In response to my recent Rant & Rave post (sorry readers), someone requested that I say something nice for a change. Here it is:
In the good news department, the Illinois State Police recently won an award from the Roadway Safety Foundation and the Federal Highway Administration for the ISP's Tazewell County Teen Initiative. (Press release; article) The Tazewell program was as follows:
The Tazewell County Teen Initiative was developed to address the number of teenage drivers that died between March 2005 and July 2006 on Tazewell County roadways. During that time, 15 teenagers lost their lives, sparking a cry for action. The Illinois State Police District 8, along with the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Tazewell County Sheriff and the Tazewell County Coroner, teamed up to form the multifaceted public awareness campaign targeted to schools, hospitals, emergency response teams, media and the private sector. Since the program was launched there have been no teen traffic fatalities in Tazewell County.
The ISP, the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Illinois Secretary of State, in conjunction with other public agencies and the Ford Motor Company, are expanding the program statewide. (Press release) The program is called Operation Teen Safe Driving
and is being funded by a $150,000 IDOT grant.
Teen drivers account for a disproportionate share of auto accidents and fatalities. In addition to Operation Teen Safe Driving, the State has enacted new laws directed at teenage drivers. SB 172 (P.A. 95-310) extends the time for a learners permit from three months to nine months, extends curfews for teen drivers and doubles from six to 12 months the time during which a driver under 18 with a graduated drivers license may carry only one unrelated passenger under the age of 20, excluding siblings. HB 518 (P.A. 95-201) authorizes the Secretary of State of establish a website so parents can check the driving records of their children.
This expanded program appears to be a nice example of a public-private partnership for a good end. It is disturbing that a single downed jetliner with the loss of a couple hundred lives gets front page coverage while the over 40,000 annual fatalities on our highways are treated as some sort of inexorable fact of nature. It is great to see IDOT and the ISP attacking the auto accident problem and the complacency that surrounds that problem.
Showing posts with label IDOT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IDOT. Show all posts
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
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.
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
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
What's Got Into IDOT?
The Illinois Department of Transportation has announced a series of public hearings on its Illinois State Transportation Plan. You can get a draft of the Plan here.
The Plan has some bad news. Vehicle miles traveled in Illinois continue to grow faster than the rate of population. Yet, IDOT has no money to expand the transportation system, spending 95 percent of its money on maintaining the current system. Existing funding sources like the gas tax are expected to show anemic growth in the years ahead. If that is not bad enough, construction costs in the Chicago area are growing significantly faster than the already robust rate of increase nationally. In short it looks like more of the same Soviet-style management of our limited road capacity lies ahead, namely, long, slow lines of cars on busy highways inching through the roadway chokepoints.
Yet, there are some glimmers of hope in the Plan. Might IDOT be ready to emerge from an extended slumber that has kept it well behind innovative departments of transportations in other states? Several examples:
-- Intelligent Transportation Systems: The Plan tips its hat toward intelligent transportation technologies that increase highway capacity without increasing lane miles and improve safety.
-- Congestion Pricing: Despite indications that the Governor opposes congestion pricing, the Plan treats congestion pricing as a viable transportation system option and calls for "explor[ing] the effectiveness of congestion pricing as a to reduce congestion." Wow.
-- Public/Private Partnerships: The Plan states that a goal is to "support joint public-private partnership and private sector initiatives to provide transportation facilities and services where public expenditures can be reduced and the quality, quantity and long-term stability of service is maintained."
-- User Fees/tolling: More IDOT surprise goals: "Extend user-pay financing to new technologies [and] . . . explore toll opportunities and innovative financing methods, including value capture pricing, to fund transportation facilities and services."
Maybe IDOT is learning from its recent loss of an Urban Partnership Program grant because of its failure to embrace congestion pricing and other such transportation management techniques. Or is this just window dressing to keep civic groups focused on Chicago area public transit--a tiny part of the State's transportation system--while IDOT and the roadbuilders go to town slinging asphalt Downstate?
I prefer to be optimistic and hope that members of the transportation, business and environmental communities press IDOT to make good on the innovations hinted at in this draft Plan.
The Plan has some bad news. Vehicle miles traveled in Illinois continue to grow faster than the rate of population. Yet, IDOT has no money to expand the transportation system, spending 95 percent of its money on maintaining the current system. Existing funding sources like the gas tax are expected to show anemic growth in the years ahead. If that is not bad enough, construction costs in the Chicago area are growing significantly faster than the already robust rate of increase nationally. In short it looks like more of the same Soviet-style management of our limited road capacity lies ahead, namely, long, slow lines of cars on busy highways inching through the roadway chokepoints.
