The Suburbs: What Do They Want?

Congressman Mark Kirk's press release account of the first meeting of the Suburban Transportation Commission provides some insight on what suburban interests want from the RTA's Moving Beyond Congestion process.

I have just about as much sympathy with the complaints of the suburbanites about RTA funding issues and public transit service levels in the suburbs as I would if Chicago political leaders started complaining about the low levels of agricultural subsidies and farms in the City of Chicago.

The suburbs, by choice and with the help of ample subsidies from the state and federal governments, have created a built environment and transportation infrastructure that is largely hostile to cost-effective/high-ridership public transportation, just as the City of Chicago has developed in a way that is quite unamenable to agriculture. The notion that the suburbs are being "shortchanged" with public transit has as much credibility as Chicago complaining that it is being "shortchanged" when it comes to agricultural subsidies and farms.

Now, Chicago should expect to get its fair share of agricultural funding if it chooses to replace office towers with cornfields. Likewise, the suburbs should get more support for public transit if they take aggressive steps to build up the population density necessary to make public transportation viable outside of the current Metra corridors and a relatively few Pace bus routes. As discussed below, it appears that the suburbs are unwilling to embrace such transit-oriented development.

It is also important to remember that there are really two "suburbs" for present purposes, suburban Cook County and the collar counties. As the Auditor General Report found (pgs. 316-28 of 450), suburban Cook County pays far more into the public transit system than it receives back in service. The collar counties, the primary constituency to whom the Suburban Transportation Commission is oriented, pay less into the system than they receive in service.

One outcome of the first meeting of the Commission was the development of “Suburban Transportation Principles” with the "full support' of the Commission and 10 mayors from the 10th Congressional District. The principles are as follows (with commentary):

• Federal, state and local officials must work on a bipartisan basis to upgrade road, rail, aviation and transit systems in the Chicago suburbs.

Response: Hard to argue with this.

• Illinois Congressional leaders should join together to win the maximum return of federal transportation funding from Washington.

Response: Ditto.

• Improving the suburb's transportation infrastructure is essential to economic growth, environmental protection and enhanced quality of life for suburban families.

Response: Agreed, but only so long as the improvement of suburban transportation infrastructure is not at the expense of improvements to the transportation infrastructure in other areas of the region/state that would yield greater benefits.

• The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) consensus system, which gives suburbs and the city veto power over major decisions, resulted in 30 years of no service interruptions, high bond ratings and financial stability for suburban commuters.

Response: Might add to that list: (1) public transit ridership levels far lower than levels 30 years ago; (2) no coherent policy for allocating capital among the transit modes and service boards; (3) a much less dense metropolitan region, which is less hospitable to public transit; (4) the RTA's failure to exercise effective financial oversight over the service boards, which has allowed all three service boards to have unbalanced budgets and resulted in the current funding "crisis;" and (5) the fetishization of "high bond ratings" at a time when the CTA rail system and other parts of the public transit system are starved for capital.

• Reforms, if made to the RTA, should be made providing the citizens of the region with one-person, one-vote equality. Over half of all Illinois citizens now live in the suburbs.

Response: Why should population be the determinant of RTA voting power rather than ridership and/or financial effort by region? My proposal (and here) to give all three areas in the RTA region--Chicago, suburban Cook County, collar counties--an equal voice on the RTA Board while allocating voting power based on RTA sales tax and fares paid in each area has not generated much interest. Nonetheless, I think this approach could make all areas equally happy (or unhappy) and hence has merit.

• Current RTA subsidies to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Metra and Pace are allocated to appropriate formulas. Any effort to reform these formulas should be directed to emphasize suburb-to-suburb commuting, Chicago use of suburban transportation services and projects in communities where traffic congestion is a serious issue.

Response: Why is the statutory formula for delivery operating funds "appropriate" when it leaves only one service board (the CTA) heavily dependent on RTA discretionary operating funds? Why should only one service board bear the risk that the RTA will shift a major portion of their operating funds to other uses? Why are the proposed areas for emphasis--e.g., suburb-to-suburb commuting--worthy of jiggering with the formula but addressing the CTA's operating funding vulnerability or the preserving the existing transit infrastructure not worthy enough?

• Regional transportation decisions should not diminish the authority of elected mayors and village councils over land use and zoning.

Response: This principle is the crux of the problem. Too many suburbs want the Metra trains and Pace buses running frequently through their communities but they don't want to make the hard decisions necessary to support higher-density development to support that service. (Example here.) Chicago shouldn't get agricultural subsidies and farm extension services if it doesn't have farms. Suburbs shouldn't get high levels of transit service if they lack the density necessary to support such service.

• The organization of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) has been well received. Unwarranted changes to the structure of CMAP would undo the regional consensus that brought the Agency into existence.

Response: Something is up with CMAP. Anyone know (or would care to speculate)?

• Any increase in taxes, fees or other charges should be made only after they are individually approved by the voters of the region on a one-person, one-vote basis.

Response: As noted here, I like the idea of putting increased funding for transit to a vote. In other areas of the country transit funding referenda have done surprisingly well and have helped build a regional consensus in suppport of public transit.

Reforms to the RTA and suburban transportation system should reflect open public debate and thoughtful consideration of experts and the press.

Response: How are we doing?