In the aftermath of the partisanship of recent elections and the hyperbole typical of campaign seasons, it would be easy to forget that not all battles in Washington, D.C., pit Republican against Democrat, conservative against liberal. Instead, turf warfare between geographic regions sometimes can be equally as fervent. The 1997 session of Congress will feature a prime example contest between states that, beneath its acronyms and arcane funding formulas, could have severe ramifications for New York residents.

 What is commonly known as ISTEA (pronounced like the beverage) is scheduled for reauthorization this year. The acronym stands for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the federal legislation that doles out funding for the nation's highway and transit systems. Since ISTEA was signed into law in 1991 by President George Bush, the program has designated the distribution of $155 billion to the states to maintain highways, repair bridges, bolster mass transit systems, and relieve traffic congestion. "It's meant a great deal to us," says Raymond Ruggieri, past director of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), of ISTEA funding. "New York made out very well with the formula used in ISTEA. We've done very well bringing transportation dollars into our region."

 The funding for ISTEA comes from the federal gas tax. And the Northeastern states—with their ample mass transit and aging infrastructure—often receive more from the need based funding formula than they contribute.

However, some federal lawmakers want to make changes in the ISTEA formula during the 105th Congress, with proposals ranging from minor tinkering to radically different alternatives for highway funding.

 Long before Congress started its session, the battle lines over ISTEA distribution were being drawn. According to U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a New Hartford Republican, "It's going to be a determined effort to change the formula in a way that would not work for New York's advantage.... It's going to be a knock-down drag-out fight."

 New York Transportation Commissioner John Daly sees growing support across the country for two other transportation funding mechanisms, both of which would strike New York hard. Lawmakers from one coalition of states, including Virginia and Texas, are promoting what has been dubbed the Streamlined Transportation Efficiency Program for the 21st Century (STEP 21). Under this proposal, a state would be more likely to get its share of the federal gas tax back for transportation projects.

 Then there's the "devolution" approach, supported by lawmakers from states such as Florida and Ohio. It essentially would wipe out most of the federal gas tax as an ISTEA subsidy, largely leaving it up to the states to determine how to fund their transportation needs. The states "see their money coming to Washington, and they're not getting it back," says Bruce Cuthbertson, a spokesman for Ohio Rep. John Kasich, one of the leading devolution proponents.

 To understand the consequences of the ISTEA fight for New York, it's best to look at what the transportation program has helped the state accomplish over the past five years. Consider that ISTEA helped fund, according to state transportation officials:
 
 

• the replacement of four city bridges in Watertown, after the expansion of Fort Drum placed tremendous strain on the bridge system;
• traffic management systems throughout the New York City area, as well as across the state:
• plans for high-speed ferry service from Rockland County to Manhattan to relieve the congestion on the Tappan Zee Bridge;
• construction of the third track of the MTA Metro-North Railroad Harlem Line, serving more than 19 million people annually;
• a recreational trail along the Oswegatchie River in Ogdensburg; and
• improvements at 407 rail and highway grade crossings across the state that transportation officials claim largely have been responsible for the decline in accidents at crossings.

 Regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are major players in establishing the course of a region's transportation program. ISTEA, Jaschik maintains, also has fostered greater public participation between MPOs and the residents of a region. ISTEA. for many of its programs. mandates a certain level of public input. "We have almost doubled the time and energy we've put into reaching out to the public. he says.

 If ISTEA has been such a glowing success, why then is it under attack? The answer is simple: money.

 Many states argue that they're not getting their fair share and that the rest of the nation is subsidizing transportation needs in other regions. For instance. in an August letter to Kasich. Utah's transportation chief, Thomas Warne. maintained that his state "annually generates $212 million in federal motor fuel tax revenue alone." Yet the state has averaged $127 million yearly in transportation projects the past three years, he wrote.

 Some other Western and Southern states make similar arguments, and lawmakers from those regions are building coalitions to try to restructure—if not eliminate—ISTEA.

 Meanwhile, lawmakers such as those in New York who favor ISTEA are joining forces to ward off any threat of substantive change. "This is one of my highest priorities, if not my highest priority, for 1997, to make sure the reauthorization doesn't hurt my state," says New York's Daly.

 New York officials point to a yearly study by Democratic U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government that demonstrates how much federal tax revenue states send to Washington and what they get in return. Northeastern states typically provide far more than they see in return from the federal government, the study, called the "Fisc," shows.