Yet, there are some glimmers of hope in the Plan. Might IDOT be ready to emerge from an extended slumber that has kept it well behind innovative departments of transportations in other states? Several examples:
-- Intelligent Transportation Systems: The Plan tips its hat toward intelligent transportation technologies that increase highway capacity without increasing lane miles and improve safety.
-- Congestion Pricing: Despite indications that the Governor opposes congestion pricing, the Plan treats congestion pricing as a viable transportation system option and calls for "explor[ing] the effectiveness of congestion pricing as a to reduce congestion." Wow.
-- Public/Private Partnerships: The Plan states that a goal is to "support joint public-private partnership and private sector initiatives to provide transportation facilities and services where public expenditures can be reduced and the quality, quantity and long-term stability of service is maintained."
-- User Fees/tolling: More IDOT surprise goals: "Extend user-pay financing to new technologies [and] . . . explore toll opportunities and innovative financing methods, including value capture pricing, to fund transportation facilities and services."
Maybe IDOT is learning from its recent loss of an Urban Partnership Program grant because of its failure to embrace congestion pricing and other such transportation management techniques. Or is this just window dressing to keep civic groups focused on Chicago area public transit--a tiny part of the State's transportation system--while IDOT and the roadbuilders go to town slinging asphalt Downstate?
I prefer to be optimistic and hope that members of the transportation, business and environmental communities press IDOT to make good on the innovations hinted at in this draft Plan.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Dan Ryan Project Complete: Assessment
The Dan Ryan project is complete. The final cost ($975 million) is way over the original budget ($550 million), but the project was completed on schedule. Some questions to consider:
1. What accounts for the cost overruns and was the project a worthwhile investment of almost $1 billion of capital dollars?
2. How do you assess the outreach effort to motorists concerning the project?
3. There was a great deal of controversy over the level of minority participation in the project--How do you assess IDOT's efforts in this regard?
4. What lessons can be learned from the project?
5. Did IDOT blow it by not installing a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane?
6. The average daily traffic volume was 300,000 before the reconstruction: How soon before traffic volume (a) returns to that level and (b) reaches a level where the congestion is as bad as is was before the project?
1. What accounts for the cost overruns and was the project a worthwhile investment of almost $1 billion of capital dollars?
2. How do you assess the outreach effort to motorists concerning the project?
3. There was a great deal of controversy over the level of minority participation in the project--How do you assess IDOT's efforts in this regard?
4. What lessons can be learned from the project?
5. Did IDOT blow it by not installing a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane?
6. The average daily traffic volume was 300,000 before the reconstruction: How soon before traffic volume (a) returns to that level and (b) reaches a level where the congestion is as bad as is was before the project?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Get Your Kicks On Route 67
The Illinois Department of Transportation, which has taken a drubbing on occasion in this blog (e.g., here and here), nonetheless seems to be making an effort to keep folks informed about major highway projects via a set of project websites. Link to index of project websites is here.
The latest project to get its own website is the U.S. Route 67 project. The Route 67 project corridor goes 223 miles from Interstate 280 (I-280) at Rock Island to I-270 south of Alton. The communities along the way include Monmouth (pop. 9,900), Macomb (pop. 18,600), Beardstown (pop. 5,800) and Jerseyville (pop. 8,300). According to IDOT's traffic volume maps (here and here), daily traffic volumes on the corridor range from a low of 1900 to a high of 26,000.
Here's the project description from the website:
The existing US 67 Corridor extends nearly 220 miles from Rock Island south to Alton. The two and four lane corridor improvement costs awarded to date total more than $700 million and $142.6 million in projects are programmed during FY 2008-2013. Of this total, $11.4 million is programmed in FY 2008. The estimated unfunded cost to complete the four-lane sections in the US 67 corridor from Macomb southward to the Alton Bypass exceeds $1.5 billion.
More information here.
Given the traffic numbers in most of the areas in the corridor--a fraction of the traffic volumes on the existing rural interstates--one wonder why IDOT is not using a series of passing lanes rather than a full-fledged four lane expressway configuration to serve this corridor.
I guess it is all too easy, however, for folks in northeastern Illinois to be snide and decry the perceived waste of pouring $1.5 billion into a road that serves a collection of small communities and meanders down the state like a riled up snake. Why is IDOT sinking money into concrete in rural Illinois but devoting years and years of wheel-spinning studies to projects in high-volume corridors like the O'Hare Western Bypass and the Elgin O'Hare Expressway?
