bondholde r ma a t la w o i compe l performanc e o f an y d jurisdiction , bu t canno compe l subroge e o f authorit y t enfo i contrac t righ U o f collectin g An y bondholde r o an truste e Bondholder s an d th e truste ma y brin g proceeding s a t la w o r m equit y t o enforc e an righ r compe l performanc e o f an y dut lease-purchas e agreemen t Yes , an d superio r cour t o f Fulto n Count y t o hav e exclusiv origina l exercis e o f taxin g powe r th SUt e Sam e a s above , ala o declare d unde r Ac t o pursuan to an y , renta l |Sam e a s abov 1 i (14 ) Revenu e fro m Bond s o r Toll Assignmen t o f treasure r o r assig n toll s an d othe reve • Revenues , rent s an d eammg a receive d b y authori ^ o r pledge tio n ma y pledg e o r assig toll s Commiasicx i ma y ente r mt o trus t agreement s t o secur e paymen f Yes , trus t agreemen ma y pledg e nue s t o b e receive d Bon d resolutio n ma y pledg e reve • Btmd a ma y b e secure d pledg t o I b y departmen a s leas e securit y ma b e pledge d fo r bon paymen t Trus t agreemen o r bon d resolu • nue s an d conta m limitation o n purpose s o f bon d proceed Sam e a abov ,th e projec t (13 ) Mortsaain s Restrution a R e Propert y pledg e pro • mortgag e projec t o r par t mortgag e an y turn • pik e projec t o r par hibited , onl y mone derive d fro m incom e Shal l no t conve y o r I f receive r appomte d syste m o r asset s f authorit y Shal l no t conve y o r ma y no t mortgag e (1 ) (4 ) Stat e H S Fl a Idah o (cont'd ) a = Stat e Iow a In d (cont'd ) (1 ) w s H (2 ) |Ye s Ye s Ye a bond s Yes , an d additiona l Sam e a s abov project s mor e turnpik cos t o f an y

66 Iow a In d (cont'd ) Stat e (2 ) (1 ) 3 s 3 H Sam e a s abov govemm g bod y Yea . i f authorize d b y Sam e a s abov Shal l no t conve y o r an y projec t o r par Ma y no t mortgag e Sam e a s abov ec t o r par mortgag e an y proj • Restriction s Re (13 ) 1 Sam e a s abov mortgag e o n toll s Bond s ma y b e subjec t o lie n r wer e issue d fo r on al l revenue s o f th e bridg the y Bond s issue d shal l b e a firs t lie n men t ma y pledg e o r assig n toll s Sam e a s abov consume d o n projec t a par t o f taxe s collecte d fo r fue l Ma y pledg e o r assig n tells , als fro m n o othe r sourc e o n revenue s an d toll payabl e Revenu e bond s declare d a lie n Ma y assig n toll s an d othe r Bond s o r Toll a (14 ) ' bursemen t prioritie s Trus t agreemen ma y conta m Sam e a s abov dutie s require d b y Ac t Specifi c fixin g o f adequat e toll s shal l hav e th righ t o compe holder s an d trustee , the y provision s fo r protectio n o f bond • Trus t agreemen ma y conta m trustee , mcludm g revenu e dis - remedie s o f bondholde r an d prope r fo protectm g right s an d provisuMi s deeme d reasonabl e an dutie s require d b y la w , ar ^ othe r la w a t la w o r m equit y enforc e right s Bondholder s o r th e truste ma y Sam e a s abov Ac t may . a t la w o r m equity , enforc e | An y bondholde r an d truste e ca n compe l performanc e o f an y 1 fixe d percentag e o f bondholder s Bon d issuanc e ordinanc ma y tha t bon d issuanc e no subjec o Sam e a s abov resolution , trus t indentur e o r b y o f an y dut require d by bon an y righ t d compe l performanc e Redres s 1 (15 ) 1 Yea , adequat e t o re • »< ma y b e include d Yes , moto r fue l taxe s tir e al l revenu bond s n IP Sinkm g Fun d 1 Provision s (16 ) drawal s t o b e ap • Non e stated , with • an d budge t committe e prove d b y governo r propriat e $25,00 0 A s necessar y imburse d fro m bon m ai ^ on e year , re • Legislatur e ma y ap • deem s necessai y A s commissio n A s necessar y Maximu m Amoun t 1 (17 ) ^venue s Stat e fund s first , fro m Lio n an d reimbursed . Ldmmistere d b y commis - bn y othe r Stat e funds , stat e Bridg Fund , an d priatio n a s Indian Inter • {Fro m $2,500,00 0 appro • issu e bond s wit h mteres t th e taxabl valuatio n o f Cit y ta x no t exceedm g corporat e limit s iolla r o n al l taxabl e cee d seve n mill s o th e coupon s maturin g O r m anticipat e suc h ta x an d 9uc h cit y an d th e ma 1/ 4 mil l o n th e dolla r Sam e a s abov trus t agreement m bon d resolutio n o r hind s ma y b e reim - Departmen t o f highwa y na y lev a ta x no t o ex • th e alternative , cit y tro m departmen t bridg e reverte d t o cit y Fro m toll s o n an y Stat e highwa y fun d iropert y with m th e iroceeds , i f s o provide d lurse d fro m projec t bon Sourc e (18 )

>< *< Hi n n t s

CD ves t m bot h a s tenant commo n wit h anothe r politica l uni t shal Titl e to bridg purchase d jointl y anothe r bridg e Toll s fro m on e bridg ma y assis t pric e to excee d $10 5 fo r eac h 0 an Commissio n authorize d t o purchas e an d b e operate t> y jom t commissio n mterest , no t exceedin g redeemabl e It s bond a t marke price , bu no Audit a deeme d publi c record s highwa y fun d unti l amount a pre - abov e it s cos t o f operatio n excee d Wher e revenue s fro m an y projec t departmen t subjec o renewa l service , exces a reimburse d t o State fmancm g purpose s Ma y combm e bridge s fo r Bienniu m leas e o f projec t 150 % o f fund s se t asid e fo r deb

o

001 Mic h Mas s SUt e (1 ) (1 ) 13« S -a s 8 S 3 a s 3 ff 1 defici t Yes , an d addi • Ye s Yes , o r jointly Ye s tiona l bond s i f a Yes , a t on e tim Yes , sam e a s Yes , a t on e tim Ye s Ye a Ye s t o tim e tim e o r fro m nu e bonds , a t on Yes , tunne l reve • tim e o r fro m tim e t abov e tiona l bond s time , an d addi • o r fro m tim e t Authorit y t o Issu e (1 ) No t ove r 5 % No t ove r 5 % No t ove r 5 % authorit y mme d b y Rat e deter • No t ove r 6 % payabl e semi • No t ove r 6% , No t ove r 6 % No t ove r 5 % No t ove r 5 % s e m lanituall y 5-1/2 % payabl e No t ove r b y authorit annuall y Interes t Rat e o f (2 ) year s year s year s year s year s year s 5 0 year s No t ove r ' No t ove r • No t ove r • year s year s No t ove r ! year s year s No t ove r • No t ove r No t ove r ' No t ove r No t ove r No t ove r Amort w Peru x (3 ;

o o o o o i ^ b e issue d tificate s ma y Interi m cer • Temporary

Kl Interi m o r (4 ) Instrumen U Negotiabl e K! a A n 9 n (5 ) best mteres t o f State , bu Sal e pric t o b deter • A a determine d b y authorit pa r No t o b e sol d fo r les s tha n 5% , payabl e semiannualt y creating a n mteres t co s o f A t no mor e tha n a pric to excee d 5 % I f sol d a t les s tha n i>ar , admmistrati'v e boar d subjec t o approva l b y S at e A s determine d b y authorit admmistrativ e boar d Subjec t o approva l f Stat e Sam e a s abov o f mor e tha n 5 % mtere s lo w a s to requir e paymen t mine , bu t no a pric e s o A s authorit y ma deter • 5-1/2 % Ston e a s above , excep t tio n prio r to maturit y bonds , excludin g an y tio n t o absolut e maturit y f annum , compute d m rela • mteres t exceedin g 5 % pe r a s to requir e paymen t o f pric e mus t no b s o lo w mme d b y commissicx i m interes t plu s discoun no tha n B % mteres t requir e paymen t o f mor Pric e no t o b s lo w a Restriction s (6 ) Eithe r manne r o f sal e Authorit y t o determm e A s determme d b y govern • determm e A s authorit y ma A s determine d b y authorit agencie s b y privat e sal authorit y pric e a s determme d b y I n suc h manne r an d fo Eithe r Eithe r fo r th e t>es t interest s o f sio n ma y determin e t o b I n suc h manne r a s commi - rejec t bid s Publi c sale , bu t ma y admmistrativ e boar d subjec t o approva l t> y SUt e t o U S governmen r it s Publi c sal e afte r notic o th e SUt in g authorit y o f paris h Publi c o r (7 ) Stat e con • prohibite d stitutio n divisio n ca l sub - No , no r trar y t o Deb t con • an y politi • Pledgin g o f SUt e

z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Credi t o o o o c 0 e 0 0 (8 )

1^ «! >l e w 'o f it s o n •a udm g n sa , in - i d loca l S ss , SUt e *< ixatio n lemptio n fro m a ft n «!" ft (9 ) Ye s Institution s Investmen t Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s S'S" a b y Pubb c s liont y e rmine d 1 , a s (10 ) tthorit y Ivisabl e b y th enta , i f deeme d la. an d fo r unprove - irU m reatriction a £s , bu t wit h ents , extension s sue d fo r im p rove - !B. an d ma y b e • improvement a iS , an d fo r ne w s ^ S 5 S =i 2 rr y o r extenaion e ' a

ft ft ftProvision s Refundm g (11 ) conclusiv e bon d validatio n decre e I f n o appea l fro m gaaolm e ta x fund s moto r vehicl e an d b e a charg upo n State Afte r bridg e opened , Sam e a s abov unde r Ac t deeme d taken , i t foreve r operatio n expense s t o trus t fund s Al l money s receive d deb t m a paria h Bond s no t subjec o amoun t o f bonde d Securitie s Othe r Re (12 )

