The Regional Distribution Of IDOT's Highway Capital Dollars

Introduction

This post looks at the allocation of highway capital dollars by the Illinois Department of Transportation throughout the State of Illinois, using factors such as population, highway miles, and daily vehicle miles traveled in each IDOT district. Likely to no one's surprise, it shows that District 1, which encompasses the six counties of northeastern Illinois, receives less than any other district on a vehicle miles traveled basis and is second lowest on a per capita basis, although it tops the State in terms of investment on a per highway mile basis. This analysis indicates that northeastern Illinois subsidizes highway capital investment in the rest of the State, a fact that may have some relevance in the ongoing debates over the "bailout" of the public transit agencies operating in District 1.

Methodology

The Illinois Department of Transportation has posted its FY 2008-2013 Proposed Highway Improvement Program (here). Such detailed capital program documents were long shrouded in bureaucratic secrecy by IDOT. Governor Blagojevich's administration should get some credit for posting the Program in the public domain and, in general, making more information about IDOT and its programs publicly available.

The Program allocates capital dollars for highway improvements among each of IDOT's nine districts (district map here). District 1 covers the same six counties in northeastern Illinois that make up the service area for the Regional Transportation Authority and its three service boards--Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, and Pace. The remaining districts are Downstate. Generally speaking, the higher the district number the further south the district.

I pulled highway miles, daily vehicle miles traveled, and FY 2008-2013 capital investment data from the Program. I aggregated 2000 Census data for each Illinois county into district population figures. Then, I utilized my primitive Excel skills and went to town.

Summary Results

Per Capita Highway Investment

District 1 $382.44
District 2 $917.26
District 3 $1,649.3
District 4 $1,058.47
District 5 $600.11
District 6 $313.74
District 7 $1,011.16
District 8 $1,175.02
District 9 $1,425.75

Statewide Average $621.75
Downstate Average $935.20

Investment Per Highway Mile

District 1 $918,623.88
District 2 $387,403.45
District 3 $446,224.26
District 4 $350,153.85
District 5 $206,870.80
District 6 $147,072.82
District 7 $241,463.41
District 8 $466,703.66
District 9 $344,217.69

Statewide: $432,536.06
Downstate: $322,941.53

Investment Per Daily Mile Traveled

District 1 $26.96
District 2 $52.16
District 3 $66.67
District 4 $60.53
District 5 $28.85
District 6 $29.71
District 7 $43.04
District 8 $54.26
District 9 $58.84

Statewide Average: $37.42
Downstate Average: $49.83

Analysis

This summary lends itself to two related conclusions. First, it appears from both the per capita and vehicle miles traveled data that the denser land-use patterns in District 1 lend themselves to more cost-effective highway transportation than in the less densely populated areas Downstate. This was a bit of surprise to me, given the higher land acquisition and construction costs in an urban area, but it makes sense when one considers the higher level of use of urban roadways.

Second, because of that higher level of cost-efficiency, IDOT is able to shift money from Northeastern Illinois to fund Downstate highway projects. District 1, after all, accounts for 63.52% of the population and 54.24% of the daily vehicle miles traveled in Illinois, yet it will receive only 39.07% of IDOT's highway capital dollars under the Program. Presumably, the percentage of vehicle miles traveled in a district approximates that district's contribution of gas taxes and other revenues for IDOT's highway program. The major difference between District 1's revenue contribution and its return in the form of IDOT highway capital investment is highly significant.

Some caveats. First, this analysis does not consider IDOT's investment in other transportation modes such as airports and public transit. When IDOT's investments in those other modes are factored in--something I hope to do down the line--District 1 may not be such a heavy donor region after all. Second, the Illinois Tollway system, which is centered in District 1 and is completely funded by user fees--frees up District 1 money for use Downstate. It is quite possible that these two effects cancel each other, leaving District 1 as a major donor region.

