Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Fooling everybody
Next Post: Money for nothing
Posted in:
* Lee Newspapers clears up a major yet very common error…
Federal dollars will not disappear if the Illinois General Assembly fails to approve a statewide construction plan to update its roads, highways, bridges and buildings, says U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and the federal transportation and highway administrations.
They will simply deflate, or buy less.
The idea that Illinois will lose out on federal dollars if a statewide construction plan isn’t approved this year has been promoted by Gov. Rod Blagojevich and two of his emissaries — Southern Illinois University President Glenn Poshard and former U.S. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert — who are lobbying for the proposal.
“If you don’t get the money it goes away,” said Hastert. […]
But that federal money and those matching grants will not disappear or be doled out to other states unless Congress takes drastic measures to do so. Illinois’ congressional delegation says that will not happen.
* To be sure, the loss in purchasing power is quite substantial, so some projects will indeed “go away” the longer Springfield dithers. But, statements like this are not true…
U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk on Friday blasted Illinois lawmakers for jeopardizing about $4 billion in federal transportation funding by failing to approve a capital projects program for the state.
Money that’s been set aside for Illinois bus and rail improvements likely will go to other states if the General Assembly doesn’t act, Kirk said.
It would be helpful if we could get a straight answer out of our congresscritters rather than fear mongering.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 8:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Fooling everybody
Next Post: Money for nothing
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Helpful, yes…but fear mongering gets people to pay attention. I bet the lack of state funding for these projects didn’t stop the press releases from shipping out of Washington when they were approved at the federal level. Time to shift the blame to the bureaucrats in Springfield! Blagojevich is an easy target (and deservedly so) but at least two others share the blame.
Comment by Trapped In The Metro East Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:06 am
However, federal earmarks that linger for years and years due to inactivity are sometimes “swept” for other purposes, but usually with the consent of the federal earmark sponsor.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:13 am
The former federal funding for the Crosstown Expressway is a prime example of the above.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:14 am
A congressional staffer told me once that Durbin is only half right. The buying power is less, but some of the dollars will actually go away if their members are no longer there.
For example any project funds that were put into previous budgets by Hastert, LaHood or Weller will then be put into a pot of fund that went unspent by retired members. Those funds could be grabbed by other members of Congress, and thus IL would lose those funds. At least that is what I was told by a staffer once.
Comment by Napoleon has left the building Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:18 am
I assume that the amount of project funding with Hastert’s name on it is quite large too.
Comment by Napoleon has left the building Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:19 am
Get it while you can. Why play games with money? Things change.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:23 am
The CTA and other transit agencies are using Toll Revenue Credits to match federal capital dollars. Federal money is not being lost, it just doesn’t buy as much with real money from the state.
Comment by Chicago Guy Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:07 am
Napoleon,
Your staffer friend is a bit off the mark, although that is a commonly held misperception by congressional staffers who are not professional transportation committee staff. There is no pot of funds created by retired Members’ earmarks. If Congress so chooses to redirect those earmarks - or any earmarks - in later bills, it could theoretically do so, but that isn’t done in practice.
What Kirk fails to understand - because he is an appropriator and not a Member of the Transportation Committee that wrote the SAFETEA-LU bill - is that just because transit projects are authorized in the SAFETEA bill does not mean that money is set aside for them. There are over 300 new transit projects worth hundreds of billios authorized in the SAFETEA bill - Illinois had 10 of them worth almost $8 billion. However, there was only $6.6 billion set aside for the federal share - 80% max, 50% in practice - for THE WHOLE COUNTRY. Rep. Kirk is delusional if he thinks Illinois was going to get up to half of that $6.6 billion.
The transit funds are competitive - the only reason Illinois got funding for 2 CTA lines and 3 Metra lines earlier this decade is because Hastert pulled a rabbit out of a hat and slipped some language and money in a bill in 2000 (not one of the TEA bills). Of the 10 projects authhorized in the SAFETEA bill, Illinois may get federal matching funds for 2 or 3 projects, max. There just isn’t enough money to spread around the country to fund all of the projects Kirk is referring to.
Comment by Radical Moderate Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:09 am
Rich getting a staright anwer assumes the congress critters actually know themselves. I am suprised at times to find that fearmongering type statements reflect actual beleifs or percieved knowledge. i.e. the congress critter thinks what they are saying is accurate, its a failure to learn
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:17 am
Radical - thanks for the clarification. So in the end it looks like Durbin is mostly right.
Comment by Napoleon has left the building Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:30 am
One reason a straight answer is hard to find is that the Federales can change their minds at any time.
As long as the project is not actively being worked on (and even that is not a true guarantee) things can be changed at a moment’s notice.
On a local basis, the Route 53 extension has never been funded because there is no local consensus. The need intensifies, new roads are built in areas that do not need them, but Lake County transportation suffers.
The best way to argue money issues to the Feds is to show them that the plan is ready to g and the local share is available to proceed. Otherwise, the dollars will flow to where the local component is prepared to act.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:37 am
1. Most of the funds under discussion are from the 6-year federal highway bill, SAFETEA-LU. For most projects under SAFETEA-LU, the project sponsor (IDOT or local) must provide 80%. If IDOT isn’t appropriated this 20%, then the federal funds can’t be spent.