TOT 102 (20 ) restric t rjgh U o f authorit y Legalit y o f bon d issuanc e ma l> conteste d with m 6 0 day s fo r caus e h y person a i n mteres t Mortgage d propert y ma b e seize an d sol an d advisor y service s t o b e charge t o turnpik e cos Bon d issuanc e nee no t compl y wit h signe d b y chairma n an seale Project s belon g t o SUt e an d cove • forc e o f a contrac t mad wit h SUt Fund s o f savmg liank an d trus t tio n with m 1 0 mile s State covenan U i t wil l no limi o r Commissio n t o fiimis h engmeerin g an y othe r la w d bond s nee no t b e nant s mad e wit h bondholder ha th men u mveste d m turnpik e bond s ar exemp t fro m taxatio n Laws , c h 63 deeme d trus t fiind s A U fiind s shal l b e handle d y Stat treasure r m sam e manne a s Stat fiinds Trus t indentur e subjec o approva l b y Stat e admmistrativ boar d Provision s mad e fo r validatio n o f bcmd s m Ingha circui t cour Sam e a s abov

i Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s impose d sh t fro m reve operatin g e i Ye s Yes , bu t I f Ye s (18 ) Sourc e Any fund s o r mean availabl e t o departmen o n reques t f authorit y fo r th e purpose , t o b e reimburse d fro m bon d proceed s Highwa y fund , t o b e reimburse d reimburse d fro m SUt e highwa y commissio n An y fiind s availabl e Oi t o f ccnnmissum' s curren t fiind s highwa y fund , to b e Moto r vehicl e highwa y 1 Appropriatio n fro m f^nd , to b e reimbursed ' Stat e highwa y fiind s 1 bond s

I ft i ma y (17 ) o e Amoun t

Maximu m o o o o o* o e o A s departmen t deem s necessar ; No t o excee d $10,00 0 Suc h money s a Sam e a s abov $500,00 0 Si Certa m unuae d money s mad e availa • bl e b y 195 1 Ac t «»

9 (16 ) Provisum s Sinkin g Fun d Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Yes . fo r th e pojnnen t tinctio n o r prion ^ terr y fiind s abov e mt o I t Yea , an d exces s expense s t o b e pai d Ye s Ye s Ye s ,o f bond s withou t dis • !on e ove r anothe Ye s

s

Z ^ a rights , truste e ha s righ t o hav Sam e a s abov Yes . i f defaul t m bon d o r mteres Bon d resolutio n o r trus t inden • tur e ma y conte m provision s fo r to protec t bondholder s protectm g an d enforcin right s I f defaul t fo r 6 0 days , truste e ma y b e appomte d t o tak actic m r e th acquisition , coistructio n restric t individua l right s o f provision s fo r protectm g bond • holder s an d enforcm g thei r right an d operatio n o f project s Ma y bondholder s Ye a Ye s Ye s resolutio n o r trus t indentur e a s boar d Ye s Yes , suc h provision s m bcm d Ye s Bond s o r Toll Ma y assig n revenue s Ma y assig n an o r al l revenue s bond s Trus t agreemen ma y pledg e o r to b e receive d assig n toll s an d othe r revenue Sam e a s abov Bon d resolutio n o r trus t agree - Yes , wit h approva l o f SUt e admmistrativ e boar d bien t ma y assig n toU s an d othe r ! revenue s Sam e a abov Ye s 1 (13 ) Mortgagm g Restricticm s R e M 01 Shal l no t conve y o r o r par t o r dispos e f an y Shal l no t mortgag e authorit y asset a Bond s ma y b e secure d b y mortgag e o n bridg Shal l no t conve y o r mortgag e turnpik o r par t Canno t conve y o r mortgag e an y proj • ec t o r par thereo f tunne l o r par t thereo f Ye s ICanno t conve y o r >* Canno t conve y o r mortgag e an y proj• ec t o r par Shal l no t conve y o r mortgag e an y turn • pik e projec t o r par

e ? g SUt e

H (1 ) S (1 )

(cont'd ) 1=5 S H Mas s

3 = Mic h Mon t Mic h (cont 'd ) Stat a (1 ) ~3i (4 ) B 3 s s w ft "a an d note s ou t Stat e guaranty , Yes , wit h o r with • renewa l note s Ye s Ye s Ye s Sam e a s abov an d counci l ure r unde direc • Yes . Stat e treas • tio n o f governo r Ye s Ye s Is Ye s 1 Authorit y S o t o Issu e «» (1 ) o> e i ma y provid e a s resolutio n A s authorit y ma y determin e A s authorit y No t ove r 6 % b y authorit A s determine d Sam e a s abov boi d resolutio n an d counci l b y governo r A s determine d No t ove r 6 % payabl e semi - No t ove r 6% ^ i

11 f Interes t Rat e o f (2 ) with m fiv e 4 0 years , : Bonds , n o provide s A s resohi l mayprov i A s resolu l year s year s No t ove r i No t ove r ! Sam e a s year s year s No t ove r 3 No t ove r ' . year s No t over : year s No t ove r ' Amorti z Perio d ( 3 1 year s notes . t ove r i » 1 o 1 o o o e IN . pro jYe s year s with m fiv e maturm g Renewa l note i Ye s onl y tifieat a Interi n Shor t N o provisio n Ye B Ye s li m lll- n n n llli i 1 i

1 o

Yes . bu t " S registratu m subjec t o Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Negotiabl e (5 ) note s an d bond an d maximu m sal e pric o f a s authorit y determine L l 195 9

Z otsut e Pledgai g 0 o o o Credi t (8 ) an d trans - estate , gif t cep t fo r Yes , ex • Ye a Ye s abov e Sam e a s bonds , ye s fro m Interes t B (A Ye s II (8 ) •j lYe s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s In s titution Invaatmen t b y Publi c (10 ) Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Non e Ye s Proviaion . RefUndui g (11 ) .Afte r 1 5 year s Stat e Sam e u abov Ixm d issu e thorit y t o redee m an m^ y requir e au • o f count y deemabl e a t optio n Separat e serie s o f Bond s ma y b e re • bond s fo r eac h bridg e publi c work s Singl e issu o f reve • an y on e o r mor nu e bond s ma y b fo r Othe r R e (12 )

SOT 104

3 te r whic h ma y affec t note o bon d Not e o r bon d issuanc resolutio n ma y jurisdictio n ove r an d propert y fo thruway s an d thei r construction , im • matters , o f lik e r differen t charac • securit y Stat e covenan U t o prohibi an y competin g Hudso n Rive r bridg e o r tunne l whil e obligation s un • discharge d Othe r deb t ma y b e mcurre d conUi n provisicsi s a par t o f contrac wit h holder a s t o acquisitio n f provemen t o r operatio n an d y othe an d remedie s o f bondholder Authorise d t o covenan a s wha fro m toll s bridg e t o b finance d y revenu bond s authorize d 195 3 deeme d trus t tbnd s fro m toll s or , i f insufficien t Stat e genera l fund , t o b reimburse d Sam e a s above , eiccep t $19,350,00 0 bon d bi withou t approva l o f Stat e treasure r Ne w bridge s prohibite d withi n 2 0 mile s whil e an y bond outstandmg stat e treasure r authorize d t o issu Stat e bond s t o $21,300,00 0 payabl Prohibite d acceptanc e o f refundm g ' Sut e pledge s no t o impai r right (61 )

V » Ye s (18 ) Sourc e reimburse d t o department , b e reimburse d Ne w Hampshir e highwa y funds , t o b e An y ftind s svailabl e repai d whe n bridg e become s fi-e e Ou t o f highwa y com • missio n funds , deeme d

1^ (17 ) Amoun t Maximu m b e neede d $2,50 0 Suc h money s a ma y (16 ) Provision s Sinkin g F^n d Non e Ye s N o Ye s Ye s 1 (15 ) Redres s tion . Stat e pledge s no t o limi guarantee d obligation s only ) authorit y right s o r impai an d remedie s o f bondholder Yes , mcludin g receivershi p Sam e a s abov (fo r SUt Ye s Ye s Yes , a s provide d m bon resolu • necessar y t o secur e th bond s no t inconsisten wit h Stat e consti • tution , thoug h no t specificall y enumerate d i n Ac t Ye s Ye s Authorit y authorize d t o thing s 1 (14 ) Assignmen t o f an d bond s abou t o b e issue ca n b e me t Ma y pledge , o r covenan t agams pledgin g al l o r an y part Ye s Yes . ma y pledg e revenue s i f Bond s shal l contai n guarante e b y Ye s Ye s 1 Revenu e fro m 'Ye s 'Bon d proceed s an toll t o b e Ihel d by SUt e treasure r fo 1 purpose s o f Ac t 1 |Stat e tha t toll s wil l b collecte d 1 unti l maturit y o r paymen t lYe s 1 1 1 "u . S 1 S ^ S 2 2 t ij 0 s Prohibite d t o mort • gag e rea l property , rea l o r persona Bridg e ma y b Ye s ma y covenan t agams mortgagm g al l o r an y proper W mortgage d Ye s

ji — X ^

(4 ) (1 ) 3 Stat e

(cont' d 1 (cont'd ) S E Mic h Mon t s- K — 2 — 105 (12 ) Othe r Re Securitie a Narrow s Bridg e bond redeemabl e a Throg s Nec k an d whol e u i 1 5 o r mor t o mjur y f othe r year s a t 104 % o f fac e valu e an d mteres t Stat e pledge s no t o modi ^ bond a an d note s holder s Bon d issuanc e nee no t compl y wit h an othe r la w Additiona l bond s ma y b e issue d i f a defici t Authorit y ma appl t o fo r determmatio n o f Stat e suprem cour t validit y o f bond s an d Authori ^ dissolve d i f n o bond s issue d b y Mays . 197 1 ' trus t fun d

li r issu e lent s an d irojec t 3 » - Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Yea . an d ma } [o r improve ™ extensuHi s ^e s 1 Yes , an d fo r | improvement s (10 ) b y Pu Invest n Institu t Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s jYe s (9 ) fro m n s Exemptio n Taxatio n abov e Ye s Yes . ex • cep t to r estat e an d trans • fe r taxe s Yes , ex • cep t fo r estat e taxe s Ye s Yea . Stat e an d mu - nic^ia l Ye s Ye a 1 Ye s iS (S )