Presumably, there must be decent economic and social development rationales for putting a four lane highway in stretches of road carrying 100 vehicles per hour in each direction on average. (I'm told the maximum capacity of a highway lanes is about 2,000 vehicles an hour, at least on interstates. I assume this figure is significantly less on two-lane roads, where passing is restricted.)
That is an issue for another day. In the meantime, IDOT's project corridor websites seem a step in the right direction.
The latest project to get its own website is the U.S. Route 67 project. The Route 67 project corridor goes 223 miles from Interstate 280 (I-280) at Rock Island to I-270 south of Alton. The communities along the way include Monmouth (pop. 9,900), Macomb (pop. 18,600), Beardstown (pop. 5,800) and Jerseyville (pop. 8,300). According to IDOT's traffic volume maps (here and here), daily traffic volumes on the corridor range from a low of 1900 to a high of 26,000.
Here's the project description from the website:
The existing US 67 Corridor extends nearly 220 miles from Rock Island south to Alton. The two and four lane corridor improvement costs awarded to date total more than $700 million and $142.6 million in projects are programmed during FY 2008-2013. Of this total, $11.4 million is programmed in FY 2008. The estimated unfunded cost to complete the four-lane sections in the US 67 corridor from Macomb southward to the Alton Bypass exceeds $1.5 billion.
More information here.
Given the traffic numbers in most of the areas in the corridor--a fraction of the traffic volumes on the existing rural interstates--one wonder why IDOT is not using a series of passing lanes rather than a full-fledged four lane expressway configuration to serve this corridor.
I guess it is all too easy, however, for folks in northeastern Illinois to be snide and decry the perceived waste of pouring $1.5 billion into a road that serves a collection of small communities and meanders down the state like a riled up snake. Why is IDOT sinking money into concrete in rural Illinois but devoting years and years of wheel-spinning studies to projects in high-volume corridors like the O'Hare Western Bypass and the Elgin O'Hare Expressway?
Presumably, there must be decent economic and social development rationales for putting a four lane highway in stretches of road carrying 100 vehicles per hour in each direction on average. (I'm told the maximum capacity of a highway lanes is about 2,000 vehicles an hour, at least on interstates. I assume this figure is significantly less on two-lane roads, where passing is restricted.)
That is an issue for another day. In the meantime, IDOT's project corridor websites seem a step in the right direction.
Friday, October 12, 2007
I-70 Project: More Background
Small world department. On Tuesday this blog covered the mid-September announcement by the FHWA that a team consisting of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri had won a Corridor of the Future grant to study truck-only lanes on I-70 through these states.
On Friday the Tribune finally covered the story or, to be more accurate, reprints an Associated Press article that relied upon a story in the Indianapolis Star.
The Star article is more complete than the Tribune article, which I guess is appropriate since Indiana not Illinois is the moving force between this project.
On Friday the Tribune finally covered the story or, to be more accurate, reprints an Associated Press article that relied upon a story in the Indianapolis Star.
The Star article is more complete than the Tribune article, which I guess is appropriate since Indiana not Illinois is the moving force between this project.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Win For Transportation Team
The State's transportation team has been notably unsuccessful in tapping into federal dollars for innovative transportation programs. (Survey here.) That sorry record makes a recent win all the sweeter.
The FHWA recently announced that the proposal by a group consisting of Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Missouri was one of six winning proposals in the FHWA interstate highway "Corridors of the Future" program. According to the FHWA:
The proposals were selected for their potential to use public and private resources to reduce traffic congestion within the corridors and across the country. The concepts include building new roads and adding lanes to existing roads, building truck-only lanes and bypasses, and integrating real-time traffic technology like lane management that can match available capacity on roads to changing traffic demands.
Illinois et al. will get $5 million to develop a plan for the I-70 corridor. The FHWA describes the plan as follows:
This project proposes dedicated and segregated truck lanes along I-70 from the Interstate 435 beltway on the eastern part of Kansas City, Missouri to the Ohio/West Virginia border near Bridgeport, Ohio/Wheeling, West Virginia.
The concept proposes adding four dedicated truck lanes to the existing infrastructure, two in each direction, with at least one interchange per county providing access to the truck lanes and includes, conceptually, truck staging areas. These lanes present the opportunity to pilot size and weight increases on a facility dedicated to trucks. The dedicated truck lanes are seen as a way to reduce congestion, improve safety, and offset the maintenance costs of general purpose lanes.
