This blog and its coterie of commentators has been all too critical. I've been railing on the region's "transportation team." Others have been excoriating our elected officials. And still others persist in seeing this blog as the instrument of Satan, namely, the Metropolitan Planning Council. Around us swirls a nasty political battle that may well doom the public transit funding/RTA reform package that is stuck in Springfield.
A sweet drive last night from Busse Woods to downtown Chicago with no congestion related interruptions and a series of quick trips today on the CTA made me realize that in the midst of predictions of doomsday the region's transportation system does work well much of the time.
So, this blog entry is dedicated to recognizing and celebrating what and who works well in the region's transportation system:
1. Which transportation agency in the region performs the best?
2. What city or municipality best practices transit-oriented development?
3. Which person has done the most to improve the region's transportation system over the past decade?
4. Which non-governmental agency has done the most to improve the region's transportation system over the past decade?
5. If we consolidated IDOT District One, the Illinois Toll Authority and the RTA into one regional mobility superagency who in the region would do best in running that agency?
6. Who is the most creative transportation professional in the region?
7. What part(s) of our region's transportation system functions most effectively?
Let's think positive and comment accordingly.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Summertime Blues
All weekend and into this week the new, improved version of SB 572, the transit funding and RTA reform package, sat on a table practically screaming "read me." It was too nice outside to do that, even tonight, when I was outside on the water in the rain. Summer is slipping away and it is important to work on our biking and walking skills. After all, come September 16th we may be needing those skills!
Ok, grit teeth. It's time to starting mining this new bill. Here are two nuggets.
Metra Bonding Authority
The bill gives Metra (but not Pace) the authority to issue bonds (pgs. 142-44). Metra can have up to $1 billion in debt outstanding and use the proceeds for a variety of purposes. Construction of a new Metra headquarters, however, is expressly barred.
A 75% supermajority of the RTA board must authorize Metra's issuance of debt. Note that the bill leaves untouched the CTA's power to issue debt without the RTA's specific authorization (70 ILCS 3605/12). Of course, as a practical matter the RTA can block the CTA's issuance of debt by rejecting the CTA operating budgets and/or capital plans that assume that the CTA will issue debt.
Metra has long sought the power to issue debt. Its dreams will come true if SB 572 is enacted. Johnsburg Ho! (Note the estimated $351 million in capital investment for the Johnsburg project will yield 4100 new riders (pg. 21 of 27.) Since Johnsburg is located in the outer reaches of this region, each new ride generated will soak up at least several dollars of operating subsidies. In essence, the region will be investing in the kind of transit ridership that will drain the most tax revenue per trip.)
RTA's Possible Role In The CTA's Pension/Healthcare Mess
SB 572 makes no substantive changes to section 28a of the CTA's authorizing statute (the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act), 70 ILCS 3605/28a, except to reflect the new supermajority requirement for RTA board approval of certain actions (from 9 votes out of 13 board members to 12 votes out of 16 members.). Section 28a(4) reads in relevant part as follows:
(4) Within 30 days of the signing of any such collective bargaining agreement, the [CTA] Board shall determine the costs of each provision of the agreement, prepare an amended budget incorporating the costs of the agreement, and present the amended budget to the Board of the Regional Transportation Authority for its approval under Section 4.11 of the Regional Transportation Act. The Board of the Regional Transportation Authority may approve the amended budget by an affirmative vote of two‑thirds of its then Directors. If the budget is not approved by the Board of the Regional Transportation Authority, the agreement may be reopened and its terms may be renegotiated. Any amended budget which may be prepared following renegotiation shall be presented to the Board of the Regional Transportation Authority for its approval in like manner.
In other words, during the same period that the CTA was entering into collective bargaining agreements that resulted in chronically underfunded pension and health care plans, the RTA may have had the power to have rejected those contracts as imprudent. This might have forced the CTA and its unions to go back to the bargaining table, giving the CTA another chance to have obtained an agreement that provided adequate funding for its pension and health care plans. At a minimum, the CTA could have used the RTA's threat of a veto of the revised budget necessary to reflect a proposed collective bargaining unit to obtain improved terms.
The CTA's recent labor agreements with its largest unions, however, were not negotiated at the bargaining table; rather, they were imposed through arbitration awards. Does anyone know if section 28a(4) applies in the event that a CTA labor agreement comes through an arbitration award rather than at the bargaining table? Did section 28a(4) play any role in the CTA labor agreements that the Auditor General found precipitated the pension and healthcare funding crises?
Ok, grit teeth. It's time to starting mining this new bill. Here are two nuggets.
Metra Bonding Authority
The bill gives Metra (but not Pace) the authority to issue bonds (pgs. 142-44). Metra can have up to $1 billion in debt outstanding and use the proceeds for a variety of purposes. Construction of a new Metra headquarters, however, is expressly barred.
A 75% supermajority of the RTA board must authorize Metra's issuance of debt. Note that the bill leaves untouched the CTA's power to issue debt without the RTA's specific authorization (70 ILCS 3605/12). Of course, as a practical matter the RTA can block the CTA's issuance of debt by rejecting the CTA operating budgets and/or capital plans that assume that the CTA will issue debt.
Metra has long sought the power to issue debt. Its dreams will come true if SB 572 is enacted. Johnsburg Ho! (Note the estimated $351 million in capital investment for the Johnsburg project will yield 4100 new riders (pg. 21 of 27.) Since Johnsburg is located in the outer reaches of this region, each new ride generated will soak up at least several dollars of operating subsidies. In essence, the region will be investing in the kind of transit ridership that will drain the most tax revenue per trip.)
RTA's Possible Role In The CTA's Pension/Healthcare Mess
SB 572 makes no substantive changes to section 28a of the CTA's authorizing statute (the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act), 70 ILCS 3605/28a, except to reflect the new supermajority requirement for RTA board approval of certain actions (from 9 votes out of 13 board members to 12 votes out of 16 members.). Section 28a(4) reads in relevant part as follows:
(4) Within 30 days of the signing of any such collective bargaining agreement, the [CTA] Board shall determine the costs of each provision of the agreement, prepare an amended budget incorporating the costs of the agreement, and present the amended budget to the Board of the Regional Transportation Authority for its approval under Section 4.11 of the Regional Transportation Act. The Board of the Regional Transportation Authority may approve the amended budget by an affirmative vote of two‑thirds of its then Directors. If the budget is not approved by the Board of the Regional Transportation Authority, the agreement may be reopened and its terms may be renegotiated. Any amended budget which may be prepared following renegotiation shall be presented to the Board of the Regional Transportation Authority for its approval in like manner.
In other words, during the same period that the CTA was entering into collective bargaining agreements that resulted in chronically underfunded pension and health care plans, the RTA may have had the power to have rejected those contracts as imprudent. This might have forced the CTA and its unions to go back to the bargaining table, giving the CTA another chance to have obtained an agreement that provided adequate funding for its pension and health care plans. At a minimum, the CTA could have used the RTA's threat of a veto of the revised budget necessary to reflect a proposed collective bargaining unit to obtain improved terms.