Credi t o o f Stat e o Pledgm g N o No , no r o f count y N o

Z N o i N o Onl y o n Newpor t Bridg e bond s (7 ) Publi c o r Privat e Sal Publi c Eithe r Eithe r Publi c I n suc h manne r a s commis • sio n ma y determm e Publi c Eithe r I n suc h manne r an d fo suc h pric e a commissio n ma y determin e Sam e a s abov 1 Sam e a abov Eithe r (8 ) Restriction s o n Sal e Pric Fo r suc h pric e o price s T o b e sol d a t lowes mterea authorit y determmes , bu t no t fo r les s tha n 98 % o f pa valu e plu s accrue d mterea t cost , o r highes t price a s a s authorit y determme Fo r a pric e no t les s tha n 96 % o f pa r value , plu a Fo r suc h pric e a c

& t (4 ) Bond s Interu n < Tempora J Fiv e yea r Ma y borro \ mone y o n bank loan s note s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a Ye s Ye s

e o o o a o tha n o o (3 ) Perio d o f Amortizatio n No t late r 4 0 year s No t ove r No t over ! year s No t o excee d 4 0 year a year s No t ove r ' year s No t ove r \ No t ove r • year a year s No t ove r ' . No t ove r year s year s No t ove r A No t ove r £ year s year s 1 (2 ) Rat e o f Interes t teres t cost , o r A t lowes in • No t o excee d 4% ^ payabl e s e m lann u all y A s authorit y payabl e semiannuall y No t o excee d 5% , payabl e semiannuall y ' No t ove r 5 % ' highes t price determmes , No t ove r 6% , payabl e No t ove r 5 % No t ove r 6 % No t ove r 6 % No t ove r 6 % No t ove r 6 % _ n t) •o • s s ai C o «» (1 ) t o Issu e

Authorit y 2 e o N ^ Ye a Yes , no t exce e mg $7 0 millio n an d note s Yes , an d note s pa y cos t o f fer : Yes , o f th e St a Ye s Yea , ma y issu i fo r an y part , o o r mor e al l project s Ye a Ye s iH a Ye s Ye s (I D (3 ) (1 ) (10 )

State s N Y (cont'd ) Ohi o O £i3 (4)thr u 106

o respondin g amount , no t ove r $ 1 Ma y combm e project s fo r financin g th e authorit y o f bondholder s Boid s shal l b e signe d y th an d formul a devise whereb y cor • authorit y t o mak e u p an deficit , n th e conditio n tha t trus fun d a o tim e excee d $ 4 millio n o r a amoun t equa l t o 3 year s interes n al turnpik e bond s Authorize d t o combin e project s fo r financin g facilitie s an d preserv e right o f Directe d al l money s b e pai t o Stat comptrolle r an d pai ou t o n hi s chec k facilitie s an d tha t i wi U no limi o r mor e turnpik project s governo r Averag e amoun t spen b y turnpik user s o n gasolm e taxe calculate d facilitie s facilitie s a t Jone Beac h costin g $1-1/ 4 miUio n authorize d facditie s stat e pledge s t o limi competm g Stat e covenant s t o prohibi competin g Constructio n o f additiona l parkin g Stat e pledge s t o limi competitiv . alte r right s o f authorit y t prejudic e 1 Ma y issu e bond s fo r an on o

a

3 V S lubjec t o count y ta x Yea, bu t concession s Ye s 1 >* 1 bi (18 ) Sourc e a t no ove r 8% , bu fait h an d credi t o f common • wealt h no t pledge d fo r thei paymen t reimburse d othe r revenu e obliga • tion s o f commonwealt h Legislativ e appro • priatio n fo r capita l construction fund , t o Advanc e fro m $1 5 millio n appropriatio Departmen t o f high • wa y funds , a s approve d b y commission , t o e Stat e highwa y com • missio n fund s ex • pende d wit h approva l o f authoriQ r (17 ) Maximu m turnpik e appropriate d $550,00 0 appropriate d Non e state d $1,50 0 pe r mil e Ma y borro w no t ex • ceedin g tota l cos t o f $550,00 0 A s allocate d b y directo r o f budge t i Provision s Sinkin g Fun d Dispositio n o f sinkm g fund s subjec t o provi • sion s o f bon d resolutio n Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a Ye s Bon d resolutio n ma y Sam e a s abov Ye s provid e fo r sinkin g 1 fund s 1

oi Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Sam e a s abov Yes , includin g receivershi p Sam e a s abov Ye s 5 11 a 1 2ii r 0 3 a « 5 1 S B g w o 1 3* p X a > S •a i < « [C & : •a I Ye s Ye s Ye s revenue s o f bridg e r ferr y Ye s subjec t onl y o agreemen pledg • in g an y particula r toll s o Yea , ma y pledg e toll s an d Yea , toll s an d revenue i Yes , toll s fro m Souther n Stat e Paricwa y an d othe r revenue s Yes , an y money s o r revenues 1 1 (13 ) Restriction s R e mortgag e parkwiq r o par t Ye s Ye s Ye s Shal l no t conve y o r Ye s Ye s

T 4 ^

11 g (10) (1 ) (3 ) (4 ) thr u (11 ) Ohi o to ^ N Y (cont'd ) 6 si' 107 (12 ) Othe r Re Securitie s Prohibite d oblifiation a sinkin g fun d fundm g bond s an d revenu e bond a fo r nues pai d t o Stat e treasure r fo accoun t o f authorit y Bond s no t exchange d shal l b e sol d payabl e fro m taxe s o r assessment s An y surplu s bon d proceed s credite d t o Ma y issu e revenu re • combine d purpose s A U mcom e an d reve • Bon d issuanc e no t subjec t o an y othe r la w (11 ) Refundm g Provision s ixtension s an d im - extension s Yes , an d fo r im - additiona l project s STes , an d t o financ e Yes , an d fo r im • provement s an d extension s Ye a Yes , an d fo r im • provement s an d Ye a Ye s Yes , an d fo r acquirin g an d improvm g facili • ties , payabl e solel y Ye s |Ye s (10 ) b y Publi c Fo r Stat e Fo r Stat e Investmen t Institution s Ye s Ye s Ye s moneys , e x cep t schoo l fund s moneys , ex • cep t schoo l an d moto r vehicl e flind s Ye s Ye s lYe s (9 ) fro m Taxatio n Ye s Exemptio n Ye a Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s (8 ) 1 Credi t Pledgmg o f State I N o N o N o N o N O No , no r o f count y N o N o N o N o N o N o N o i (7 ) Publi c o r Privat e Sal I n th e mos t economica l manner , a s determine d b y I n suc h manne r a s com • missio n ma y determin e corporatio n Eithe r Publi c bu t authorit y ma rejec t al l bid s an d sel a Sam e a abov privat e sal Sam e a s abov Eithe r Eithe r Sam e a s abov I n suc h manne r a s commi - sio n determine s I n suc h manne r an d fo pric e a s commissio n deter • mme s fo r bes t interest o f State Eithe r Eithe r 1 (6 ) Restriction s o n Sal e Pric mteres t o n mone y receive d m accordanc e wit h Standar d table s o f bon d value N o Ma y no t sel l a price s o lo w a s t o requir e paymen f Sam e a s above , bu t 6 % No t o b e sol d a suc h pric tha t th e mterea cos exceed s 6% , compute d accordin g t o standar d table s o f bon value A s deeme d moa t 1 I f privat e sale, no t lowe r tha n bea t bi d rejecte pric e s o lo w a t requir paymen t o f ove r 6 % mterest , compute d accordm g t o standar d table s o f bon values , bu t excludin g an y premiu m t o b e pai d n re • demptio n prio r t o maturit y Sam e a abov determin e Sam e a s abov requir e paymen t o f mor tha n 5 % interes t A t suc h pric e a s commis - commissio n determme s N o sal e t b mad a No t o b e sol d s lo w a Suc h pric e o r price s a ^Suc h pric e a s authorit y ma

(5 ) n « Ye s Negotiabl e Instrument a Ye s

Ye s Ye s >>

Ye a Ye s >! Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s lYe s (4 ) Bond a Interi m o r Temporary Ye s Ye s Ye s , Ye s Ye s Ye a Ye s N o provisio n Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 1 (3 1 Perio d o f Amortizatio n No t ove r 2 5 No t ove r 4 0 years , ma y b e year s A s determme d b y authorit Sam e a s abov Sam e a s abov No t ove r 4 0 No t ove r 4 0 No t ove r 4 0 year s year s year s No t ove r 4 0 No t ove r 4 0 a s Commis • sioner s cour t ma y determin e year s year s No t ove r 4 0 year a Suc h maturitie s