Third, it is possible that the distribution of IDOT's capital investment reflects a certain ebb and flow among the districts. Maybe the 2008-13 period is a down period for District 1 and that it might even become a donee district at some point in the future when it finally undertakes expensive new projects like the Western O'Hare Bypass. Finally, this analysis does not consider the value of the products being carried on the highway in each district. It is possible, although I don't think it is likely, that the value of goods carried on Downstate highways is higher than the value of goods carried on District 1 highways.

The purpose of this analysis is not to incite more Chicago vs. Downstate antagonism. Every great urban region, after all, needs to be linked effectively to its hinterland. The notion that "Chicago" is soaking up a disproportionate share of the State's transportation dollars, however, appears to be a myth.

Detailed Results

District 1
Population 7,261,176 63.52%
Highway Miles 3,023 18.40%
Daily Vehicle Miles 103,000,000 54.24%
FY 2008-13 Investment $2,777,000,000 39.07%
Per Capita Investment $382.44
Per Mile Investment $918,623.88
Per VMT Investment $26.96

District 2
Population 710,814 6.22%
Highway Miles 1,683 10.24%
Daily Vehicle Miles 12,500,000 6.58%
FY 2008-13 Investment $652,000,000 9.17%
Per Capita Investment $917.26
Per Mile Investment $387,403.45
Per VMT Investment $52.16

District 3
Population 472,901 4.14%
Highway Miles 1,748 10.64%
Daily Vehicle Miles 11,700,000 6.16%
FY 2008-13 Investment $780,000,000 10.98%
Per Capita Investment $1,649.39
Per Mile Investment $446,224.26
Per VMT Investment $66.67

District 4
Population 537,568 4.70%
Highway Miles 1,625 9.89%
Daily Vehicle Miles 9,400,000 4.95%
FY 2008-13 Investment $569,000,000 8.01%
Per Capita Investment $1,058.47
Per Mile Investment $350,153.85
Per VMT Investment $60.53

District 5
Population 461,585 4.04%
Highway Miles 1,339 8.15%
Daily Vehicle Miles 9,600,000 5.06%
FY 2008-13 Investment $277,000,000 3.90%
Per Capita Investment $600.11
Per Mile Investment $206,870.80
Per VMT Investment $28.85

District 6
Population 984,879 8.62%
Highway Miles 2,101 12.79%
Daily Vehicle Miles 10,400,000 5.48%
FY 2008-13 Investment $309,000,000 4.35%
Per Capita Investment $313.74
Per Mile Investment $147,072.82
Per VMT Investment $29.71

District 7
Population 391,631 3.43%
Highway Miles 1,640 9.98%
Daily Vehicle Miles 9,200,000 4.84%
FY 2008-13 Investment $396,000,000 5.57%
Per Capita Investment $1,011.16
Per Mile Investment $241,463.41
Per VMT Investment $43.04

District 8
Population 715,734 6.26%
Highway Miles 1,802 10.97%
Daily Vehicle Miles 15,500,000 8.16%
FY 2008-13 Investment $841,000,000 11.83%
Per Capita Investment $1,175.02
Per Mile Investment $466,703.66
Per VMT Investment $54.26

District 9
Population 354,901 3.10%
Highway Miles 1,470 8.95%
Daily Vehicle Miles 8,600,000 4.53%
FY 2008-13 Investment $506,000,000 7.12%
Per Capita Investment $1,425.75
Per Mile Investment $344,217.69
Per VMT Investment $58.84

Report on Hearing on Illinois Works and Transportation

Here is the link to an article in the State Journal Register describing the testimony relating to transportation at the recent hearing on Illinois Works, the proposed capital funding bill (SB 1110).

Representative Hamos Transit Funding Status Report

Below is the latest from Representative Julie Hamos, the leading proponent of SB 572, the transit funding/RTA reform bill, on the transit funding situation. Note the following points she makes:

• The capital funding bill that passed the State Senate (Illinois Works) divides transportation funding 10:1 in favor of roads. The previous capital bill (Illinois First) had a 2:1 ratio.
• The RTA will not accept another short term loan or bailout. (Ed. note--We'll see about that.)