 According to the study, New York in 1995 sent almost $18 billion—or nearly $1,000 per person—more in federal taxes than it received. On a per capita basis, Connecticut was the big loser, sending almost $2,100 more per person than it received in federal funds.

 The Fisc has its critics, however. Maryland and Virginia lawmakers maintain it's unfair in part because it includes federal salaries, and many government workers live in their states. According to the study, Virginia received almost $2,700 more per person in tax benefits than it contributed.

 If transportation funding were based on what a state provides in the federal gas tax, then "that would be the only area in which the federal government uses how much the state collects instead of how much the state needs," Daly argues.

 There's an irony in the battle over fuel tax distribution, says former NYMTC director Ruggieri. Some studies have shown New York "is the most fuel-efficient state in the country," he says. Yet the state would be penalized under proposals that would direct fuel tax revenue back to states based on what they collect.

 With mass transit systems in urban areas across the state and an older infrastructure, New York clearly has greater transportation needs than many areas, some state lawmakers claim. "It's primarily because of the age of our infrastructure," contends U.S. Rep. Gerald Solomon, a Glens Falls Republican. "And weather has a lot to do with the condition of our infrastructure."

 The ISTEA bridge improvement program showcases how funding is driven more by need than by the amount of tax revenue a state provides. In 1996, the program delivered about $2.2 billion a year across the country. New York received almost 10 percent of that money. "That is the most need-based of the [ISTEA] formulas," says federal Department of Transportation policy analyst Adam Cashman.

 In fiscal year 1994, New York had about 9 percent of its bridges rated "deficient" in the nation's highway system and about 6 percent of the country's deficient bridges overall.

 Environmental lobbyists across New York say ISTEA should be preserved. New York is starting to look at more innovative ways to relieve traffic congestion and lessen pollution—by improved mass transit or promotion of alternative fuel vehicles, for example—and a loss of ISTEA funding could impede the progress, they say. "When ISTEA was started ... this state was really looking at ways to build itself out of congestion," says Peter Iwanowicz, a program associate with the Albany-based Environmental Advocates. Now, he says, the state is focusing on more environmentally friendly alternatives. The construction industry fears that a loss of ISTEA money will have an impact on contractors. If New York becomes a loser in the ISTEA battle, it will mean "fewer projects, less work, [and] less economic development," says Ross Pepe, president of the Construction Industry Council of Westchester and Hudson Valley. Contractors, under the umbrella of the New York Roadway Improvement Coalition, will fight to maintain the current funding formula, he says, adding, "We will undertake a major campaign next month in Washington."

 The industry also may lobby for the redirection of the 4.3 cents-per-gallon share of the gas tax that is now dedicated to deficit reduction, Pepe says. The federal gas tax is now 18.3 cents per gallon, including the 4.3-cent dedicated deficit reduction levy, and that money could be added to highway and transit funding, creating a bigger pot for states to draw from, he says. "It probably would generate about $5 billion or $6 billion more for the highway trust fund," Pepe says.

 The Clinton administration thinks the ISTEA formula has been successful, and its proposal—expected to be introduced in February—likely will be very similar to the current program.

 One Senate aide involved in negotiations over ISTEA maintains that most of the debate over transportation funding isn't divided along ideological lines. Instead, it's simply a fight over the distribution of the funding. "It will be a battle of spreadsheets," the aide says.

 However, there is an ideological bent to the devolution proposal pushed by Kasich and Sen. Connie Mack, a Florida Republican. Supporters of devolution maintain that the best decisions can be made at the local level, and states should be left to decide whether to increase their own fuel taxes for transportation needs. It is an argument that in many ways mirrors the unsuccessful attempts by some GOP legislators to wipe out the federal Department of Education. "Right now you have Washington telling states, 'This is how we're going to do our transportation program,"' says Kasich's spokesman Cuthbertson.

 Some federal lawmakers think the devolution proposal is too radical to attract much support on Capitol Hill. But it has caught the attention of several governors across the nation, including those in California, Ohio, Michigan and South Carolina. In a September letter to Kasich and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, the four governors wrote that "devolution is a streamlined, common sense alternative to a federal-aid program that clearly cannot give states the funding stability we need.... Governors have a strong economic development incentive to maintain and improve our roads, and we can be held accountable in a way that the federal bureaucracy never is."

 The 160,000-mile interstate system is complete, the governors argued, yet the Federal Highway Administration "employs about the same size work force it had during the peak interstate construction era."