* (2 )

Rat e o f Interes t 1 No t ove r 5 % No t ove r 6% , payabl e se m lannuall y No t ove r 5 % | No t ove r 5 % No t ove r 5% No t ove r 5 % No t ove r 6 % No t ove r 6 % No t ove r 6 % No t ove r 5 % No t ove r 6% , payabl e semiannuall y (1 1 Authorit y o r mor e mterstat bridge s i n 1 issu e Ye s Ye s Yes , maymclud e 2 Ye s 1 Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye a b y attorne genera l Ye s Ye s Yes , a s approved

£ fl «l X" S 5 3 C S s > ^ 5 1 «l ^J- > # - 108 (20 ) Al l money s fro m bon d sale an toll deeme d trus t ftind s abl e o n projec t tha wer assigne d t o purchas e r pa y interes n it s bond s Commissio n ma y us e an flind s avail • SUt e highway s m tha t constructio n district , o r fo projec t operatio n fund s tio n truste e ma y inves t the m restricte d Al l money s receive d deeme trus t funds , bu t unti l neede d fo r construc • Competm g turnpike s an d tol l road Permanen t authorit y revolvm g fun d mvestigation s o f an y propose d tol l Sam e a s abov se t u p m SUt e treasur y o financ facilit y o f meri t pledg e annuall y Imiite d fund s t o cove r repuUbl e traffi c engmeer s fm d con • structio n economicall y feasibl e Stat e roa d conunissio n authorize t o deficit , i f any . o turnpik e r par t Charge s fo r utili ^ line authorize d , | f I specis l Provision s (19 ) oert v rro m i sue s 1 Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s (18 ) Sourc e sion , t o b e reimburse d An y fUnd s availabl e t o An y fund s availabl e reimburse d SUt o highwa y commis • missio n funds , t o b e Fund s directe d t o b e State highwa y com • Sam e a s abov Advances o r contribu • tion s b y loca l politica subdivision s o r ex • penditure s b y State , t o b e repai d fro m reve • nues , i f an d a s agree Fro m th e State high • Sam e a s abov se t asid e m bon d resolutio n funds , t o b e reim • burse d fro m bon proceed s SUt e roa d commissio n wa y fun d Fro m intereste d mum c eys , shal l b e reimburse c fro m bond s o r toll ipalitie s o r Stat e mon • (17 )

Amoun t V Maxunim i h Suc h mtxiey a s necessar y An y amoun t neede d bon d resolutio n A s determme d i n $25400 0 appropriate d in g ou t dutie s an d < forpurpose s o f carry •

1 . Pr o

V s S Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s ^ L Ye s >* (16 ) Redres s ma y b e mandamu s provision s officia l o r th e tio n o r trus t indentur e ceeding s requir e > o f al l dutie s impose d s ustomar y m trus t Bon d resol u Ye s ma y conUi n Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s o r othe pr o n an y Stat e authorit y Sam e a s abov Sam e a s ab o Ye s 'performanc e Yes . a s i c Ye s 114 1 Revenu e fro m Bond s o r Toll

a Yes , tolls fee s an d revenue Yes , toll s an d revenue Yes . toll s an d othe r revenue Sam e a s abov Yes . toll s an d revenue Sam e a s abov Toll s an d revenu e a trus t fun fo r bond s Dispositio n o f incom e an d bame a s abov e Sam e a s abov Yes . toll s an d revenue (13 ) Mortgagin g RestricticHi B R e « Ye s Trus t indentur e ms y mortgag e bridg o r par t Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s « (Z ) U " (Z ) a- SUt e

s (1 )

(cont'd ) H 5 e H ^ Was h 8 *- 109

Table 5 State Toll Facilities Legislation Analysis Miscellaneous

4.uthonty of Local Units to I ease or Convey Heal Property to an Authority Responsibility for Damage State Policing Without Advertisement or Btidily Injury Regulatory Power Ala Such force of police as au• Yes Authorized to sue and be sued in its A miademeanot and penalties prescribed for violation of (1) thority considers necessary own name in civil suits and actions, authority rules and regulatitms punishable by fine to $500 for each ptoject excepting actions in tott against the and judge may impose to 6 months hard labor Any member, authority agent or employee to be gainfully or pecuniarily inteiested in any authority contract punished by fine to $1,000 or impris• onment to 1 year, or t>oth

(2) By designated commission employees who shall have powers of peace officeis

Cal Department of public works Bridge and loss of revenue insurance Violation of toll crossing regulations and evasion or at• (1) rules and regulations en• authorized tempted evasion of tolls declared misdemeanor Entering forced by California Highway crossing without toll money is prima facie evidence of Patrol, toll-takers have peace violation ofticer powers

(7) Enforcement declared a part Toll evasion a misdemeanor $10 fine (general) of the highway program of the State

Colo Colorado State Patrol (1), <2) ft(3)

Conn Ten dollar f^ne for evasion of tolls on any parkway, highway or bridge

Del Department may employ Department directed to insure bridge Fine to $100 for violation of bridge use or traffic regulations (1) bridge guards and toll Fine to $100 or imprisonment to 30 days, or both, for keepers empowered as attempt to use bridge without paying toll constables Fine to $1,000 or imprisonment to 2 years, or tmth, for department member or employee to be interested in contract

(2) Interstate Ibghway Division Directs any crossing be insured A misdemeanor subject to fine to $100 to violate crossing may employ guards and toll or approach use or traffic regulations keepers deemed advisable Failure to pay toll, or attempt, a misdemeanor subject to fine to $100 or imprisonment to 30 days, or both

Fla Authority authorized to exer• (1) cise such police power as may be necessary

(2) &(5) Florida Highway Patrol Yes Property damage Penalty two-hundred dollar fine 90 days for violation of project rules and regulations Five hundred dollar fine, one year, for member agent, or employee interested in contract or sale of property

Ga Authorized to exercise so For damage to private property from (1) much of police power of State making survey as 18 necessary

(2) For damage to private property from making survey Authority, as lessor- owner of project, authorized to re• quire board or counties or individually where parties to lease project con• tracts, in lease to provide for liability for damage to persons or property oc• curring on project

(3) For actual damage resulting from entering on private property

Idaho Such force of police, toll- Yes Control directed to reimburse actual Interest in contract by member, agent or employee a takers and other operating public or private damage resulting felony pumshoble by impnstHiment for not over 5 jrears employees as each control from surveys, drillings etc Costs or fine to $5,000 or both may in its discretion employ and damage of public highway reloca• Prescribed duties of State suid tion to be a charge upon project local pobce shall not be affected

111 Commission may contract Any person may bring suit at law to Malconduct or misfeasance in office by officers and commis• (1) from time to time with Illinoit recover damages for mjury to his per• sioners punishable by fine to $5.000 or imprisonment in Department of Public Safety son or property caused by any act of county jail to 1 year, or both, and removal from office by for policing of toll highways, Commission or any of its officers, court contract to contain method of agents or employees done under its Interest in contract or sale by officer or commissioner ascertaimng costs and Depart direction prohibited ment to furmsh policing only Contract with successful bidders shall Violation of commission rules and regulations a misde• as required by contract have provision to indemnify and save meanor punished by fine from $1 to $100, progressively harmless the State for negligence and severe fine to $300 for 2nd and 3rd conviction within 1 year damages arising from performance after first convictitm Person injured as a result of knowing Fine from $5 to $100 for failure to pay toll or attempt to and wilful violation of Act by any auto avoid payment operator, contractor, subcontractor or agent has action for damages, for ItMs of life action accrues to widow, heirs or those dependent, compliance with this Act may be enforced by Di• rector t>f Labor, through the State's Attorney, or in case of his slowness, by any other attorney

Ind Such force of police, toll- Yes All public or private property damaged Interest in contract by member, agent or employee a mis• (1) takers and other tiperating or destroyed in carrying out Act to be demeanor punished by fine to $1,000 or imprisonment to 1 employees as the commission restored or adequate compensation year, or both may in its discretion employ made Governor may remove commission member at any time for Commission shall not be immune from misfeasance, nonfeasance or malfeasfuice liability by reason of its corporate status 110

Table 5 State Toll Facilities Legislation Analysis Miscellaneous (cont'd)

Authority of Local Units to Lease or Convey Real Property to an Authority Responsibility for Damage State Policing Without Advertisement or Bodily Injury Regulatory Power Iowa Budge commission shall For damage resulting from removal of provide for policing auildmgs, mains, tracks and other ob• structions and fot property damage re• sulting from completion of bndge

Kan Kanssb highway patrol and/ot YLB For damages for vacation or reloca- Failure to pay toll punished by fine to $100 or imprisonment (1) turnpike police Lion of public highways and in making to 30 days, or both surveys Fine to $1,000 or imprisonment to 1 yeat, or both for member, agent or employee to have interest in contract

(2) Kansas highway patrol and/or Yes Damage referred to is that which is Fine to $1 000 or imprisonment to 1 year, or both, for tutnpike police result of project construction Au• member agent or employee to have interest in contract thority directed to repair or compen• sate owner of property

(3) City police powers shall extent Penalties as provided in ordinance governing use and to bridge and all approaches operation of bridge located in Kansas

Ky Unless policed by Kentucky Yes, including roads Directed private property damaged or Failure to pay toll punishable by f^ne to $100 or imprisonment (1) State Police as an ordmary and other real property jestroyed be restored or repaired or for 30 days, or both, plus hen on vehicle for tolls, charges incident of statutory functions, already devoted to compensation made and penalties until paid shall be policed by Department public use Reimbursement directed for damage Fine to $1,000 or imprisonment for ! year or both, for of Highways by such force of resulting from surveys officer or employee to have interest in sale or purchase of police as it may employ any bonds provided by Act