One can only hope that the I-70 team consider some innovative approaches, including leveraging the Illinois I-PASS platform to use tolling to raise money to build and maintain the truck-only lanes and, perhaps, even the entire I-70 corridor. One can envision the truck-only lanes being available only to trucks that have advanced safety equipment, such as adaptive cruise control and out-of-lane warning signals. This safety equipment plus dedicated truck lanes might allow higher truck speeds, a money-saving approach for which the trucking industry would be willing to pay a fair price in tolls.
To be fair, it appears from the FHWA's description of the project that Indiana is the lead partner in the I-70 group. It is a sad reflection on this State's transportation team that Illinois has become the "tag-along" state to Indiana of all places when it comes to innovative transportation projects. Nevertheless, a win is a win.
The FHWA recently announced that the proposal by a group consisting of Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Missouri was one of six winning proposals in the FHWA interstate highway "Corridors of the Future" program. According to the FHWA:
The proposals were selected for their potential to use public and private resources to reduce traffic congestion within the corridors and across the country. The concepts include building new roads and adding lanes to existing roads, building truck-only lanes and bypasses, and integrating real-time traffic technology like lane management that can match available capacity on roads to changing traffic demands.
Illinois et al. will get $5 million to develop a plan for the I-70 corridor. The FHWA describes the plan as follows:
This project proposes dedicated and segregated truck lanes along I-70 from the Interstate 435 beltway on the eastern part of Kansas City, Missouri to the Ohio/West Virginia border near Bridgeport, Ohio/Wheeling, West Virginia.
The concept proposes adding four dedicated truck lanes to the existing infrastructure, two in each direction, with at least one interchange per county providing access to the truck lanes and includes, conceptually, truck staging areas. These lanes present the opportunity to pilot size and weight increases on a facility dedicated to trucks. The dedicated truck lanes are seen as a way to reduce congestion, improve safety, and offset the maintenance costs of general purpose lanes.
One can only hope that the I-70 team consider some innovative approaches, including leveraging the Illinois I-PASS platform to use tolling to raise money to build and maintain the truck-only lanes and, perhaps, even the entire I-70 corridor. One can envision the truck-only lanes being available only to trucks that have advanced safety equipment, such as adaptive cruise control and out-of-lane warning signals. This safety equipment plus dedicated truck lanes might allow higher truck speeds, a money-saving approach for which the trucking industry would be willing to pay a fair price in tolls.
To be fair, it appears from the FHWA's description of the project that Indiana is the lead partner in the I-70 group. It is a sad reflection on this State's transportation team that Illinois has become the "tag-along" state to Indiana of all places when it comes to innovative transportation projects. Nevertheless, a win is a win.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Elgin X-Way/O'Hare Bypass--Update
Joe Ryan has an article in today's Daily Herald that outlines the long and tangled history behind the non-completion of the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway and the O'Hare Bypass.
The gist of the story is that almost 20 years ago the communities nearest O'Hare, especially Bensenville and Elk Grove, fought off these projects as part of their effort to halt the expansion of O'Hare Airport, perhaps the most important economic asset of this State. At that, IDOT threw up its arms and focused on more important things, such as building airports in places where no one wants to fly (MidAmerica Airport) and not building airports at all (Peotone Airport).
As Ryan recounts:
For the last 17 years, state officials have done nothing to plan for that extension or the connecting western bypass, which would head south from I-90 along the western edge of the airport, creating a ring road with the Elgin-O'Hare.
IDOT apparently hopes to lull the recalcitrant local communities into acceptance of major transportation improvements serving the O'Hare area with years of hearings and public meetings:
Instead of moving right into designing the new routes -- which have been on the books since the 1970s -- state officials have decided to spend the next three years talking to local leaders and coming up with a variety of projects to address traffic issues. The final list could range from new transit to small expressways or large privately-owned toll roads.
In 2011, state planners will then start working on how to pay for the projects and precisely where they would be placed. That means actual construction might not start until 2016 or later, nearly 30 years after the original battles over the Elgin-O'Hare extension.
It will be all but impossible to placate the community holdouts, which are nothing if not vociferous in their efforts to save the State from thousands of new jobs and a shot at nurturing a global city within its boundaries. According to Ryan, the O'Hare expansion project will be done by 2016. It makes good engineering sense to get the associated road and transit improvements in place--or at least well underway--by that point. After all, why move dirt twice and draw out the adverse construction impacts over many years rather than just a few?