Here is Representative Hamos' update in full:

THE TRANSIT CRISIS: WHERE WE ARE TODAY
Transit Update, October 19, 2007

As you know, the clock is ticking toward the “doomsday” scenario on November 4th when the regional transit system will face the first round of service cuts, fare increases and layoffs. CTA, Pace and Metra will have run out of available funding by that date.

What action needs to be taken by the legislature?

In the Illinois House of Representatives: Senate Bill 572 continues to be the comprehensive solution, coupling long-term funding with accountability and reform. Senate Bill 572 was voted on in the House on September 4th but was defeated by 10 votes (the bill needs a 3/5ths vote, or 71 votes, but received only 61). It is currently on “postponed consideration” and can be called for another vote at any time.

Regretfully, only 5 Republicans supported SB 572, although this bill was crafted through an open, collaborative process by our bipartisan House Mass Transit Committee. Rather than voting for the transit bill on its own merits, the bill was “held hostage” by the House Republicans for another agenda: a public works construction program funded by a major new bond.

In the Illinois Senate: The same comprehensive bill as SB 572, with just a few minor changes, has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Cullerton as Senate Amendment #3 to HB 3667. The bill was not called for a vote on September 10 and 11 when the Senate convened in Springfield. Instead, they passed HB 2035, which includes new casinos and gaming revenues to fund a large capital bond program. It also includes a one-time $200 million loan to the regional transit system as a short-term solution to the transit funding crisis. HB 2035 is now pending in the House, but it does not seem likely that we would go along with a one-time loan to fund transit.

The Senate also passed SB 1110 incorporating a $24.6 billion capital budget to fund road programs, school and university construction, early childhood facilities, environmental facilities, local economic development projects, and more. Within SB 1110 is funding for “transit capital”, pegged at $425 million in new state funds – only 1/10th the amount included for roads. This is quite a contrast to the last capital bond program in 1999, when roads received twice as much as transit – not 10 times as much!

A recent public hearing of the House Mass Transit Committee on October 9th reached three conclusions:

(1) The capital bond program passed by the Illinois Senate in SB 1110 is totally inadequate to replace broken-down buses, or fix the CTA “slow zones”, or allow Illinois to compete for federal transit expansion dollars -- even if SB 572 is passed for transit operating budgets.
(2) There are no convenient or easy new funding sources for transit, although increased gasoline taxes or parking space taxes were debated (see testimony of Metropolitan Planning Council with interesting new possibilities). The other funding sources were sufficiently controversial that the modest regional sales tax and Chicago-based real estate transfer tax in SB 572 was validated as the only fair, balanced and regional resolution.
(3) The Regional Transportation Authority will not accept another one-time or short-term loan or bailout. The November 4th “doomsday” deadline is real.

Handouts from the October 9th public hearing are posted on my website:
http://www.juliehamos.org/news/newsitem.aspx?newsitemid=129

In the next few weeks, it seems imperative for the four legislative leaders and the Governor to set aside their differences and agree on a plan to move Illinois forward. The plan ideally should include the comprehensive, long-term solution for transit embodied in SB 572 and HB 3667, and it should include a capital bond program that makes necessary investments in the state’s infrastructure, including transit.

The State of Illinois is in the process of tackling a number of significant, serious needs: education, health care, pensions, public works and transit. But only one issue has a looming deadline -- transit. We need civic and regional leaders, transit riders and community residents to actively work to persuade their own legislators, the four legislative leaders and the Governor to take action to save the mass transit system before November 4th.

Thank you for your interest and support.


Rep. Julie Hamos

Don't Forget The Capital Funding Side

With all the hullabaloo over increasing operating funding for public transit via SB 572 we should not forget the issue of capital funding for transit. Chicago Metropolis 2020 recently sent the General Assembly a letter, co-signed by a group of business/community leaders, focusing attention on the capital funding bill (SB 1110).