(2) By State Police, as other Same aa above Same as above Same as above public highways

(3) Same as above Same as above Penalty for interest in bonds same as above

La Louisiana State Police at ex• Yes, and all State agen• Where damage to property results Pine to $300 and imprisonment to 90 days for violation of (1) pense of project, and such cies upon request or from project construction, repair or rules and regulations force of toll-takers and oper• agreement, including compenaation directed ating employees as needed real property already devoted to public use

(2) Such force of police toll- Yes, and all public Compensation shall be made for dam• Fine to $^00 EUid imprisonment to 1 year for interest in takers and {^erating em• agencies of State age to public and private property, contract ployees as the authority may actual survey damage may be paid Any contract with the authority wherein a member, officer employ or employee has an interest is void and not actionable

(3) Parish may accept con• Directed damaged or destroyed public tributions of any kind property be restored or compensation from any source laid

Me A misdemeanor and hne to $20 for fsilure to pay turnpike (1) tolls, fares or other charges

Md Each project shall be policed Yes, including public Reimbursement directed for damage Fine to $100 for violation of Commission traffic rules and (1) and operated by such force of roads and other real resulting from surveys regulations for Susquehanna River, Potomac River and Ches• watchmen, toll-takers and property and tangible Directed private property damaged or apeake Bay bridges and the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Trans• other operating employees as and mtimgible personal destroyed be repaired or restored or portation of specific dangerous cargo on or throuf^ such Commission may employ aroperty already de• compensation made structures prohibited except as provided by Commission voted to public use rules and regulations violation a misdemeanor punished by fine from $100 to $500 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both, for 2nd conviction fine from $500 to $1,000 or impris• onment to 1 year, or both

(2) Expressway shall be policed Same as above Directed public property damaged in and operated by auch force of carrying out Act be restored or police, watchmen, toll-takers repaired and other operating employees Directed private property damaged or as Commission may employ destroyed in constructing Expressway >e repaired or restored or compensa- ;ion made

(3) Directed all public or private property A misdemeanor to evade or attempt to evade payment of tolls damaged or destroyed in makmg pre• punished by fine from $10 to $100 liminary studies be repaired or re• stored or compensation made

Mass Such force of police toll- res Directed private property damaged or (1) takers and other operating destroyed be repaired or restored or employees in discretion of ;ompensation made authority Any person damaged in his property may recover damages from the Authority

(2) Same as above Yes, including public Same as above, and until tunnels be• May arrest without warrant for evasion of tolls, or attempt roads and other real come a part of the State highway sys• Fine to $50 each violation of authority tunnel rules and reg- jroperty already de• tem authority liable for bodily injury, ulationa payable to authority through indictment or complamt rated to public use death or prc^erty damage to persons before a district court resulting from tunnel defect Pubbc highwt^ relocation or vacation damage to be paid by the authority

Mich As the authority may deter• Yes, City of Sault Ste Directed private property damaged or Fine to $100 or imprisonment to 30 days for failure to pay (1) mine Mane destroyed be repaired or reatored or toll and lien on vehicle until toll and charges paid compensation paid Actual damage to ai^ lands, waters and premises resulting from surveys o be compensated Ill

Table 5 State Toll racilities I egislation Analysis Miscellaneous (cont'd)

Authority of Local Umts to 1 ease or Convey Real Property to an Authority Responsibility for Damage State Policing Without Advertisement or Bodily Injury Regulatory Power Mich Authorized to employ such Not specific that local (cont'd) personnel and employees as unit authorized to con• (2) may be necessary to operate vey but authority may and maintain the bridge and accept grants or dona• carry out powers and duties tions of money, real or contemplated by Act personal property or other things of value from municipal corpora• tions, counties or other Michigan political sub- divisions and from any other source

(3) Each turnpike project shall be Yes Compensation directed for damage in• Violation of authority turnpike rules and regulations a policed and operated by such curred in relocating public road, high misdemeanor force of police, toll-takers way. railroad or public utility facility, and other operating employees and in making surveys as the authority may in its discretion employ Public police otticerB shall have access to all property of authority without payment of tolls while in the performance of official duty

N H By State police and such main• (1) & tenance and tiperational em• (2) ployees as may be given police power, all at expense of tolls

(3) As provided by the two States Violation of published bridge rules and regulations a mis• demeanor punished by fine to $10

N J Such force of police, toll- Yes, and all public de• Damages resulting from pubbc high• Violation of turnpike rules and regulations punished by fine (1) takers and other operatmg partments, agencies and way relocation or reconstruction to be to $200 or imprisonment to 30 days, or both Service of emplovees as the authority in commissions of the paid by the authority process and trial on Sunday and holidays authorized Addi• its discretion may employ State Directed actual dtunagea resulting tionally, certificate todnve arid nonresidents reciprocity from surveys be paid by the authority privileges may be suspended or revoked after notice and ac• cording to law Violations resulting in death or property damage over $5,000 a high misdemeanor Refusal to pay tolls or evasion or attempted evasion thereof declared unlawful Radioactive, inflammable and explosive substances prohib• ited from turnpike Fine to $1,000 or imprisonment to 1 year or both, for in• terest in contract by member, agent, or employee

(2) Such force of poLce, toll- Yes, and all public de• Same as above Same as above takers, operating employees partments, agencies and and other persons as the au• commissions of the thority may employ or au• State, payment for State thorize property directed

N Y Authority authorized to con• Actions against authority for torts of Profit beyond reasonable compensation by member, otticer, 11) tract and pay for pobcing of its officers and employees while act• agent, servant, or employee is a misdemeanor Westchester system by State ing as such authorized or ctnmty police

(2) By uniformed authority forces Violation of authority thruway rules and regulations a misde• who are peace officers or, meanor punishable by fine to $250 or imprisonment to 30 upon request, by State police days, or both

(3) Parkuays subject to rules and Court of claims hears and determines regulations of commission and claims against authority for its or enforced in same manner as agents torts and for breach of ctintract Long Island State Park ordi• nances

(4) Bridge and tunnel authority may be Advertising prohibited within 500 feet of project restrained sued in tort at suit of authority Pifty dollars fine 30 days for violation of authority rules and regulations for project use

(5) Authorized to appoint peace Violation of authority regulations a misdemeanor officers known as Hew York State Bridge Authority patrol• men

(6) A misdemeanor for employees, etc to have interest m authority transaction

Ohio Such force of police, toll- Yes Commission not immune from liabil• Fifty dollar fine for violauon of regulatitms, $500 for subse• (1) takers and other operating ity though projects a governmental quent offenses employees in discretion of function One thousand dollar fine, one year for member, agent, or commissi tin For public or private property dam• employee to have mterest in ctmtract aged or destroyed

(2) Prohibited any commission engineer or foreman to have in• terest in bridge material contracts or to have any other public office or employment

(3) Same as above

Okla By Department of Public Yes For private prtiperty damage and dam Felony, $500-5000 five years for member agent, or em• (1) Safety, as contracted age from changing lines and grades ployee to do business with authority for profit Knowing and changing highway and street loca• participants also guilty tion Turnpike traffic violation a misdemeanor Unlawful to travel turnpike on foot or to hitchhike Malicious injury to toll house or gate a felony 112

Table 5 State Toll Facilities Legislation Analysis Miscellaneous (cont'd)

Authority of Local Umte -.0 Lease or Convey Real Property to an Authority Responsibility for Damage State Policing Without Advertisement or Bodily Injury Regulatory Power Pa Such force of police, toll- Yea, and from all public For property damage (1) tfdEers and other operatmg agencies and commis• through employees as the Commission sions of Commonwealth, (11) may employ including public roads and other real property already devoted to pub• lic use

R I May contract with State Police For damage to public facilities or Fine to $100 and imprisonment to 30 days for failure to pay (1) from relocating any public way or toll place and from surveys

Tex Such police, toll-takers and Yes Private property damaged to be re• Fine to $100 for nonpayment of tolls with hen on and pos• (1) other operating employees as paired or restored or compensation session of vehicle until paid Authority may employ may made agree with Department of Public Safety for its police officers

Va Such force of police, toll- Yes Directed private property damaged be Fine to $1,000 and imprisonment to 1 year for interest in (1) takers and other operating repaired or restored or compensation contract liy member, agent or employee employees aa the Commission made Grade separation and highway ma> employ vacation damage to be paid as cost of project

(2) Projects policed in whole or Authorized to accept Public and private property damaged Violation of Commission rules and regulations a misde• in part by officers of Depart• contributions of any or destroyed to be restored or re• meanor or punished as if committed on public road or street ment of State Police, all other thing of value from any paired or compensation made, and State and local police to have subbc or private body public way vacation or relocation same powers on as they have damage paid beyond project Commission authorized to employ "project guards" to summon or arrest on view violators of rules and regulations, except those paralleling State law

(3) Commission police and local Yes For property damage One hundred dollar fine, 30 days for failure to pay toll police

(4) State Police Yea Property damage Violation of law or turnpike regulations a misdemeanor or pumihed as if on public street One thousand dollar one year for member, agent, or employee to be interested in contract

(5) Authority police or State Yes Same as above Same as above Police

Wash Insurance or indemnity bonds as pro• (1) tection against any loss or damage" including loss or interruption of tolls permitted

(2) Authority, and not State, subject to common carrier laws for loss or dam• age to property suid injury or death to shippers and passengers Injury or death to other persons limited to amount of insurance Seamen permit• ted to sue authority for mjunea, ap• plying Federal law Execution on judgment or attachment against au• thority property or maritime lien against vessels prohibited but order of court may require authority to pay any judgment