The CTA's recent labor agreements with its largest unions, however, were not negotiated at the bargaining table; rather, they were imposed through arbitration awards. Does anyone know if section 28a(4) applies in the event that a CTA labor agreement comes through an arbitration award rather than at the bargaining table? Did section 28a(4) play any role in the CTA labor agreements that the Auditor General found precipitated the pension and healthcare funding crises?
Sitting On The Sideline Collecting Splinters
Today the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the five finalists for its Urban Partnership Program grants. The grants range from $62.9 million to $354 million and average about $170 million
As readers of this blog know all too well (e.g., here, here and here) this region's team of transportation professionals submitted an application for a Program grant. The DOT rejected that application in the first round because it was made up of preliminary concepts rather than a credible plan that satisfied the DOT's requirements, namely a plan that involved some form of highway pricing and would be rolled out in the next couple of years.
Consequently, we can only watch from the sidelines while five other cities with whom the Chicago region competes for business, population, and status tap into millions of new dollars to improve their transportation systems.
The winners are. . .
Florida Department of Transportation: $62.9 million to convert I-95 carpool lanes from Miami to Ft. Lauderdale to tolled lanes. The two tolled lanes in each direction will be dynamically priced to keep traffic moving at a speed of at least 50 miles an hour. Buses, vanpools, motorcycles and registered carpools will be able to use the toll lanes free of charge. The project also includes a regional express bus service that will take advantage of the constant travel speeds in the tolled lanes.
Minneapolis: $133.3 million for high occupancy toll lanes and dynamically priced shoulder lanes for use during rush hour along I-35W. The project also includes accelerated development of a bus rapid transit line, more dedicated bus lanes in downtown Minneapolis, and a flex-time/telecommuting program.
New York: $354.5 million to help implement Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan for Manhattan. $214 million of this money is going to be used to buy new buses, implement bus rapid transit routes, and for other improvements to the public transit system. The congestion charge will yield at least least several hundred million of dollars in new money for transportation projects annually.
San Francisco: $158.7 million for a package of congestion pricing and other improvements. Plan calls for congestion pricing on approach to Golden Gate Bridge and in the downtown. Other features include bus-priority lanes and intersection controls on major thoroughfares, a real-time parking space availability information system covering city garages, variable pricing for street parking in the downtown, and a new payment card that will allow users to pay for parking, tolls and other transit costs from one account.
Seattle: $138.7 million to implement tolling on the Highway 520 floating bridge. In addition to paying for tolling equipment, a substantial portion of the grant money will be used to purchase new buses for the local transit agency.
All of the proposals have a strong highway pricing component. All of them, most notably New York, San Francisco and Seattle, have strong transit components. There are some very creative ideas in the mix, such as San Francisco's payment card that will allow users to pay for highway and public transit using a single card and account (shades of our region's universal fare card, which came and went yet again this legislative session, with fanfare each time). Florida nicely leverages the steady traffic flow from variably priced toll lanes to improve regional bus service. New York and San Francisco are going to implement bus rapid transit in a congested urban environment akin to the denser areas of Chicago.
This region had all the elements for a winning application. We high levels of traffic congestion. We have both existing toll highways and highways like the Dan Ryan and Kennedy (express lanes) and Stevenson (shoulder lanes) that could easily be tolled. Variable tolling lanes could provide a steady operating operating environment for express buses and van pools throughout the region. The three million I-PASSes in circulation offer a built-in fare collection system. We certainly have transit agencies that could use a fleet of new buses and a big piece of the new revenue generated from the expanded road pricing system.
Yet, the region's transportation team and, to be fair, their politician clients, blew it when it came to the Urban Partnership Program. But never fear. According to the most recent report of the DOT's Value Pricing Program, while other urban regions are implementing a variety of creative transportation strategies that feature highway pricing and increased support for public transit, this region's transportation team is embarked on a study of congestion pricing that is scheduled to be completed in 2010.
Here's the description of what this region is doing instead of implementing congestion pricing initiatives like our urban peers:
The new project will evaluate the feasibility of reducing bottlenecks through a system of priced queue jumps and will assess resulting changes in travel times and delays on the region's expressways. The study will also assess the feasibility of better utilizing electronic toll collection and variable pricing mechanisms to reduce traffic congestion and access the potential of implementing pricing to increase the use of alternate travel modes and enhance the capacity on the region's expressway system. This project could lead to the demonstration of innovative pricing mechanisms to reduce congestion, improve goods movement, and increase the use of alternative transportation modes.
With new congestion pricing projects springing up around the country and the world like mushrooms and other U.S. cities moving from grant application to implementation in the course of 1-2 years is it really necessary for this region to take three years to "assess the feasibility" of congestion pricing that "could lead" to a "demonstration" of congestion pricing sometime after 2010? Haven't London, Stockholm, Singapore, San Diego and now the five winners of the Urban Partnership grants shown that road pricing is "feasible."
You would think that having been beaten badly in the Urban Partnership contest the local team would have regrouped and redoubled their efforts to help this region catch up to its competitor urban regions when it comes to transportation. Yet, here is what the FHWA reports on our transportation team's effort on the above-mentioned congestion pricing feasibility study:
April - June 2007 Update: The project was awarded funds in April 2007. The scope of work was revised and a project kick off meeting will be scheduled soon.
Three months and not even a kick off meeting? From reading the Moving Beyond Congestion materials we all thought this region was in a state of "crisis" when it comes to congestion and public transit funding. Yet, it takes the same transportation team over three months to hold a kick off meeting on a transportation tool--congestion pricing--that not only has the cachet of being the cool transportation technique of the moment but also may just work.
Our region's transportation team's leisurely response to a "crisis" of its own declaration is puzzling and disturbing. I apologize to readers for being so cranky about this, but our region's loss of an Urban Partnership Program grant seems emblematic of a major problem with the caliber of our region's team of transportation professionals. If our transportation professionals are so skittish and/or seemingly uninterested in congestion pricing then it is not surprising that their political clients and the public at large are too. That is a shame, because congestion pricing might have been a key element of a transit funding and reform package in this region, just as it has been in London, Stockholm and now five U.S. cites and presumably more urban regions between now and 2010, when this region completes its study of the "feasibility" of congestion pricing.
Go team!
As readers of this blog know all too well (e.g., here, here and here) this region's team of transportation professionals submitted an application for a Program grant. The DOT rejected that application in the first round because it was made up of preliminary concepts rather than a credible plan that satisfied the DOT's requirements, namely a plan that involved some form of highway pricing and would be rolled out in the next couple of years.
Consequently, we can only watch from the sidelines while five other cities with whom the Chicago region competes for business, population, and status tap into millions of new dollars to improve their transportation systems.
The winners are. . .
Florida Department of Transportation: $62.9 million to convert I-95 carpool lanes from Miami to Ft. Lauderdale to tolled lanes. The two tolled lanes in each direction will be dynamically priced to keep traffic moving at a speed of at least 50 miles an hour. Buses, vanpools, motorcycles and registered carpools will be able to use the toll lanes free of charge. The project also includes a regional express bus service that will take advantage of the constant travel speeds in the tolled lanes.