2. FHWA has rescinded SAFETEA-LU funds (taken them back), so the message is clear - spend it while you can.
Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:49 am
Plutocrat,
ISTHA could decide tomorrow to build IL 53 with no federal money if they so chose, using their bonding capability to be paid back with future toll revenues. Most of the right of way is already owned by the state, so ISTHA wouldn’t need to depend on IDOT to buy the land with federal funds as was done on the recent I-355 south project. ISTHA could use its condemnation powers on the small amount of land remaining.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:59 am
Sir Reel,
Can you provide an example where any SAFETEA-LU money was totally rescinded? I recall the Alaska “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan was de-funded due to the national outcry, but the funding was fully restored to the State of Alaska under the non-project specific federal “formula” funding. There may have been some small percentage recission overall to fund our Middle East Adventure, but I do not recall any projects being cut.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:04 am
Sir Reel,
You have the ratio of matching funds reversed. The locally required share is, by law, a MINIMUM of 20% - meaning the local entity must cover at least $20 million of a $100 million project. The feds can cover up to 80%.
However, in reality, the local share often ends up closer to 50%, especially with regard to transit projects. The higher the local share, the higher the project rating and the higher the chance the US DOT will enter into a funding agreement with the project sponsor (transit agency). For example, the ongoing CTA Brown Line reconstruction has a funding agreement (called a Full Funding Grant Agreement - FFGA) with the US DOT, and the funding ration is roughly 50% local/50% federal.
When it comes to who is right on transportation matters, Durbin has much more experience and has experienced staff who deal with transportation on a daily basis. He has been an active member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for a decade, and also deals with transportation policy as the Senate Majority Whip. Kirk doesn’t sit on ony Transportation Committees or Subcommittees, isn’t in leadership, and rarely deals with transportation policy.
Comment by Radical Moderate Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:24 pm
Kirk is my congressman. He wants to eliminate earmarks for other congressional districts, but he ensured that the federal government spent several million dollars for unconstitutional pork barrel spending in his district, including spending for Metra, parks, schools, and police departments.
Comment by PhilCollins Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:17 pm
Radical-
For federal highway projects, the ratio is usually 80% federal/20% state or local (90/10 on some “safety” projects or projects on the original Interstate system), so Sir Reel is correct in that regard. You are correct that public transit projects, especially “new starts”, typically have lower funding percentages by the feds.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:13 pm
One area where this also might affect IL-
The next 6-year Transportation bill is due in fall of 2009. If there is a large balance of unspent funds, no champions like Hastert and Lip Sr. to push for the state’s interests in the new bill, and astute legislative negotiators representing other large states with transportation needs, IL may come up far short in the next transportation bill in relation to this one. I think Durbin and the rest of the IL congressional delegation are well aware of these factors, more so than the “use it or lose it” proposition that seems to be getting play right now.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:56 pm
Six Degrees,
You are misreading Sir Reel’s and my take on the local/fed share.
Sir Reel wrote: “For most projects under SAFETEA-LU, the project sponsor (IDOT or local) must provide 80%”. Which is wrong. The local sponsor must provide 20%, not 80%.
I wrote: “The locally required share is, by law, a MINIMUM of 20% - meaning the local entity must cover at least $20 million of a $100 million project.”
That is in line with what you wrote.
All together now - “80 fed/20 local”.
Comment by Radical Moderate Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 5:06 pm
Six
Yes, ISTHA could do it as a toll road, but that was not the original plan.
The point I was making was that without local support, the political bodies upstream whether Federal, state or ISTHA will not move forward. You seem familiar with the process, as am I. When the call come for funding, you are either ready to go or not. You have to demonstrate that the local share is ready for deployment. If you tell the that you have to pass a tax or go to referendum, you get pushed off the track and they move on the the next prepared project.
Are you off the list? Not likely, but you also will not get first refusal either of the next batch of $$. The delay can be decades unless someone in power has the pull to move you forward again.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 6:42 pm
Radical Moderate-
OK, I misread Sir Reel’s comment, although SR stated that if IDOT isn’t approporiated the 20% (by the State GA and signed by the gov), the Federal funds can’t be spent, which IS correct for projects subject to the 80/20 formula.
You also stated that the locals or state must pony up a minimum of 20% to access federal funds. True in most cases. Some exceptions:
Interstate highway maintenance is 90% federal, 10% state.
www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/intmaint.cfm
Federal highway safety improvement projects are 90% federal/10% state or local. Also Railroad Grade Crossing safety projects.
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/legis_comp.htm
And there are rare transportation programs out there where the feds pay the whole bill in the form of a grant (some interstate safety projects, for example).
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 6:57 pm
Plutocrat-
IL 53 may have been contemplated as a free road at one time, but ISTHA has been involved with it for at least 10 years (they were co sponsors of the environmental study with IDOT). As far as community consensus, good luck finding that on any major project, especially in the Chicago area. If I understand correctly, it’s basically one community that is strongly opposed to IL 53. If that’s enough to kill the project, good luck with finishing projects like the Elgin-O’Hare western access road, with Bensenville and Elk Grove in the mix.
Out in western and south central IL, communities beg for roads like IL 336, US 51 and US 67 to be built to promote economic development and there is little opposition. That may be the key to your previous comment, “new roads are built in areas that do not need them”. Where they are needed most, they are opposed the most, and where they are not apparently needed, they are supported the most.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 7:18 pm
ISTHA has yet to demonstrate the need for the 53 tollway and that is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Any who honestly studies the traffic patterns in Lake County will tell you, it is the east west arterials that need help. Building a limited access tollway will not help with the county’s congestion issues. As for one town being against, that is also false. The last author makes a good point; it is easier to build projects in areas where there is little or no opposition.
Comment by lk Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:47 pm