W Va By members of Department of Yes For damage in changing location of A misdemeanor for placing sign or other markings on any (1) Public Safety by agreement any private road or public highway public road or highway punishable by fine from $25 to with and at cost of turnpike and from surveys $100 each day commission Directed private property damaged or Evasion or attempted evasion of tolls or aiding another destroyed be repaired or restored or therein, or intentional trespass on project a misdemeanor compensation made punished by fine not over $50

Wis Motor vehicle laws declared Reimbursement directed for actual Penalties as provided b> law for class A highways (1) applicable to turnpikes and damage from surveys, from public they are deemed public high• utility line relocation, from grade ways for that purpose and not separations and changes and compen• subject to any local traffic sation for use of State lands laws Corporations authorized to hire persons, with approval of Governor, vested with powers of State traffic ofticers to enforce laws APPENDIX B

TABLE OF CASES AND FEDERAL STATUTES

Page

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Alford. 206 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1960) 53 Anderson Cattle Co. v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 180 Kan. 749, 308 P. 2d 172 (1957) 53 Anthony V. Kozer. 11 F. 2d 641 (D.C., Ore., 1926) 16 Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. 203 Okla. 335, 221, P. 2d 795 (1950). . 28 Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 277 P. 2d 176 (1954) 29 Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 348 P. 2d 510 (Okla., 1960) Barton v. Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm'n. 120 F. Supp. 337 (1954). . . 22 Beineke v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n, 340 S. W. 2d 683 (Mo. , 1960) 53 Bird V. New York State Thruway Authority, 188 N. Y. S. 2d 788 (1960) 22 Boxberger v. State Highway Dep't, 126 Colo. 436, 250 P. 2d 1007 (1952) 25 Breckbill v. Lancaster Turnpike Co., 3 Dallas (Pa.) 496 (1799) 28 California Toll Bridge Authority v. Kelly, 218 Cal. 721 P. 2d 425 (1933) 37 California Toll Bridge Authority v. Wentworth. 212 Cal. 298. 298 Pac, 485 (1931). . 40 California Toll Bridge Authority v. Kuchel, 40 Cal. 2d 43, 251 P. 2d 4 (1952). . . 22 Campbell v. Arkansas State Highway Comm'n. 183 Ark. 780, 38 S.W.2d 753 (1931)- 29 Canada & Southern R. R. v. International Bridge Co., 8 Fed. 190 (D. C.N. Y. 1881) . 10 Carter v. Sutton. 120 U.S. 517 (1886) 44 City of Newark v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 7 N.J. 377, 81 A. 2d 705 (1951) . 29 Combs V. Illinois State Toll Highway Comm'n, 128 F. Supp. 305 (1955) 31 Courtesy Seindwich Shop. Inc. v. Port of New York Authority, 240 N. Y. S. 2d 1, _N.E.2d_, _U.S. , llL.Ed.2d 141 (1963) 28 Covington & Lexington Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896). ... 10 Czirerv. New York State Thruway Authority, 202 N. Y. S. 2d 480 (1960) 53 Davis V. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, 57 Wash. 2d 428. 357 P. 2d 710 (1960). . 49 Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm'n v. Carver. 399 Pa. 545. 160 A. 2d 425 (1960) Denver v. Home Savings Bank. 236 U.S. 101 (1914) 44 Eastern Motor Express v. Espenshade. 138 F. Supp. 426 (E.D. Pa., 1956). ... 53 Edgecomb Steel Co. v. State, 100 N.H. 480, 131 A. 2d 70 (1957) 53 Ellis v. Ohio Turnpike Comm'n, 162 Ohio St. 86, 120 N.E.2d 719 (1954) 24 Erie V. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 62. 114 A. L. R. 1487 (1938) 53 Gate City Garage v. City of Jacksonville, 66 So. 2d 653 (Fla. , 1953) Gerr v. Emrick. 283 F. 2d 293 (1960) 53 Holbrook v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, 338 Mass. 218, 154N.E.2d 605 (1958) 53 Hydes Ferry Turnpike Co. v. Davidson County, 91 Term. 291, 18 S.W. 626 (1892) . 53 Illinois State Toll Highway Comm'n v. Eden Cemetery Ass'n, 16 111. 2d 539, 158 N.E.2d 766 (1959) 29 Intercity Coach Lines. Inc. v. Harrison, 172 Ga. 390, 157 S.E. 673 (1931). ... 16 Johnson Transfer & Freight Lines v. Perry. 47 F. 2d 900 (D. C., N. Dak.. 1931). . 16 Keifer &Keifer v. RFC, 306 U. S. 381, 396 (1939) 53 Koch V. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 208 Okla. 556, 257 P. 2d 790 (1953). ... 29 Linger v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, 158 F. Supp. 900 (W. D., Pa., 1958). . 53 Lowes V. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n. 125 F. Supp. 681 (M.D.. Pa.. 1954). . 53 Masse v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, 163 F. Supp. 510 (E.D.. Pa.. 1948). . 53 McCabe v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority. 35 N.J. 26. 170 A. 2d 810 (1961). . . 32 McMuUen v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation Dist.. 17 Cal. App.2d 696. 62 P. 2d 1083 (1963) 50 Mettet v. City of Yankton. 71S.D. 435, 25 N. W. 2d 460 (1945) 25

113 114

Montana Mining Co. v. State Highway Comm'n, 128 Mont. 65. 270 P. 2d 738 (1954). . Morris County Industrial Bank v. Nicol, 64 N.J.Super. 381, 166 A. 2d 180 (N. J. 1960) New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Washington Mercer County. 16 N.J. 38, 106 A. 2d 4 (1954) 30 New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Jersey City. 36 N.J. 232, 177 A. 2d 539 (1962). . 28 New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Parsons, 5 N.J. Super. 595, 68 A. 2d 580, 3 N.J. 235, 69 A. 2d 875 (1949) 40 Nichols V. Williams, 338 Mich. 617, 62 N. W. 2d 103 (1954) Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. By rum. 206 Okla. 541, 244 P. 2d 1145 (1952). . . 30 People V. Illinois State Toll Highway Comm'n. 3 I11.2d 218, 120 N.E. 2d 35 (1954). . 29 Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. New York State Thruway Authority. 5 N. Y. 2d 420. 158 N. E. 2d 238 (1959) 37 Public Utility Dist. v. Town of Newport. 38 Wash. 2d 221. 228 P. 2d 766 (1951). . . 49 Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles County. 262 U.S. 700 (1923) 31 Robertson v. Zimmerman. 268 N.Y. 52, 196 N.E. 740 (1935) Rowhuff V. Kansas Turnpike Authority. 182 Kan. 748, 324 P. 2d 147 (1958). ... 30 Scott V. Alabama State Bridge Corp., 233 Ala. 12, 169 So. 273 (1936) 40 Smith V. Kansas Turnpike Authority. 183 Kan. 158, 325 P. 2d 63 (1958) 29 Smyth V. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (1898) 10 Solether v. Ohio Turnpike Comm'n, 133 N. E. 2d 148 (Ohio App., 1954) 22 State V. City of Key West, 153 Fla. 226, 14 So. 2d 707 (1943) 47 State V. Florida State Improvement Comm'n. 159 Fla. 338. 31 So. 2d 548 (1947). . 30 State V. Florida State Turnpike Authority. 80 So. 2d 337 (Fla., 1955) 54 State ex rel Allen v. Ferguson. 155 Ohio St. 26. 97 N.E. 2d 660 (1951) 28 State ex rel Fatzer v. Kansas Turnpike Authority. 176 Kan. 683. 273 P. 2d 198 (1954) 28 State ex rel Ohio Turnpike Comm'n v. Allen. 158 Ohio St. 168, 107 N.E.2d 345 (1952); cert, den.. 344 U. S. 865 (1952) 28 Tinberg v. Kansas Turnpike Authority. 181 Kan. 139, 310 P. 2d 217 (1957). ... 29 TirreUv. Johnson, 86N.H. 530 171 Atl. 641 (1934) 16 Tobin V. United States, 306 F. 2d 270; cert, den., 371 U. S. 902 (1961) 28 Town of Bloomfield v. New Jersey Highway Authority, 18 N.J. 237, 113 A. 2d 658 (1955). . 31 Tranter v. Allegheny County Authority, 316 Pa. 65, 173 Atl. 289 (1934) Turnpike Authority of Kentucky v. Wall. 366 S.W.2d 551 (Ky. 1960) 22 Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Ye He, 47 Wash. 2d 804, 289 P. 2d 1027 (1955). . 22

Federal Statutes Cited

Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 232, c. 261 Act of August 15, 1876, 19 Stat. 205, c. 303 Act of July 20, 1868, 15 Stat. 120, c. 179 Act of June 30, 1870, 16 Stat. 173, c. 176 33 U.S.C. 491 et seq. P.L. 573, 82nd Cong. 2d Sess. Act of July 11, 1916, 39 Stat. 355 (sec. 1) 23 U.S.C. 301 Act of November 21, 1921, 42 Stat. 212 (sec. 9) 23 U.S.C. 129 (a) Act of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1456 Act of June 16, 1933, 48 Stat. 204 Act of July 31, 1945, 59 Stat. 507. c. 333 23 U.S.C. 129 (b) Act of July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 522 23 U.S.C.Ill APPENDIX C

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WRITINGS ON TURNPIKES AND TOLL BRIDGES