Minneapolis: $133.3 million for high occupancy toll lanes and dynamically priced shoulder lanes for use during rush hour along I-35W. The project also includes accelerated development of a bus rapid transit line, more dedicated bus lanes in downtown Minneapolis, and a flex-time/telecommuting program.
New York: $354.5 million to help implement Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan for Manhattan. $214 million of this money is going to be used to buy new buses, implement bus rapid transit routes, and for other improvements to the public transit system. The congestion charge will yield at least least several hundred million of dollars in new money for transportation projects annually.
San Francisco: $158.7 million for a package of congestion pricing and other improvements. Plan calls for congestion pricing on approach to Golden Gate Bridge and in the downtown. Other features include bus-priority lanes and intersection controls on major thoroughfares, a real-time parking space availability information system covering city garages, variable pricing for street parking in the downtown, and a new payment card that will allow users to pay for parking, tolls and other transit costs from one account.
Seattle: $138.7 million to implement tolling on the Highway 520 floating bridge. In addition to paying for tolling equipment, a substantial portion of the grant money will be used to purchase new buses for the local transit agency.
All of the proposals have a strong highway pricing component. All of them, most notably New York, San Francisco and Seattle, have strong transit components. There are some very creative ideas in the mix, such as San Francisco's payment card that will allow users to pay for highway and public transit using a single card and account (shades of our region's universal fare card, which came and went yet again this legislative session, with fanfare each time). Florida nicely leverages the steady traffic flow from variably priced toll lanes to improve regional bus service. New York and San Francisco are going to implement bus rapid transit in a congested urban environment akin to the denser areas of Chicago.
This region had all the elements for a winning application. We high levels of traffic congestion. We have both existing toll highways and highways like the Dan Ryan and Kennedy (express lanes) and Stevenson (shoulder lanes) that could easily be tolled. Variable tolling lanes could provide a steady operating operating environment for express buses and van pools throughout the region. The three million I-PASSes in circulation offer a built-in fare collection system. We certainly have transit agencies that could use a fleet of new buses and a big piece of the new revenue generated from the expanded road pricing system.
Yet, the region's transportation team and, to be fair, their politician clients, blew it when it came to the Urban Partnership Program. But never fear. According to the most recent report of the DOT's Value Pricing Program, while other urban regions are implementing a variety of creative transportation strategies that feature highway pricing and increased support for public transit, this region's transportation team is embarked on a study of congestion pricing that is scheduled to be completed in 2010.
Here's the description of what this region is doing instead of implementing congestion pricing initiatives like our urban peers:
The new project will evaluate the feasibility of reducing bottlenecks through a system of priced queue jumps and will assess resulting changes in travel times and delays on the region's expressways. The study will also assess the feasibility of better utilizing electronic toll collection and variable pricing mechanisms to reduce traffic congestion and access the potential of implementing pricing to increase the use of alternate travel modes and enhance the capacity on the region's expressway system. This project could lead to the demonstration of innovative pricing mechanisms to reduce congestion, improve goods movement, and increase the use of alternative transportation modes.
With new congestion pricing projects springing up around the country and the world like mushrooms and other U.S. cities moving from grant application to implementation in the course of 1-2 years is it really necessary for this region to take three years to "assess the feasibility" of congestion pricing that "could lead" to a "demonstration" of congestion pricing sometime after 2010? Haven't London, Stockholm, Singapore, San Diego and now the five winners of the Urban Partnership grants shown that road pricing is "feasible."
You would think that having been beaten badly in the Urban Partnership contest the local team would have regrouped and redoubled their efforts to help this region catch up to its competitor urban regions when it comes to transportation. Yet, here is what the FHWA reports on our transportation team's effort on the above-mentioned congestion pricing feasibility study:
April - June 2007 Update: The project was awarded funds in April 2007. The scope of work was revised and a project kick off meeting will be scheduled soon.
Three months and not even a kick off meeting? From reading the Moving Beyond Congestion materials we all thought this region was in a state of "crisis" when it comes to congestion and public transit funding. Yet, it takes the same transportation team over three months to hold a kick off meeting on a transportation tool--congestion pricing--that not only has the cachet of being the cool transportation technique of the moment but also may just work.
Our region's transportation team's leisurely response to a "crisis" of its own declaration is puzzling and disturbing. I apologize to readers for being so cranky about this, but our region's loss of an Urban Partnership Program grant seems emblematic of a major problem with the caliber of our region's team of transportation professionals. If our transportation professionals are so skittish and/or seemingly uninterested in congestion pricing then it is not surprising that their political clients and the public at large are too. That is a shame, because congestion pricing might have been a key element of a transit funding and reform package in this region, just as it has been in London, Stockholm and now five U.S. cites and presumably more urban regions between now and 2010, when this region completes its study of the "feasibility" of congestion pricing.
Go team!
Monday, August 13, 2007
Representative Hamos' Assessment Of Prospects For Transit Package
In case you missed it, Representative Julie Hamos, the moving force behind the multi-year effort that has culminated in SB 572, posted her assessment of the political prospects for the transit funding/RTA reform package. Responding to an assertion in a previous post that the bill has the support of only 50 House members she stated:
Here's the political landscape in Springfield: Two weeks ago we had 3/5ths vote in both chambers to pass this bill, and to override a possible gubernatorial veto (that's 71 votes, not 50). Legislators were willing to support the comprehensive approach contained in SB 572, including funding for downstate transit. However, currently the Republican leaders are withholding votes in order to combine transit funding with funding for a major capital infrastructure bond program. Hopefully we will get both done by the end of the month.
Thanks for sharing your assessment.
Here's the political landscape in Springfield: Two weeks ago we had 3/5ths vote in both chambers to pass this bill, and to override a possible gubernatorial veto (that's 71 votes, not 50). Legislators were willing to support the comprehensive approach contained in SB 572, including funding for downstate transit. However, currently the Republican leaders are withholding votes in order to combine transit funding with funding for a major capital infrastructure bond program. Hopefully we will get both done by the end of the month.
Thanks for sharing your assessment.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Special Session on RTA Issues Sunday Afternoon
Per the Capitol Fax Blog:
Gov. Blagojevich has called yet another special session for Sunday at 5:15 pm. This one, which nobody will probably show up for either, has to do with the RTA. As usual, the governor has not introduced or pointed to any legislation that the General Assembly is supposed to consider.
The calendar entry for this special session is not informative.
Please post any information you may have about the special session in the comments. Looks like it will be another special session non-starter.
Gov. Blagojevich has called yet another special session for Sunday at 5:15 pm. This one, which nobody will probably show up for either, has to do with the RTA. As usual, the governor has not introduced or pointed to any legislation that the General Assembly is supposed to consider.
The calendar entry for this special session is not informative.
