The massive new transportation bill paved by Congress contains a big pothole for Illinois that could force state officials to scrounge for more local dollars even as federal funding of the nation's highways hits an all-time high.

Under pressure from fast-growing Southern and Western states that have long argued they were getting shorted, lawmakers changed the highway funding formula to put more emphasis on factors that will benefit the Sunbelt.

All states were guaranteed they would get back at least 90.5 cents of every dollar they sent to Washington in gas taxes. But the shift came at the expense of states like Illinois, which had been getting $ 1.03 back for every $1 it sent to the feds. It will now become a "donor" state, getting back just 92 cents, erasing one of the few fiscal positives state officials could point to in the flow of money between Illinois and the nation's capital.

True, overall federal highway funding for Illinois will grow to $885 million a year, from $682 million under the previous six-year transportation bill. But the 30 percent increase is smaller than that received by all but six other states.

"That just puts more pressure on us to increase state revenues," says Illinois Department of Transportation spokesman Richard Adorjan, referring to IDOT's so far unsuccessful effort to get the Illinois legislature to boost gas taxes.

"The Southern and Western states clearly were the winners. In effect, though, it punishes states like Illinois that have invested in the system themselves. Many of those other states have motor fuel taxes significantly lower than the Eastern and Midwestern states."

Though Illinois may not be growing as fast as most Sunbelt states, its highways handle a significant amount of traffic. It has the third largest interstate system in the country and five of the top truck routes.

Illinois also has one of the largest mass transit systems, centered in and around Chicago. IDOT officials say the state will get approximately $2 billion in formula funds for mass transit. The bill contains a total of $41 billion for subways, light rail and bus systems over the next six years.

One local interest that did get protected was pork-barrel politics. Despite hand-wringing from fiscal conservatives, thousands of special projects selected by individual lawmakers were funded, including nearly a hundred in Illinois.

Though members of Illinois' congressional delegation tried to put the best public spin possible on the numbers, the bill has caused no small amount of private griping from their Capitol Hill redoubts and a rare public display of intradelegation finger pointing, with a clearly partisan edge.

As Illinois' sole representative on the House-Senate conference committee named to work out the massive six-year reauthorization of the nation's surface transportation plan, Chicago Democratic Rep. Bill Lipinski knew other members of the delegation were looking to him to guard the Land of Lincoln's interests. But when Lipinski got a look at the full conference report hours before a vote was scheduled, he was taken aback. Not only would Illinois get one of the smallest funding increases in the nation, but money to expedite the state's top highway project, reconstruction of part of the Stevenson Expressway in Chicago, was missing.

Lipinski initially refused to sign the report, which would have been an embarrassment to House and Senate leaders who toiled for months to remove political sawhorses blocking the bill's passage. After talking on the House floor with Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican, and extracting a promise that the Stevenson project and a similar reconstruction of Chicago's Wacker Drive would be fully funded, Lipinski relented.

But he wasn't happy about it.

"That made it a little more palatable so he decided to sign on,"

30 ¦ July/August 1998 Illinois Issues

"He's disappointed with the state's (funding) formula."

Corr and other observers say much of the decision-making was out of the hands of the rank-and-file conferees. Deals were cut at higher levels, between Shuster, his Senate counterpart, Rhode Island Republican John Chafee, and, finally, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.

"Even though [Lipinski] was the only member of the conference from Illinois, he was not involved in the day-to-day, minute-to-minute negotiations," Corr says. "It was basically a done deal by the time he found out about the Illinois funding level."

Much of the criticism that flew among members of the Illinois delegation over the bill centered on transit funding, Republicans unleashed their ire not at Lipinski, but at the state's senior senator, Democrat Carol Moseley-Braun, who is a top GOP target for defeat this election year, They accused Moseley-Braun of not looking out for the state's interests in the upper chamber. Moreover, they claimed Moseley-Braun grabbed $315 million to refurbish the Chicago Transit Authority's Douglas Blue Line at the expense of transit projects in the Republican-dominated suburbs and downstate. (Senators were allowed to target projects in their states for special funding, as House members did.)

"Albeit, the Douglas line is in need of repairs, the [suburban] Metra lines serve an exploding population," says David Kohn, press secretary to Wilmette Republican Rep. John Porter, who voted against the bill, citing concerns about its huge $216 billion price tag. "What Sen. Moseley-Braun said was their needs are secondary. That's an extraordinary judgment."

Democratic aides countered that funding for the Douglas project would have been much more difficult to obtain through the normal appropriations process because most of the transit money is reserved for new commuter lines or expansion of existing lines. The suburban lines should fare well in later appropriations, they say.

Moreover, Moseley-Braun notes that her accusers are members of the party that controls Congress and that several Illinoisans occupy key spots in the House Republican hierarchy — notably GOP Chief Deputy Whip Dennis Hastert, a Yorkville Republican, and one of Moseley-Braun's most outspoken critics on the transportation bill.

Illinois lawmakers, particularly in the House, were able to point to a couple of election-year silver linings in the bill. For instance, it contains $300 million for 99 specific projects of their choosing, ranging from new bridges over the Illinois and Fox rivers in suburban Chicago to a parking garage in Peoria.

Although most of the projects took a 25 percent cut in the conference committee to make way for Senate-sponsored projects, Illinois was the fifth largest recipient of earmarked funds. That may be attributable to the state's clout on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Illinois has five members on the committee, more than all but two states — Pennsylvania and California, with six apiece. They represent virtually every corner of the state — from Lipinski's Southwest Chicago bungalow belt, to the central Illinois strongholds of Republican Reps. Ray LaHood of Peoria and Tom Ewing of Pontiac, and the deep southern districts of Democratic Reps. Jerry Costello of Belleville and Glenn Poshard of Marion.

"The more folks you have on this committee, the better your state is going to do on things like projects," says one high-ranking committee aide.

Downstate lawmakers also trumpeted guarantees that the controversial subsidies for ethanol, a corn-based fuel produced in Illinois, will survive until at least 2007, rather than expiring as planned in 2000. Moseley-Braun and fellow Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin worked hard to keep the extension in the Senate version of the highway bill.

The $600 million subsidy was stripped from the House bill by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, a Texas Republican, to make way for tax breaks for railroads and the tire industry. But Gingrich ensured its survival by keeping anti-ethanol House members — including Illinois Republican Rep. Phil Crane of Wauconda — off the conference committee. 

Toby Eckert reports from Washington, D. C., for the Copley News Service.

ACCOUNTANTS 1; ENGINEERS 1
In a classic case of warring words, two state agencies give contrasting versions of whether Illinois pays more to build roads than neighboring states.

Yes it does, says Auditor General William Holland, who reported in a recent audit that Illinois paid more per unit cost for nine of the 10 major road-building items than its Midwestern neighbors, including excavation, asphalt and cement concrete. The audit also criticized some bidding procedures of the Illinois Department of Transportation, particularly single-bid contracts, which resulted in costs exceeding estimates. In contrast, contracts with multiple bidders averaged 11 percent below estimated costs, the auditor general reported.

No it doesn't, say state transportation officials, who argue the use of different materials makes state comparisons invalid. Transportation spokesman Dick Adorjan also notes the audit did not account for some costs that affect total project price, such as worker's compensation costs that are more than twice as high as any neighboring state.

Though Holland's audit cited examples of similar products costing more in Illinois, he acknowledged that higher labor costs in this state, plus the complexity of road construction, accounted for some cost variances.

In a state where building roads has often meant building bridges to the politically potent, politicians stayed out of the fray.

Donald Sevener

Illinois Issues July/August 1998 ¦ 31