 The devolution bill introduced last year by Kasich and Mack, called the Transportation Empowerment Act, eventually would cut the federal gas tax by 12 cents a gallon to 2 cents. During the first year, states would receive a block grant equal to half of the 14 cent-per-gallon tax collected in their states. In the second year, the block grant would be increased to the equivalent of l 2 cents per gallon. Then, in l998, the gas tax would be cut down to 2 cents per gallon and the block grants wiped out. States would have the alternative of raising their own fuel taxes for transportation or other needs. "For far too long Washington has had a stranglehold on states' transportation needs," Mack said upon introducing the legislation. "The current antiquated system of collecting and distributing gas tax dollars needed by states and local governments to implement their own transportation priorities is too inefficient, too costly, and too bureaucratic."

 Both STEP 2l and the devolution approach would cost New York significant transportation funds. Under STEP 2l, Daly estimates, New York would lose about $300 million annually, or more than a quarter of the $1.1 billion the state receives yearly for highway and bridge work. Devolution ultimately would wipe out the federal transportation funding for New York, leaving state lawmakers to decide whether to raise the fuel tax to cover the costs. By some estimates, the state would have to increase its fuel tax by 28 cents per gallon simply to cover the revenues lost by the 12 cent per gallon reduction in the federal gas tax. The state gas tax now stands at 8 cents per gallon, with an additional 15 cents per gallon levied as a petroleum business tax. "Do you think the state Legislature would have the political will to do that?" asks the Genesee Transportation Council's Jaschik.

 New York and the l0 other Northeastern states have come together as a coalition to try to preserve ISTEA. Massachusetts, according to Daly, could lose half of its transportation funding under the STEP 21 plan.

 In June, Daly argued New York's case at a federal Department of Transportation hearing on the plans for ISTEA reauthorization. There, he claimed that the program has worked on many fronts: bolstering mass transit, repairing bridges, easing congestion and promoting safety. Between 1990 and 1994 the number of bridges rated as deficient in the nation fell 15 percent. The number of fatalities in large truck or bus crashes dropped nearly 10 percent, he said.

 He also took to task those who argue that New York is feeding excessively at the public trough by receiving more in funds than it contributes in fuel tax receipts. "It is clear that New York state is not getting more than its fair share from Washington, and that need must be given a high priority when developing the formulas by which federal aid is distributed,-' Daly said at the hearing. "When California has an earthquake, or Florida has a hurricane, or the Mississippi or Missouri rivers flood, the entire nation helps address the need to rebuild and replace the damaged transportation infrastructure, without regard to where the taxes were raised."

 Moynihan was a key player in the creation of the ISTEA program in 1991. He likely will be active in the fight again. And with the GOP in the Senate majority, Republican U.S. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato also will be an important figure. "It's going to get down to some hardball political maneuvering at some point," says Tony Bullock, Moynihan's chief of staff. "At this point, everything's on the table."

 Some transportation of officials say that Moynihan, while largely supportive of the program, has had complaints about some distribution decisions state officials have made. While Bullock won't identify specific projects, he does acknowledge the senator's concern that the transportation funding occasionally may have been divided up more for political reasons than by need. "It shouldn't be piecemeal and pork-barreled to death," Bullock says. "It shouldn't be used to make every little region of every state happy."

 Local transportation officials maintain that while some decisions may have been politically influenced, the state typically has used need as the driving force for the division of ISTEA funds to local projects. "My impression has been that there are always need-based factors in there," says Jaschik.

 Moynihan and D'Amato nonetheless are prepared to push for an ISTEA package similar to the current program. "Our overall goal is to keep the state share as high as we can," Bullock says.

 On the Senate side, the STEP 21 proposal has significant support from U.S. Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican. In that House, much of the haggling over the legislation may take place in the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, which Warner chairs. But the Northeastern coalition is well-positioned on the Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Sen. John Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican.

 Boehlert thinks New York is politically strong on the House side. He is one of five New Yorkers on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which will find much of its time occupied by the ISTEA reauthorization. The fight already is brewing, with coalitions forming across the country, he says. "Katie, bar the door because there are all sorts of efforts at end runs," he says.

 Boehlert expects lawmakers from other states to argue "Well, New York last time did well." He says he in turn will argue that "last time we did well because we deserved to do well. And this time we should do well because we deserve to do well." 

Gary Craig is a reporter for the Rochester Gannett newspapers.