Please post any information you may have about the special session in the comments. Looks like it will be another special session non-starter.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Pork, Priorities And Prospects
The operating budget approved by the State House and Senate today (HB 3866) has no surprises when it comes to transit funding. The amounts are the same amounts contained in yesterday's House bill and summarized here.
The budget contains several hundred pages of "member initiatives," often derided, sometimes deservedly so, as "pork." As the Governor opined:
Blagojevich also criticized the number of pork-barrel projects.
"It's got so much pork in it that if you were to hold the budget document itself, you'd probably be unable to hold it because it's so greasy," Blagojevich said.
(I guess what you can't hold you can't sign.)
These member initiatives shed light on one or more of the following: (1) the priorities of the legislators; (2) the priorities of their constituents; and (3) the relative strength of the effort made by those eligible for the earmarks to persuade the legislators to favor them with earmarks.
How does public transit--and by extension the public transit members of the region's transportation team--fare with respect to the member initiatives? Not well, I'm afraid.
I did a variety of key word searches of the budget bill using terms like "transit," "bus," "train," and the names of the service boards. Here is what I found:
-- In the City of the Chicago there was a grand total of one member initiative clearly identified for public transit. That was a $100,000 grant for security purposes at the Jefferson Park station.
-- In contrast, both the Park District, the Chicago Board of Education and CDOT got significantly more earmarks and much more money from legislative earmarks.
-- In the suburbs there were two clearly identified transit projects in Roselle ($50,000) and LaGrange ($150,000). Several pedestrian underpass earmarks might be related to rail stations or train lines, but that is just speculation. There were also four suburban earmarks for senior transport and dial-a-ride services, totalling less than $100,000.
-- These figures were dwarfed by the number of suburban earmarks devoted to road projects. I quickly counted roughly 50 projects totaling over $10 million and there likely are more.
-- The transit earmarks are even dwarfed by the earmarks for bike paths. I found nine earmarks for bike trails in the region totaling over $1 million.
I stress that this was a quick and dirty analysis. The results are indicative only.
You would think that in a time when operating and capital funds for public transit are especially tight, the RTA and the service boards would have a relatively easy time making their case and getting a substantial number and amount of earmarks. What does their lack of success say about:
-- the political support for public transit relative to other needs such as education, parks and highways;
-- the public's support for public transit relative to other needs such as education, parks and highways;
-- the quality (and quantity) of the effort made by the RTA and the service boards to get earmarks from the legislators; and
-- the prospects for SB 572?
The budget contains several hundred pages of "member initiatives," often derided, sometimes deservedly so, as "pork." As the Governor opined:
Blagojevich also criticized the number of pork-barrel projects.
"It's got so much pork in it that if you were to hold the budget document itself, you'd probably be unable to hold it because it's so greasy," Blagojevich said.
(I guess what you can't hold you can't sign.)
These member initiatives shed light on one or more of the following: (1) the priorities of the legislators; (2) the priorities of their constituents; and (3) the relative strength of the effort made by those eligible for the earmarks to persuade the legislators to favor them with earmarks.
How does public transit--and by extension the public transit members of the region's transportation team--fare with respect to the member initiatives? Not well, I'm afraid.
I did a variety of key word searches of the budget bill using terms like "transit," "bus," "train," and the names of the service boards. Here is what I found:
-- In the City of the Chicago there was a grand total of one member initiative clearly identified for public transit. That was a $100,000 grant for security purposes at the Jefferson Park station.
-- In contrast, both the Park District, the Chicago Board of Education and CDOT got significantly more earmarks and much more money from legislative earmarks.
-- In the suburbs there were two clearly identified transit projects in Roselle ($50,000) and LaGrange ($150,000). Several pedestrian underpass earmarks might be related to rail stations or train lines, but that is just speculation. There were also four suburban earmarks for senior transport and dial-a-ride services, totalling less than $100,000.
-- These figures were dwarfed by the number of suburban earmarks devoted to road projects. I quickly counted roughly 50 projects totaling over $10 million and there likely are more.
-- The transit earmarks are even dwarfed by the earmarks for bike paths. I found nine earmarks for bike trails in the region totaling over $1 million.
I stress that this was a quick and dirty analysis. The results are indicative only.
You would think that in a time when operating and capital funds for public transit are especially tight, the RTA and the service boards would have a relatively easy time making their case and getting a substantial number and amount of earmarks. What does their lack of success say about:
-- the political support for public transit relative to other needs such as education, parks and highways;
-- the public's support for public transit relative to other needs such as education, parks and highways;
-- the quality (and quantity) of the effort made by the RTA and the service boards to get earmarks from the legislators; and
-- the prospects for SB 572?
Doubters Beware: SB 572 Reemerges
Representative Julie Hamos has filed Amendment #3 to SB 572. This is billed as the real deal, containing all of the pension and governance provisions that thus far have been shrouded in secrecy.
Amendment #3
Bill Summary
Word is that currently there are at best 50 votes in the Illinois House for the SB 572 package. Speaker Madigan, however, has indicated that he is going to push forward with the package:
The Speaker was asked, by State Representative Julie Hamos (D-Evanston), about a mass transit bailout. He said he would take a few days off and then work on rounding up the votes for Hamos' proposed sales tax increase in Chicago and the collar counties to bail out the financially strapped transit agency.
There is more on Speaker Madigan's position in the comments to the previous post as well as a summary of some key bill provisions. (Thanks posters.)
There are some interesting little nuggets in Amendment #3 that will get summarized in a later post.
Amendment #3
Bill Summary
Word is that currently there are at best 50 votes in the Illinois House for the SB 572 package. Speaker Madigan, however, has indicated that he is going to push forward with the package:
The Speaker was asked, by State Representative Julie Hamos (D-Evanston), about a mass transit bailout. He said he would take a few days off and then work on rounding up the votes for Hamos' proposed sales tax increase in Chicago and the collar counties to bail out the financially strapped transit agency.
There is more on Speaker Madigan's position in the comments to the previous post as well as a summary of some key bill provisions. (Thanks posters.)
There are some interesting little nuggets in Amendment #3 that will get summarized in a later post.
Update on Budget and Transit Funding
You can read the newspapers and the CapitalFax Blog for all the details. Briefly, the Senate approved the operating budget (HB 3860) by a 52-5 margin and sent it back to the House for final approval today.
The Senate narrowly rejected a capital construction program. It appears that Republicans failed to come through in suppport of that program as may have been promised, prompting this outburst by Senator Emil Jones:
Sen. Watson," Jones bellowed, "I am through meeting. My patience has worn thin because there's not one sincere bone in your body. You're not interested in doing anything about the roads. You aren't interested in doing anything about the bridges, and you don't give a damn about whether our schools across the state of Illinois have a capital bill.
(I thought the Senate Dems had a veto-proof majority, so maybe Senator Jones needs to look within his own ranks.)