"Rick Powell," who commented on yesterday's post, argues that IDOT's seemingly glacial pace is in fact required by law:
These days, however, it is very difficult to wind through the maze of NEPA regulations and state-mandated "Context Sensitive" processes that are designed to consider all reasonable alternatives, to examine every possible environmental impact, and to involve the community extensively in the process. Can you think of any communities that might have issues with this potential project? You may not like it, but this is the legal and political environment for large scale transportation projects today.
It may be that the pendulum has swung too far to the side of "paralysis by analysis" but if so, it will probably take awhile for it to swing back the other way. Meantime, "public private partnerships" do not yet have the legal standing in IL to do a slash-and-burn design/build highway project with eminent domain powers, and even if they did, they would likely be subject to the same procedural issues as the public agencies must operate with.
Is this assessment accurate? Can it be that the federal government accepts that its $140 million earmark will be used to fund years of studies and public meetings and not a single transportation improvement in the area?
The gist of the story is that almost 20 years ago the communities nearest O'Hare, especially Bensenville and Elk Grove, fought off these projects as part of their effort to halt the expansion of O'Hare Airport, perhaps the most important economic asset of this State. At that, IDOT threw up its arms and focused on more important things, such as building airports in places where no one wants to fly (MidAmerica Airport) and not building airports at all (Peotone Airport).
As Ryan recounts:
For the last 17 years, state officials have done nothing to plan for that extension or the connecting western bypass, which would head south from I-90 along the western edge of the airport, creating a ring road with the Elgin-O'Hare.
IDOT apparently hopes to lull the recalcitrant local communities into acceptance of major transportation improvements serving the O'Hare area with years of hearings and public meetings:
Instead of moving right into designing the new routes -- which have been on the books since the 1970s -- state officials have decided to spend the next three years talking to local leaders and coming up with a variety of projects to address traffic issues. The final list could range from new transit to small expressways or large privately-owned toll roads.
In 2011, state planners will then start working on how to pay for the projects and precisely where they would be placed. That means actual construction might not start until 2016 or later, nearly 30 years after the original battles over the Elgin-O'Hare extension.
It will be all but impossible to placate the community holdouts, which are nothing if not vociferous in their efforts to save the State from thousands of new jobs and a shot at nurturing a global city within its boundaries. According to Ryan, the O'Hare expansion project will be done by 2016. It makes good engineering sense to get the associated road and transit improvements in place--or at least well underway--by that point. After all, why move dirt twice and draw out the adverse construction impacts over many years rather than just a few?
"Rick Powell," who commented on yesterday's post, argues that IDOT's seemingly glacial pace is in fact required by law:
These days, however, it is very difficult to wind through the maze of NEPA regulations and state-mandated "Context Sensitive" processes that are designed to consider all reasonable alternatives, to examine every possible environmental impact, and to involve the community extensively in the process. Can you think of any communities that might have issues with this potential project? You may not like it, but this is the legal and political environment for large scale transportation projects today.
It may be that the pendulum has swung too far to the side of "paralysis by analysis" but if so, it will probably take awhile for it to swing back the other way. Meantime, "public private partnerships" do not yet have the legal standing in IL to do a slash-and-burn design/build highway project with eminent domain powers, and even if they did, they would likely be subject to the same procedural issues as the public agencies must operate with.
Is this assessment accurate? Can it be that the federal government accepts that its $140 million earmark will be used to fund years of studies and public meetings and not a single transportation improvement in the area?
Monday, October 1, 2007
Elgin X-Way/O'Hare Bypass--"Very Theoretical"
It looks like the $140 million earmark the region got in the currrent federal transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU) for the construction of (a) an extension of the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway to one or both of those destinations and (b) a western bypass road behind O'Hare Airport connecting the Northwest Tollway and the Tri-State Tollway will be used to fund plenty of studies and plans over the next decade. Just what we need.
The three major papers in the Chicago area all had stories today (here, here, and here) that IDOT is going to do a very thorough study that will take until at least 2010 to put together a "priority list" of highway and transit improvements in this land beyond O'Hare. "Then, for three years, they will look at how to finance the top projects and identify the general areas to locate them." After that, if the financing comes through, "the officials will start the long process of further engineering, alternative studies, environmental impact analysis and land acquisition."