Books and Periodicals

Adelizzi, J. M., "Cooperation Between Trucking Agencies and Toll Facilities, " Ameri• can Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 27th Annual Meeting, p. 27 (1959). Brown, S. P. , "Outlook for a Maine to Florida Toll Highway, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 23d Annual Meeting, p. 33 (1955). California Dep't of Pub. Works, Div. of Highways, "Annotated Bibliography of Planning Library Reference to Toll Roads and Related Material, " Planning Dep't Gal. Div. of Highways (1950). Campbell, M. E. , "Toll Bridge Influence on Highway Traffic Operation, " Yale Univ. Press (1947). Cassagne, C. E. , "New Mississippi River Bridge at New Orleans, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 22d Annual Meeting, p. 28 (1954). Chermah, L. E. , The Law of Revenue Bonds, NIMLO, Washington (1954). Costello, J. K. , "Projects of the Delaware River Port Authority, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 23d Annual Meeting, p. 17 (1955). Dearing, C. L., American Highway Policy, Brookings Institution, Wash., D.C. (1942). Dearing, C. L., and Owen, W., Toll Roads and the Problem of Highway Modernization, Brookings Institution, Wash., D. C. (1951). Dearing, C. L., Turnpike Authorities m the United States, 26 Law &Contem. Prob. 741 (Aut. 61). Department of the Army, "Report of the Secretary of the Army m re: Camden Bridge Tolls, " (May 4, 1954). Duff, J. H. , "Toll Roads - A Solution to the Highway Problem, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 23d Annual Meeting, p. 86 (1955). Durrenberger, J. A., Turnpikes; A Study of the Toll Road Movement in the Middle Atlantic States and Maryland, Valdosta (1931). Dugan, H. , McCallum, W. , and Todd, T. , "Recent Trends in Highway Bond Financing, " HRB, Proc. 1952, p. 1 (1952). Ellwanger, W. E. , "A Small Bridge System, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 25th Annual Meeting, p. 29 (1957). Funk, J. B., "Maryland's First Toll Highway Project, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 29th Annual Meeting, p. 29 (1961). Havenmer, J. E. , "The Role of Toll Facilities in Modern Highway Construction," Amer• ican Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 30th Annual Meeting, p. 69 (1962). "Condemnation of Property for Highway Purposes, " HRB Special Report 33, Part 2 (1958). Hodgkiss, A. , "The Authorities and the Metropolitan New York Highway Program, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 29th Annual Meeting, p. 22 (1961). Hoppins, W. C., "The Potapsco Tunnel Project in Baltimore Harbor, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 23d Annual Meeting, p. 22 (1955). Jacquette, W. J. , "Do Toll Agencies Use Good Management Practices'?" American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 25th Annual Meeting, p. 124 (1957). Kellam, L. J. , "Chesapeake Bay - New Crossing Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Commission, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Assoc. , 29th Annual Meeting, p. 31 (1961). "Toll Roads - Massachusetts, " Mass. Turnpike Commission (1950). Mauritz, E. W., "Uniform Accounting Systems for Toll Facilities, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 29th Annual Meeting, p. 3 (1961). McCall, J. D. , and Dingwall, J. C., "Turnpike Projects in Texas, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 22d Annual Meeting, p. 31 (1954).

115 116 26. McGovern, J. W. , "The Non-Negotiable Revenue Bond, " 22 New York State Bar Asso• ciation Journal 49 (1950). 27. McGuire, F. F.. "A Barrier Toll Road System, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 25th Annual Meeting, p. 17 (1957). 28. Miller, H. V., Toll Roads for Tennessee, Tennessee State Planning Comm'n (1952). 29. Mitchell, R. L., "Safeguards in Toll Revenue Financing, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 25th Annual Meetmg, p. 132 (1957). 30. "Federal Policy on Toll Roads, " National Highway Users Conference (1957). 31. Nehemkis, "The Public Authority: Some Legal and Practical Aspects, " 47 Yale Law Journal 14 (1937). 32. Netherton, R. , "Area Development Authorities: A New Form of Government by Proc• lamation, " 8 Vancierbilt Law Review 678 (1955). 33. Orange, E. H. , "Use of Toll Facilities in a Highway System, " American Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Ass'n, 26th Annual Meeting, p. 71 (1958). 34. Pershing, J. , "Revenue Bond Remedies, " 22 Cornell Law Quarterly 64 (1936). 35. Pomeroy, H. R., "Is the Turnpike a Good Neighbor' " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 23d Annual Meeting, p. 27 (1955). 36. Raab, N. C. , "New San Francisco Bay Crossings, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 24th Annual Meeting, p. 38 (1956). 37. Shestack, J., "The Public Authority, " 105 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 553 (1957). 38. Smith, W., and Associates, "Toll Financing for Potomac River Crossings, " Wash., D. C and New Haven (1955). 39. SoUer, J., "A Controlled Turnpike System (IBM), " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 25th Annual Meeting, p. 20 (1957). 40. Sullivan, J. L., "Civil Defense and Toll Facilities, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 26th Annual Meeting, p. 34 (1958). 41. Suplee, F. L., Jr., "Large Bridge Systems, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 25th Annual Meeting, p. 14 (1957). 42. Symes, D. E. , "A Controlled Turnpike System (T &C &R. R.), " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 25th Annual Meeting, p. 22 (1957). 43. Tallamy, B. D. , "The Interstate System and the Toll Facilities, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 28th Annual Meeting, p. 217 (1960). 44. Taylor, I. E. , "Toll Agencies and the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, " American Bndg( Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 24th Annual Meeting, p. 88 (1956). 45. New York Temporary State Commission on Coordination of State Activities, Preliminarj Staff Report on a Proposal for the Regionalization of Existing Highways and Bridge Authorities, Albany (1955). 46. Tobin, A. J. , "Urban Transportation Today, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 28th Annual Meeting, p. 95 (1960). 47. Tonte, L. , "The Myth of Free Roads, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 26th Annual Meeting, p. 94 (1958). 48. Tonte, L. , "The Myths of Free Roads, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n and International Division, 30th Annual Meeting, p. 75 (1962). 49. Walker, G. H., "Bridges and Navigation, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 24th Annual Meeting, p. 70 (1956). 50. Wanamake, W. W., "The Future Role of the New Jersey Turnpike, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 29th Annual Meeting, p. 24 (1961). 51. White, K. E. , "Economic Effects of a Superhighway, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 26th Annual Meeting, p. 74 (1958). 52. Whitton, R. M. , "Toll Facilities and Our Transportation Network, " American Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Ass'n, 29th Annual Meeting, p. 19 (1961).

Legislative Hearings and Reports

1. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works, Hearings on reimbursement of toll or free roads on the Interstate System, HR 10422; 85th Cong., 2d. Sess., Washington, D.C., GPO (1958). 117

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works, Hearings on additional toll bridge across the Delaware River, HR 5604; 87th Cong., 2d Sess.. Washington, D. C. , GPO (1962). U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works, Report on Toll Roads and Free Roads; 76th Cong. , 1st Sess. , H. Doc. 272, Washington, D. C.. GPO (1939). U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works, Report on progress and feasibility of toll roads and their relation to the Federal-Aid Program; 84th Cong. , 1st Sess., H. Doc. 139, Washington, D. C., GPO (1955). U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Works, Hearings on Delaware River Port Authority, Supplemental Compact between Pennsylvania and New York, S.2187, 2188; 82d Cong. , 2d Sess. , Washington, D. C. , GPO (1952). U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Works, Hearings on Tolls on Federal- Aid Highways, S. 796; 83d Cong. , 1st Sess. , Washington, D. C. , GPO (1953). U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Works, Hearings on Inter-American Highway and Tolls on Federal-Aid Highways, HR 5923; 84th Cong. , 1st Sess., Washington, D. C. , GPO (1955). U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on International Bridges, S 2531; 86th Cong. , 1st Sess. , Washington, D. C., GPO (1959). APPENDIX D

LIST OF THE MAJOR TOLL HIGHWAYS IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF OCTOBER 1963*

Chicago Skyway: 111. - Ind. state Ime to Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago, 111. Cars $. 30. car and trailer $. 50. Trucks $.2 0 per axle with a $1. 00 maximum toll. Connecticut Turnpike: N.Y. state line (near Greenwich. Conn. ) to R.I. state Ime (at Killingly, Conn. ), 12 9 miles. Speed limit, 60 mph. Car and passengers maximum toll $2. 00, with trailer to $4. 05. Trucks $2. 00 to $5. 05. Rates between inter• mediate points are charged accordmg to mileage traveled. Dallas - Fort Worth. Tex. Turnpike: Speed limit, 70 mph. Car and passengers maximum toll $. 60. with trailer $1. 35. Trucks and buses maximum toll $. 85 to $3. 00. Delaware Turnpike: See Northeast Expressway. Denver - Boulder Turnpike: From eastern city limits of Boulder to northern city limits of Denver. Colo. , 17 miles. Speed limit. 70 mph. Car and passengers $.25. Denver - Broomfield $. 10; Broomfield - Boulder $. 15. Two-axle trucks or buses $. 2 0 to $. 50; $. 05 to $. 15 extra for each axle in excess of two. Everett Turnpike: Mass. - N. H. state line to Concord. N. H. . 39 miles. Speed limit. 60 mph. Car and passengers $. 15 to $. 50. Ti-ucks and house trailers $. 15 to $.50 per axle. Garden State Parkway: Montvale to Cape May. N. J. , 173 miles. Speed limit. 60 mph. Car and passengers approximately $. 015 per mile, maximum toll $2. 75. with trailer to $5. 5 0. No trucks are permitted on the Parkway except south of Interchange 97A near State 34 m Monmouth County. Towed vehicles are not per• mitted. The Parkway connects directly with the New York Thruway at the N. J. - N. Y. state line at Montvale. Hutchinson River Parkway: New York City (Westchester County line) to Conn. Ime. 15 miles. Speed limit, 50 mph. Toll: $.25. Illinois Tollway: Includes the Tri-State ToUway, Interstate 294 from Indiana state Ime to Deerfield, 111. , then Interstate 94 to Wisconsm state Ime; Northwest Toll- way, Interstate 90 from the Tn-State Tollway to the Wisconsm state Ime at South Beloit, 111.; and the East-West Tollway between Chicago and Aurora. Total dis• tance is 187 miles. Cars $2. 10 for "the Tri-State Tollway, $1.55 for the Northwest Tollway, and $. 50 for the East-West Tollway. Indiana Toll Road (Northern): Eastpoint (Ohio line) to Westpomt (lUmois Ime), 156 miles. Speed limit, 70 mph maximum, 40 mph mmimum. Passenger cars ap• proximately $. 0175 per mile with a maximum of $2. 80. Car and trailer $2. 80 to $7. 60. Trucks $2. 80 to $18. 75. Rates between mtermediate pomts accordmg to mileage. Kansas Turnpike: Kansas City to South Haven, Kans. (Okla. Ime), 236 miles. Speed limits, 40 mph mmimum, 80 mph maximum. Car and passengers $4. 25 maximum. Car and trailer $5. 95 maximum. Trucks $4. 25 to $9, 45. Rates between mter• mediate pomts accordmg to mileage. Kentucky Turnpike: Louisville to Elizabethtown, Ky. , 40 miles. Speed limit, 70 mph maximum, 40 mph mmimum. Passenger cars $. 2 0 to $. 70. Small trucks $.2 0 to $1. 00; large trucks $. 30 to $2, 50. Rates accordmg to mileage between mtermediate pomts. Slight additional fee charged per extra axle on house, boat and utility trailers. Toll plazas are at the southern termmus at Elizabethtown and at mter- section State 44 near SheperdsviUe. irectory of Toll Bridges, Ferries, Domestic Steamship Lmes and Toll Roads, merican Automobile Association, Washington, D. C. , (1962). Revised to October 963.