Work is still ongoing on a capital plan funded by a Chicago casino. SB 572, the transit funding and RTA "reform" bill, remains in the mix. Here is what seems to be a well-informed view by a poster to the previous blog entry:
It was always the plan that SB 572 would be standalone legislation. Weeks ago it was thought the bill would be called on its own. But of course it will only pass in the context of a larger deal. If that deal happens it will include capital and transit operating, basically a trade between Republicans and Chicago dems. Whether the operating comes from the casino or from sales tax remains to be seem. And finally, Madigan is fully behind and intends to get 572 passed. He is a cunning, strategic man who usually gets what he wants.
It's not over yet.
Representataive Julie Hamos, who could have been the poster for all we know, has a similar view:
The budget negotiations left many other major issues dangling, including funding for the Chicago Transit Authority and other regional transit agencies.
After months of negotiations, Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) introduced legislation to help fund mass transit by imposing a quarter-cent sales tax in Cook and the five collar counties and another quarter-cent bump in the collar counties. Her proposal would authorize the city to impose a higher real estate transfer tax to help underwrite CTA expenses.
She predicted the issue could be worked out over the next few weeks—and before fare hikes and transit cuts are imposed in September—during negotiations over a construction program and possibly the governor's health-care package.
I won't be in a position to post until this evening so use the comments to add news items.
The Senate narrowly rejected a capital construction program. It appears that Republicans failed to come through in suppport of that program as may have been promised, prompting this outburst by Senator Emil Jones:
Sen. Watson," Jones bellowed, "I am through meeting. My patience has worn thin because there's not one sincere bone in your body. You're not interested in doing anything about the roads. You aren't interested in doing anything about the bridges, and you don't give a damn about whether our schools across the state of Illinois have a capital bill.
(I thought the Senate Dems had a veto-proof majority, so maybe Senator Jones needs to look within his own ranks.)
Work is still ongoing on a capital plan funded by a Chicago casino. SB 572, the transit funding and RTA "reform" bill, remains in the mix. Here is what seems to be a well-informed view by a poster to the previous blog entry:
It was always the plan that SB 572 would be standalone legislation. Weeks ago it was thought the bill would be called on its own. But of course it will only pass in the context of a larger deal. If that deal happens it will include capital and transit operating, basically a trade between Republicans and Chicago dems. Whether the operating comes from the casino or from sales tax remains to be seem. And finally, Madigan is fully behind and intends to get 572 passed. He is a cunning, strategic man who usually gets what he wants.
It's not over yet.
Representataive Julie Hamos, who could have been the poster for all we know, has a similar view:
The budget negotiations left many other major issues dangling, including funding for the Chicago Transit Authority and other regional transit agencies.
After months of negotiations, Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) introduced legislation to help fund mass transit by imposing a quarter-cent sales tax in Cook and the five collar counties and another quarter-cent bump in the collar counties. Her proposal would authorize the city to impose a higher real estate transfer tax to help underwrite CTA expenses.
She predicted the issue could be worked out over the next few weeks—and before fare hikes and transit cuts are imposed in September—during negotiations over a construction program and possibly the governor's health-care package.
I won't be in a position to post until this evening so use the comments to add news items.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
The Budget Bill And The Prospects For SB 572
A State operating budget (HB 3860) has been approved by the Illinois House and sent to the Senate. HB 3860 has the following appropriations for public transit in this region (pgs. 662-663 of 1395):
$37,318,100 -- Reduced fare reimbursement
$54,251,555 -- Paratransit
$193,000,000 -- Public Transportation Fund
$40,000,000 -- SCIP bonds
$95,300,000 -- Additional Financial Assistance
These amounts are identical to the amounts in the Governor's proposed budget and almost identical to the amounts in the one-month temporary budget adopted in late June.
The budget does not include any authorization for an RTA sales tax increase. Nor does it authorize the City of Chicago to increase its real estate transfer tax to provide a source of operating funds for the CTA. Note: Does anyone know if the General Assembly must authorize Chicago to increase its real estate transfer tax or can the City exercise its home rule powers and do it on its own?
The received wisdom is that the Senate will approve the budget sometime tonight. The Governor has signaled his disapproval of the budget and may veto the bill:
Blagojevich's office criticized the legislation even before the voting started, citing the lack of help for the CTA and contending the budget is a billion dollars out of balance. Blagojevich spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch said the budget "has a lot of problems," including a failure to address the governor's desire to expand health care and commit to a multibillion construction program.
Note that this statement mentions help for the CTA only. The Governor to my knowledge has never embraced a larger transit funding package that includes Pace and Metra.
SB 572, the RTA funding and "reform" package put together by Representative Hamos after literally years of painstaking preparation continues to be dead in the water. If the Governor opposes SB 572 (a) because it relies on an increase in sales taxes and, perhaps, (b) because it funds more than just the CTA, what are the bill's chances once an operating budget has been approved?
The hope of the proponents of SB 572 was that the bill had a chance of garnering a veto-proof majority if it was tucked into a massive budget bill that had something--e.g., funded member initiatives--for everyone. If Representative Hamos and the SB 572 supporters were not successful in hitching SB 572 to the HB 3860 wagon, how successful can they be with SB 572 on a standalone basis? What downstate politician, after all, every lost an election because he/she voted against more money for Chicago-area transit agencies? Some suburban legislators are likely to continue their opposition to SB 572. Metra, after all, is the service board least in need of a bailout so why would they jeopardize their re-election prospects by voting for what their opponents will characterize as a "CTA bailout" at the suburbs' expense.
Maybe the Senate will tack on a transit bailout package to HB 3860 before sending it back to the House. This seems rather unlikely given the rush to approve the budget before State government starts to shut down.
It is important to remember that HB 3860 is only an operating budget. A capital budget is yet to come. The process of putting together a capital budget may provide one last window of opportunity for the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents to push for more operating subsidies to stave off the fare hikes and service cuts that Pace and the CTA are poised to implement.
It seems impossible, however, for a Chicago casino that is reported to be the source of new money to be up and running soon enough to generate sufficient new operating subsidies for the service boards by the end of this year to stave off "doomsday." Maybe the State could come through with more cash in the short term until a casino is in operation. More likely, the RTA and the service boards would be on their own unless and until new operating dollars start coming in the door from a casino or some other source.
The key question is whether a casino would generate enough money to support both a major state capital program and several hundred million dollars in new annual operating subsidies for public transit. When the legislature realizes that there are too many mouths feeding from the casino trough (including the RTA and the service boards seeking capital funding) to also fund new operating subsidies for public transit, SB 572's regional sales tax increase and Chicago-only real estate transfer tax may start looking better.
In this scenario, SB 572 might be a face-saving way for politicians in early September to "save" the service boards in the nick of time from difficult restructurings and fare increases. But as noted above, the prospects for SB 572 on a standalone basis do not seem bright given gubernatorial opposition and the need to garner a veto-proof majority. Moreover, passage of a casino-based capital construction bill is far from assured.
How many folks think the City of Chicago would risk losing a Chicago casino in an effort to extract more operating subsidies from the State for the CTA?
It is only 9:30 p.m. Who knows what will happen between now and morning.