The letter states that the proposed capital funding for transit is inadequate. (At today's Lipinski Symposium Representative Julie Hamos said that the ratio of transit to highway capital funding in the bill is a paltry 1:10.) The letter characterizes SB 1110 as a "grab bag" of projects that "lacks a coherent sense of purpose or direction."

Read it here.

The RTA's Responsibility for Capital Funding Disparities

The recent Situation Analysis Interim Report ("Report") of the RTA's Moving Beyond Congestion initiative outlines the capital shortfall facing the public transit service boards. What the Report fails to address is how the RTA's distribution of capital funds among the service boards over the years has compounded the crisis for the CTA.

The RTA Act includes a complicated distributional formula for sending RTA sales tax revenue to the service boards in the form of operating subsidies. 70 ILCS 3615/4.01(d). There is no such statutorily mandated formula for the RTA's distribution of capital funds. Yet, for years the RTA has distributed federal formula capital funds--the bulk of the capital funds for the service boards--according to a fixed formula. The CTA gets 58%, Metra 34% and Pace 8%. (The CTA got an even smaller share of Illinois FIRST capital funds.)

The RTA's 2007 Budget Book (page 18 of 43) states that the 58%/34%/8% split is based on a "historical distribution." The RTA makes no pretense that it is distributing capital funds to the service boards based on a professional assessment of the capital needs of the service boards or according to a performance-based metric such as obtaining the most transit ridership per dollar of capital investment.

While the basis for the "historical distribution" is unclear, we do know the CTA is shortchanged under the RTA's capital funding formula. For years, the CTA's share of capital investment has run well behind its share of transit customers in the region. The 2006 ridership shares are as follows:

CTA: 80%
Metra: 14%
Pace: 6%

Yet, the RTA's 2007 Budget Book sets the preliminary capital marks for the service boards for the 2007-2011 period as follows:

CTA: 57%
Metra: 36%
Pace: 7%

Not surprisingly, as a result of years of capital investment at levels far less than its ridership share, the CTA's capital stock is in the worse shape. The Report (pgs. 19-22) makes this evident. CTA rail cars have a useful life of 25 years: 78% of its fleet is now 20 years or older. CTA buses have a useful life of 12 years: 55% of its bus fleet is 11 years or older. The average CTA bus garage is 46 years old. The average for Pace is 18 years. In contrast, the Report makes no mention of Metra facing any chronically obsolete railcars or facilities. We can only infer that after many years in which the RTA gave Metra a share of capital funds more than double Metra's ridership share, Metra's capital stock is in much better condition than the CTA's capital stock.

The effects of the RTA's maldistribution of capital funds to the service boards is graphically illustrated by two recent publications. The November 2006 edition of Metra's "On the Bi-Level" has an article on Metra's 2007 budget. The article illustrates the importance of capital investment by citing to Metra's early days in the 1980s, when Metra's "track and equipment was in such poor shape trains had to run slower than 25 mph on about 15 percent of the Metra system."

The second article appeared in the Chicago Tribune on November 15, 2006. In that article John Hilkevitch reported that slow zones have more than doubled on the CTA rail system since July 2005. Almost half of the Howard branch of the Red Line is a slow zone. With limited capital funds, the CTA cannot afford more work crews to reduce the number of slow zones. In other words, Metra's bad old days, in which 15 percent of its system was a slow zone, describes the CTA of today, a system riddled with slow zones.

The responsibility for the disparity in capital funding between Metra and the CTA clearly lies with the RTA. It is unfortunate that despite new leadership, the RTA appears committed to perpetrating the current formula, which will continued to shortchange the CTA of capital funds. Even those who might otherwise be inclined to support the RTA's Moving Beyond Congestion package need to consider whether the RTA's allocation of capital funds according to the "historical distribution" formula makes good sense and leads to the best use of public dollars.

Might it not make better sense to distribute capital funds using professional engineering needs assessments tied to a performance metric such as ridership to be served/geneated per dollar of investment? Why shouldn't capital funds be spent on projects that will do the most good for the most riders rather than distributed unequally using an unwritten formula hammered out years ago in a very different political environment.