Clearly this is not a project on a fast track and the question is why not. After all, the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway and O'Hare Bypass projects already have been the subject of years if not decades of studies and debate. One would think that our transportation officials would have a pretty good idea by now about what to do. And why have they not viewed the $140 million earmark from the current federal transportation bill as a clear federal direction that the State and region should get cracking on these transportation improvements, which are expected to deliver major economic and transportation benefits to the region and thus the nation. (See 2006 West O’Hare Corridor Economic Development Study here.)
The State already has spent $5.4 million of this $140 million earmark. Rather than spending more years and substantially more dollars putting together a "priority list," then more years and more money looking for financing, and then still more years and more money doing alternatives analysis and the like, maybe the State should be looking for ways to compress the process and do these tasks as simultaneously as is legally possible. Why not shoot for a big slug of federal transportation dollars in the next federal transportation bill for serious engineering and construction work rather than wait on two more six-year federal transportation bill cycles to get construction going full bore as seems likely given IDOT's current plan?
Business Leaders for Transportation proposed last year that the Expressway and the Bypass be constructed in a much more timely fashion using a public-private partnership. (Report here.) Certainly there are fully public options as well (e.g., public operating authority financing construction by charging tolls).
Senator Don Harmon's bill (SB 378) to give IDOT and the Toll Authority the power to enter into public-private partnerships is stalled in the General Assembly. Given IDOT's go-slow approach to the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway and the O'Hare Bypass, such power likely would be wasted on that agency anyway.
$140 million is a lot of federal money. Is it a worthwhile investment of those valuable transportation dollars to pursue a plan that makes it just a "very theoretical" possibility, according to Pete Harmet, an IDOT area programming bureau chief, that construction will even begin by 2016? After all, the earmark is for "Construction of O'Hare Bypass/Elgin O'Hare Extension" and presumably not for a decade's worth of expensive priority lists and preliminary plans.
As IDOT knows all too well from its Dan Ryan project, construction costs in recent years have risen significantly faster than the rate of inflation. Waiting to do these projects are not going to make them any easier or cheaper.
The three major papers in the Chicago area all had stories today (here, here, and here) that IDOT is going to do a very thorough study that will take until at least 2010 to put together a "priority list" of highway and transit improvements in this land beyond O'Hare. "Then, for three years, they will look at how to finance the top projects and identify the general areas to locate them." After that, if the financing comes through, "the officials will start the long process of further engineering, alternative studies, environmental impact analysis and land acquisition."
Clearly this is not a project on a fast track and the question is why not. After all, the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway and O'Hare Bypass projects already have been the subject of years if not decades of studies and debate. One would think that our transportation officials would have a pretty good idea by now about what to do. And why have they not viewed the $140 million earmark from the current federal transportation bill as a clear federal direction that the State and region should get cracking on these transportation improvements, which are expected to deliver major economic and transportation benefits to the region and thus the nation. (See 2006 West O’Hare Corridor Economic Development Study here.)
The State already has spent $5.4 million of this $140 million earmark. Rather than spending more years and substantially more dollars putting together a "priority list," then more years and more money looking for financing, and then still more years and more money doing alternatives analysis and the like, maybe the State should be looking for ways to compress the process and do these tasks as simultaneously as is legally possible. Why not shoot for a big slug of federal transportation dollars in the next federal transportation bill for serious engineering and construction work rather than wait on two more six-year federal transportation bill cycles to get construction going full bore as seems likely given IDOT's current plan?
Business Leaders for Transportation proposed last year that the Expressway and the Bypass be constructed in a much more timely fashion using a public-private partnership. (Report here.) Certainly there are fully public options as well (e.g., public operating authority financing construction by charging tolls).
Senator Don Harmon's bill (SB 378) to give IDOT and the Toll Authority the power to enter into public-private partnerships is stalled in the General Assembly. Given IDOT's go-slow approach to the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway and the O'Hare Bypass, such power likely would be wasted on that agency anyway.
$140 million is a lot of federal money. Is it a worthwhile investment of those valuable transportation dollars to pursue a plan that makes it just a "very theoretical" possibility, according to Pete Harmet, an IDOT area programming bureau chief, that construction will even begin by 2016? After all, the earmark is for "Construction of O'Hare Bypass/Elgin O'Hare Extension" and presumably not for a decade's worth of expensive priority lists and preliminary plans.
As IDOT knows all too well from its Dan Ryan project, construction costs in recent years have risen significantly faster than the rate of inflation. Waiting to do these projects are not going to make them any easier or cheaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