$37,318,100 -- Reduced fare reimbursement
$54,251,555 -- Paratransit
$193,000,000 -- Public Transportation Fund
$40,000,000 -- SCIP bonds
$95,300,000 -- Additional Financial Assistance
These amounts are identical to the amounts in the Governor's proposed budget and almost identical to the amounts in the one-month temporary budget adopted in late June.
The budget does not include any authorization for an RTA sales tax increase. Nor does it authorize the City of Chicago to increase its real estate transfer tax to provide a source of operating funds for the CTA. Note: Does anyone know if the General Assembly must authorize Chicago to increase its real estate transfer tax or can the City exercise its home rule powers and do it on its own?
The received wisdom is that the Senate will approve the budget sometime tonight. The Governor has signaled his disapproval of the budget and may veto the bill:
Blagojevich's office criticized the legislation even before the voting started, citing the lack of help for the CTA and contending the budget is a billion dollars out of balance. Blagojevich spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch said the budget "has a lot of problems," including a failure to address the governor's desire to expand health care and commit to a multibillion construction program.
Note that this statement mentions help for the CTA only. The Governor to my knowledge has never embraced a larger transit funding package that includes Pace and Metra.
SB 572, the RTA funding and "reform" package put together by Representative Hamos after literally years of painstaking preparation continues to be dead in the water. If the Governor opposes SB 572 (a) because it relies on an increase in sales taxes and, perhaps, (b) because it funds more than just the CTA, what are the bill's chances once an operating budget has been approved?
The hope of the proponents of SB 572 was that the bill had a chance of garnering a veto-proof majority if it was tucked into a massive budget bill that had something--e.g., funded member initiatives--for everyone. If Representative Hamos and the SB 572 supporters were not successful in hitching SB 572 to the HB 3860 wagon, how successful can they be with SB 572 on a standalone basis? What downstate politician, after all, every lost an election because he/she voted against more money for Chicago-area transit agencies? Some suburban legislators are likely to continue their opposition to SB 572. Metra, after all, is the service board least in need of a bailout so why would they jeopardize their re-election prospects by voting for what their opponents will characterize as a "CTA bailout" at the suburbs' expense.
Maybe the Senate will tack on a transit bailout package to HB 3860 before sending it back to the House. This seems rather unlikely given the rush to approve the budget before State government starts to shut down.
It is important to remember that HB 3860 is only an operating budget. A capital budget is yet to come. The process of putting together a capital budget may provide one last window of opportunity for the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents to push for more operating subsidies to stave off the fare hikes and service cuts that Pace and the CTA are poised to implement.
It seems impossible, however, for a Chicago casino that is reported to be the source of new money to be up and running soon enough to generate sufficient new operating subsidies for the service boards by the end of this year to stave off "doomsday." Maybe the State could come through with more cash in the short term until a casino is in operation. More likely, the RTA and the service boards would be on their own unless and until new operating dollars start coming in the door from a casino or some other source.
The key question is whether a casino would generate enough money to support both a major state capital program and several hundred million dollars in new annual operating subsidies for public transit. When the legislature realizes that there are too many mouths feeding from the casino trough (including the RTA and the service boards seeking capital funding) to also fund new operating subsidies for public transit, SB 572's regional sales tax increase and Chicago-only real estate transfer tax may start looking better.
In this scenario, SB 572 might be a face-saving way for politicians in early September to "save" the service boards in the nick of time from difficult restructurings and fare increases. But as noted above, the prospects for SB 572 on a standalone basis do not seem bright given gubernatorial opposition and the need to garner a veto-proof majority. Moreover, passage of a casino-based capital construction bill is far from assured.
How many folks think the City of Chicago would risk losing a Chicago casino in an effort to extract more operating subsidies from the State for the CTA?
It is only 9:30 p.m. Who knows what will happen between now and morning.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Doomsday Is Looking Better Every Day
Revised CTA Budget
The CTA Board has adopted a revised doomsday budget that will go into effect in mid-September if the State does not come through with a public transit funding package that will deliver more operating subsidies to the RTA and the service boards. (Stories here, here and here and full CTA details accessible through here.)
From a rider's perspective the revised CTA plan is a definite improvement over the doomsday plan from May. (May plan accessible here.) Fare increases are under 15% for Chicago Card holders and roughly the same for pass holders. There will be no fare increase for the disabled, elderly and students holding discounted fare cards. Cash payers would be the hardest hits, with the base bus and train fares going up 25% and the rush hour train fare going up 50%.
Fewer bus routes are slated for elimination (39), down from the 63 routes targeted for elimination in the earlier plan. The Skokie Swift and the Evanston Express are both spared extinction. The overall service reduction would be 8% rather than 13% under the earlier plan. The estimated loss in ridership is 100,000 per day (6.3%), down from a projected loss of 260,000 riders (16.3%) in the earlier plan.
Reading The Reaction
What is striking about the CTA Board's action is the lack of public outcry over the prospect of significant service reductions and fare increases that will occur in a little more than a month. The Tribune story on the doomsday budget was not on the lists of the most read or the most emailed stories. As of 8 p.m. there was all of one comment on Monifa Thomas' "The Ride" blog for the Sun-Times. The CTA Tattler sticks the news of the adoption of the doomsday budget in its list of news links. There is not even a separate blog entry on the subject.
The issue of public transit funding obviously has not struck a nerve, especially in the less affluent neighborhoods whose residents presumably will bear the brunt of these changes. Compare the ho hum response in these neighborhoods to the strong response to several recent instances of alleged police brutality.
The business community does not seem up in arms by the prospect of an 8% scaling back of the CTA's system. As far as I know no politician or community organizer has been channeling the spirit of Saul Alinsky and working to get folks all charged up on the transit funding issue. A video of the CTA Board meeting (available here) shows a room full of well behaved and well dressed people, a good number of whom work for the CTA. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are nowhere to be seen. Nor does it appear that there was even a desultory protest by community members.
Putting The Natural Monopoly To Rest
What does this muted reaction to public transit "doomsday" tell us about that system? The lesson may be that transit no longer fits into the category of an essential public service, a role it might have played 60 years ago when the CTA was first organized. At that time, the percentage of the population that was transit dependent was much higher than it is today. People on the whole were less affluent so cars were out of the question for many. A larger portion of the population traveled by "mass" transit, which made transit a much more vital underpinning of the local economy.
In that environment, the "natural monopoly" model that viewed public transit as a sort of public utility made some sense. For a country coming off of its second world war, the top-down, one size fits all approach to transportation that the CTA delivered and continues to embody today made practical and cultural sense.
Now, however, most of the CTA's ridership is comprised of "choice" riders who have alternative forms of transportation. The social justice dimension of mainline public transit is much less compelling now that the population is more affluent on the whole and the disabled community is served by its own paratransit system.
The breakdown of the old mass transit/natural monopoly/social service model is a slow and painful process, as evidenced by the steady shrinkage of the CTA bus system over the past few decades through a wrenching series of service cuts.