119 12 0

13. Maine Turnpike: Kittery to Augusta, Mame, 106 miles. Speed limit, 70 mph. 65 mph at night. Car and passengers maximum $2. 15; care and trailer $3. 25. Trucks $2. 15 to $6. 00. Rates between mtermediate pomts accordmg to mileage. 14. Massachusetts Turnpike: Boston (near to State Lme Mass. (N. Y border), 123 miles. Speed limit. 60 mph maximum. 40 mph mmimum. Passenger cars approxmiately $. 02 per mile (maximum $2. 45), up to $. 055 per mile for trucks and buses. 15. Merritt Parkway: N. Y. - Conn, state line to Housatonic River, Stratford, Conn. , 37, 5 miles. Speed limit, 55 mph. Car and passengers $. 20. No trailers, trucks, or buses allowed except by special permit or in case of emergency. 16. Mountain Parkway: Interstate 64 from Wmchester to Comptom. Ky. , 43 miles. Speed lunit. 60 mph. Car and passengers maximum $. 80; car and trailer $1. 30 to $1. 80. Trucks $1. 00 with additional tolls per extra axle. Rates between mtermediate pomt accordmg to mileage. 17. New Hampshire Turnpike: Salisbury, Mass. , to Portsmouth, N. H.. 14. 7 miles. Speed limit. 60 mph. Car and passengers $. 15 to $. 25. Trucks and house trailers $. 10 to $. 20 per axle. 18. New Jersey Turnpike: Deepwater to Ridgefield Park. N. J. . 131 miles mcludmg ex• tensions. Speed limit, 60 mph. Maximum toll for passenger cars $1. 75; car and trailer $3. 00. Rates between intermediate points according to mileage. 19. New York Thruway: Pennsylvania border (near Erie) to New York City, N. Y. , 559 miles, mcludmg extensions. Speed limit, 65 mph. Car and passengers $. 015 per mile; maximum $8. 2 0, with trailer $10. 50. Trucks $. 015 to $, 05 per mile; buses $. 035 per mile. Rates between intermediate points accordmg to mileage. Passen• ger car toll across the Hudson River via the Thruway Tappan Zee Bridge (Nyack - Tarrytown) is $. 50. with provision for a monthly 40-trip communtation book for $10. 00. A $.25 fixed fee is charged at the Yonkers Barrier, near Tuckahoe Road. Both the Bridge toll and the Yonkers Barrier toll are separate charges, not covered by the $40. 00 annual Thruway Permit, which is valid for passage on the Erie Sectio west of Buffalo and between Williamsville, east of Buffalo, and the Sprmg Valley m Rockland County. There are fixed tolls on the Niagara Section. Proportionately higher bridge and barrier tolls are charged for commercial vehicles. 20. Northeast Expressway and Delaware Turnpike: Baltimore, Md. , to Wilmington, Del. Maximum toll for passenger cars $1. 30; trucks $1. 60 to $2. 75. Rates between intermediate points accordmg to mileage. 21. Ohio Turnpike: Ohio - Pennsylvania lme to Ohio - Indiana lme, 241 miles. Speed limit, 65 mph. Car and passengers $. 015 per mile ($3. 50 maximum, with trailer $5. 00). Rates between intermediate pomts accordmg to mileage. Traffic proceed- mg between the Ohio Turnpike and either the Indiana Toll Road or the Pennsylvania Turnpike does so through direct connections. There are no mterchanges with other highways at the two termmal points. 22. Pennsylvania Turnpike System: Gateway (Ohio lme near Youngstown), to the Delaware River Bridge and from a pomt near Norristown to Scranton, Pa. , 470 miles. Speec limit, 65 mph under normal driving conditions. Vehicles over 8 ft. wide are not allowed to use the turnpike unless a special permit is obtamed. Passenger car toll IS approximately $. 01 per mile with rates between mtermediate pomts according to mileage. Maximum toll for cars is $4. 80, with trailer $8. 65 to $11. 65. 23. Richmond - Petersburg Turnpike: (Interstate 95) North of Richmond to south of Petersburg, Va. , 34. 7 miles. Speed limit 65 mph; mmimum speed 40 mph unless otherwise restricted by signs or permit. Cars $. 95. Trucks $. 95 to $1,55. Rates between intermediate pomts according to mileage. 24. Saw Mill River Parkway; New York City (Westchester County lme) to Katonah, N. Y. . 30. 4 miles. Speed limit 45 mph to Eastview; 50 mph from Eastview to Katonah. Car and passengers $, 25, 25. Spauldmg Turnpike: Portsmouth to Rochester, N, H. , 22. 8 miles. Speed limit, 60 mi Car and passengers $. 10 to $. 25. Trucks and trailers $. 15 to $. 30 per axle. 26. Sunshme State Parkway: Miami to Orlando, Fla. Speed limit, 70 mph maximum, 40 mph minimum. Passenger car toll is approximately $. 02 per mile with rates be• tween mtermediate pomts accordmg to mileage. Maximum toll for cars $4. 2 0; car and trailer $5. 30 to $10. 40; trucks $6. 40 to $10. 40. 121

7. Turner Turnpike: Oklahoma City to Tulsa, Oklahoma, 86 miles. Speed limit, 70 mph. Passenger cars $1. 40. Car and trailer $2. 10. Trucks $2. 00 to $4. 00. Rates be• tween intermediate pomts according to mileage. 8. West Virgmia Turnpike: Princeton - Charleston, W. Va. , 88 miles. Speed limit, 60 mph. Cars $. 20 to $1. 95 accordmg to mileage. Car and trailer $3. 00 and up. Truck rates maximum $2. 00 to $6. 50. Rates between intermediate pomts accordmg to mileage. 9. Wilbur Cross Parkway: Milford to Meriden, Conn. Parkway joins Merritt Parkway via Housatonic Bridge from Milford to Stratford. Speed limit, 55 mph. Cars $. 35 maximum. 0. Will Rogers Turnpike: Tulsa. Okla. , to Joplin, Mo. , 88 miles. Speed lunit 70 mph. Car and passengers $1. 50. Car and trailer to $2. 10. Trucks $2. 00 to $4. 00. Rates between mtermediate pomts accordmg to mileage. rrVIE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES—NATIONAL RESEARCH COUN- 1^ CIL is a private, nonprofit organization of scientists, dedicated to the furtherance of science and to its use for the general welfare. The ACADEMY itself was established in 1863 under a congressional charter signed by President Lincoln. Empowered to provide for all activities ap• propriate to academies of science, it was also required by its charter to act as an adviser to the federal government in scientific matters. This provision accounts for the close ties that have always existed between the ACADEMY and the government, although the ACADEMY is not a govern• mental agency.

The NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL was established by the ACADEMY in 1916, at the request of President Wilson, to enable scientists generally to associate their efforts with those of the limited membership of the ACADEMY in service to the nation, to society, and to science at home and abroad. Members of the NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL receive their appointments from the president of the ACADEMY. They include representa• tives nominated by the major scientific and technical societies, repre• sentatives of the federal government, and a number of members at large. In addition, several thousand scientists and engineers take part in the activities of the research council through membership on its various boards and committees. ""iceiving funds from both public and private sources, by contribution, , or contract, the ACADEMY and its RESEARCH COUNCIL thus work to stimulate research and its applications, to survey the broad possibilities of science, to promote effective utilization of the scientific and technical resources of the country, to serve the government, and to further the general interests of science.

The HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD was organized November 11, 1920, as an agency of the Division of Engineering and Industrial Research, one of the eight functional divisions of the NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. The BOARD is a cooperative organization of the highway technologists of America operating under the auspices of the ACADEMY-COUNCIL and with the support of the several highway departments, the Bureau of Public Roads, and many other organizations interested in the development of highway transportation. The purposes of the BOARD are to encourage research and to provide a national clearinghouse and correlation service for research activities and information on highway administration and technology.