At the same time, to the extent the CTA no longer is defined by the old mass transit/natural monpoly/social service model it has more opportunity for market innovation and creativity. For example, if the CTA can shut down 39 bus lines in one whack it can shut down and/or realign individual bus routes to respond to demographic changes without the fear of triggering huge community outcries. Fare increases at about the rate of inflation will be possible without the controversies of the past, allowing a greater degree of financial stability. The CTA can focus on improving the quality of its service rather than just putting out as much service as possible.
Rhetoric
The fact that the latest doomsday budget has aroused no great controversy indicates that the rhetoric used by the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents was too deeply rooted in the natural monopoly/public service model of the past. That rhetoric of "devastating cuts" and "massive increases" and "doomsday budgets" simply didn't inspire people, who now live in an environment where there are ready alternatives to public transit--the private automobile for the most part, but also walking and biking--that are at least as attractive as public transit.
It is a different world. Maybe folks are willing to take the pain of an 8 percent service cut and a 15 percent fare increase if the slow zones go away, the buses and trains are relatively clean, they can get accurate bus/train arrival times on their computers and cellphones, and their taxes don't increase.
We may not agree with that outcome or the general public's sense of priorities. But surely after the many months of the Moving Beyond Congestion publicity effort and the many editorials supporting more funding for public transit, we can't claim that the public lacked information about what was and is at stake if the CTA and Pace shrink and their fares increase.
If the General Assembly comes through with more money and the CTA and Pace rescind their service cuts and fare increases, there will be a short time for celebration in some quarters. But the funding crises will be back soon enough unless the RTA and the service boards deal with the fact that for the most part public transit is no longer a vital public service akin to water treatment or public hospitals. The riding public has more options and on the whole more money than the riding public of 60 years ago. Rolling out the same old rhetoric about devastating cuts and doomsday budgets just won't cut it anymore.
Outside Innovation
Maybe the shrinkage of the CTA (and Pace) will embolden private entities to offer transit-like service. There may be a market niche waiting to be filled for services such as jitney cabs, subscription van service, and the like, that are less pricey than taxis or private autos but better than the large CTA bus. This is especially so if the price of parking in Chicago goes up significantly faster than the rate of inflation.
The coverage of the CTA's tentative agreement with its labor unions makes no mention whether the CTA will now be able to contract for such alternative transportation services on its own. We must assume that the CTA cannot.
If the CTA cannot provide such transportation services, it would be curious to see how the City of Chicago would respond to private sector initiatives. After all, the exclusive public transit franchise agreement between the City and the CTA is a relic from the natural monopoly era. If the City can run trolley service in competition with the CTA maybe it will be willing to let other entities run competing services as well. The City might find this to be a more palatable alternative to ever greater municipal subsidization of the CTA. Real estate transfer tax today, what tomorrow?
Maybe the SB 572 tax increase or the poor saps who gamble in a Chicago casino will prop up the status quo for awhile longer. But mining Springfield for increased subsidies for public transit is likely to get tougher before it gets easier.
Roll The Dice For Transit Funding?
Here an excerpt from a transcript of last night's interview with the Governor. Note the lack of clarity when it comes to operating funding for the service board and the seeming possibility that only the CTA gets an operating funding bailout.
Post any news that you might have in the comments:
There’s been some talk of how the RTA fits into the casino deal, what do you see as the solution of funding for that?
“I think the Chicago casino and a capital construction program create the resources that would be used to be able to fund the CTA as well as ways to be able to help the RTA and do it without raising taxes on people. So this too is a vehicle to be able to address our mass transit needs.”
Just so I’m clear, would there be three sources tapping into gambling—education, capital and RTA?
“CTA.”
((Deputy Gov. Sheila Nix added: “The capital bill would give some capital to CTA and RTA too.”))
Mass transit officials were looking for operating funds, so I’m trying to figure out how you plug that hole without the quarter-cent sales tax—unless you’ve flipped on that?
“No. No. What a question. I don’t want to pass judgment too soon because those were some of the things we talked about in the meeting today. Let me answer the question by saying that funding for the CTA and the RTA is very much part of the discussion for a capital construction infrastructure bill that is being driven by a Chicago casino. And that Chicago casino is a way to address a lot of those issues, including CTA and RTA.”
Post any news that you might have in the comments:
There’s been some talk of how the RTA fits into the casino deal, what do you see as the solution of funding for that?
“I think the Chicago casino and a capital construction program create the resources that would be used to be able to fund the CTA as well as ways to be able to help the RTA and do it without raising taxes on people. So this too is a vehicle to be able to address our mass transit needs.”
Just so I’m clear, would there be three sources tapping into gambling—education, capital and RTA?
“CTA.”
((Deputy Gov. Sheila Nix added: “The capital bill would give some capital to CTA and RTA too.”))
Mass transit officials were looking for operating funds, so I’m trying to figure out how you plug that hole without the quarter-cent sales tax—unless you’ve flipped on that?
“No. No. What a question. I don’t want to pass judgment too soon because those were some of the things we talked about in the meeting today. Let me answer the question by saying that funding for the CTA and the RTA is very much part of the discussion for a capital construction infrastructure bill that is being driven by a Chicago casino. And that Chicago casino is a way to address a lot of those issues, including CTA and RTA.”
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Good Kit: Congestion Pricing Primer
Kit Hodge of the Metropolitan Planning Council is probably mortified at being fingered (incorrectly) as the author of this blog. "Zoot alors, linking me to such drivel," we suspect she is saying.
So let's acknowledge the "Congestion Pricing 101" piece she recently posted on the MPC website. At least someone is willing to keep swimming against the local current.
So let's acknowledge the "Congestion Pricing 101" piece she recently posted on the MPC website. At least someone is willing to keep swimming against the local current.
Monday, August 6, 2007
The RTA "Role to Do" is to "Pursues to Improve"
The RTA has hired Grace Gallucci, an experienced transit executive from Cleveland, to fill a newly created position of "Deputy Executive Director of Research, Analysis and Policy Development." Announcement here. According to the RTA "Gallucci heads up a new department that will ensure the RTA has adequate finance, administration and operations information as the RTA pursues to improve [sic] its role to do regional planning and to coordinate, oversee and fund the CTA, Metra and Pace."
The RTA already has a "Senior Deputy Executive Director of Strategic Planning and Regional Programs." With a "Deputy Executive Director of Research, Analysis and Policy Development" now in the fold the RTA should at least win any struggle with the service boards over who has the planners with longest job titles!
The RTA already has a "Senior Deputy Executive Director of Strategic Planning and Regional Programs." With a "Deputy Executive Director of Research, Analysis and Policy Development" now in the fold the RTA should at least win any struggle with the service boards over who has the planners with longest job titles!
SB 572: More On Who Gets What
Despite a recent suggestion to the contrary from DuPage County Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom, SB 572 does not appear to represent mark a major shift in the allocation of operating subsidies among the three service boards.
Per the Auditor General's Report (pg. 319 of 450) the allocation of operating subsidies among the three service boards in 2005 was as follows:
CTA -- $442.5 million (58%)
Metra -- $241.7 million (31%)
Pace -- $84.4 million (11%)
These allocations include both the distributions of RTA sales tax revenue according to the statutory formula and the RTA's distribution of its discretionary operating funds, over 90 percent of which go to the CTA.
The proposed modifications to Amendment No. 2 to SB 572 provide for an increase in the RTA sales tax rate across the six-county region (to 0.50 percent in the collar counties and 1.25 percent in Cook County). This will generate $280 million. The proposal also assumes that the State will contribute its Public Transportation Fund match and and continue its $54.3 million contribution to paratransit service, generating a total of $125 million.
Of this grand total of $405 million in new regional transit operating subsidies, $130 million will be spent on paratransit ($100 million), a Pace-administered Suburban Community Mobility Fund ($20 million), and a new RTA Transit Innovation, Coordination and Enhancement Fund ($10 million).
This leaves $275 million. The RTA will not be taking its 15% off the top for its discretionary operating funds pot, leaving the full amount to be allocated as follows:
CTA -- $132 million (48%)
Metra -- $107.3% (39%)
Pace -- $35.7% (13%)
The funding story does not end here, however. If the City of Chicago enacts the real estate transfer tax then the CTA will get all $100 million in new tax revenue plus the $25 million Public Transportation Fund match of this new tax from the State. When the Chicago real estate transfer tax money is taken into account and Pace is credited for the $20 million it will get for the Suburban Community Mobility Fund, the allocation of new operating subsidies will be as follows:
CTA -- $257 million (61.2%)
Metra -- $107.3 million (25.5%)
Pace -- $55.7 million (13.3%)
If anything, these numbers indicate that CTA and Pace are getting a larger share of the new money than they get under the current system while Metra gets less.
When the new money is included with the existing allocations it appears that not much will change:
CTA -- $699.5 million (58.9%)
Metra -- $349 million (29.4%)
Pace -- $140.1 (11.8%)
Compare these percentage shares with those listed at the beginning of this post. It looks like the CTA and Pace are doing a tiny bit better at Metra's expense as a result of the proposal.
The account of Schillerstrom's analysis is as follows:
Proponents of the legislation, including Schillerstrom, point out that for the first time since the RTA was created the collar counties will not be sending money into Chicago to help the CTA. Also for the first time, tax money will be coming out of Chicago to help the suburbs. . . .
These assertions appear to be incorrect. Chicago will generate only about $65 million in additional sales tax revenue as a result of the increase in the RTA sales tax rate. Yet, the CTA's share of the new sales tax revenue is twice as much--$132 million. So somebody in the suburbs is sending new sales tax money into the Chicago to help fund the CTA.
Perhaps when he says "Chicago" Schillerstrom means "Cook County." It appears that under the proposed new RTA funding structure suburban Cook County will continue its role as the deep pocket for the region's public transit system. We will look at this in another post.
Of course, it is quite possible that Mr. Schillerstrom's comments came after the suburbs and their allies drove a better bargain for Metra and perhaps Pace at the expense of the CTA. Only time will tell.
As of the time of this post, SB 572 has not been further amended. All of the message signs at Ogilvie station this evening had those Orweillan scrolling messages urging us to pressure our legislators to support SB 572. Thus, it appears that SB 572 continues to be the vehicle for transit funding and RTA "reform." Where is Jenny Holzer when we need her?
Per the Auditor General's Report (pg. 319 of 450) the allocation of operating subsidies among the three service boards in 2005 was as follows:
CTA -- $442.5 million (58%)
Metra -- $241.7 million (31%)
Pace -- $84.4 million (11%)
These allocations include both the distributions of RTA sales tax revenue according to the statutory formula and the RTA's distribution of its discretionary operating funds, over 90 percent of which go to the CTA.
The proposed modifications to Amendment No. 2 to SB 572 provide for an increase in the RTA sales tax rate across the six-county region (to 0.50 percent in the collar counties and 1.25 percent in Cook County). This will generate $280 million. The proposal also assumes that the State will contribute its Public Transportation Fund match and and continue its $54.3 million contribution to paratransit service, generating a total of $125 million.
Of this grand total of $405 million in new regional transit operating subsidies, $130 million will be spent on paratransit ($100 million), a Pace-administered Suburban Community Mobility Fund ($20 million), and a new RTA Transit Innovation, Coordination and Enhancement Fund ($10 million).
This leaves $275 million. The RTA will not be taking its 15% off the top for its discretionary operating funds pot, leaving the full amount to be allocated as follows:
CTA -- $132 million (48%)
Metra -- $107.3% (39%)
Pace -- $35.7% (13%)
The funding story does not end here, however. If the City of Chicago enacts the real estate transfer tax then the CTA will get all $100 million in new tax revenue plus the $25 million Public Transportation Fund match of this new tax from the State. When the Chicago real estate transfer tax money is taken into account and Pace is credited for the $20 million it will get for the Suburban Community Mobility Fund, the allocation of new operating subsidies will be as follows:
CTA -- $257 million (61.2%)
Metra -- $107.3 million (25.5%)
Pace -- $55.7 million (13.3%)
If anything, these numbers indicate that CTA and Pace are getting a larger share of the new money than they get under the current system while Metra gets less.
When the new money is included with the existing allocations it appears that not much will change:
CTA -- $699.5 million (58.9%)
Metra -- $349 million (29.4%)
Pace -- $140.1 (11.8%)
Compare these percentage shares with those listed at the beginning of this post. It looks like the CTA and Pace are doing a tiny bit better at Metra's expense as a result of the proposal.
The account of Schillerstrom's analysis is as follows:
Proponents of the legislation, including Schillerstrom, point out that for the first time since the RTA was created the collar counties will not be sending money into Chicago to help the CTA. Also for the first time, tax money will be coming out of Chicago to help the suburbs. . . .
These assertions appear to be incorrect. Chicago will generate only about $65 million in additional sales tax revenue as a result of the increase in the RTA sales tax rate. Yet, the CTA's share of the new sales tax revenue is twice as much--$132 million. So somebody in the suburbs is sending new sales tax money into the Chicago to help fund the CTA.
Perhaps when he says "Chicago" Schillerstrom means "Cook County." It appears that under the proposed new RTA funding structure suburban Cook County will continue its role as the deep pocket for the region's public transit system. We will look at this in another post.
Of course, it is quite possible that Mr. Schillerstrom's comments came after the suburbs and their allies drove a better bargain for Metra and perhaps Pace at the expense of the CTA. Only time will tell.
As of the time of this post, SB 572 has not been further amended. All of the message signs at Ogilvie station this evening had those Orweillan scrolling messages urging us to pressure our legislators to support SB 572. Thus, it appears that SB 572 continues to be the vehicle for transit funding and RTA "reform." Where is Jenny Holzer when we need her?
Post Breaking News--Monday, August 6th
This should be an interesting week. Post breaking news from Monday, August 6th, in the comments to this post.
Feel free to send me documents that might be of interest to readers at: moderator1stc@yahoo.com
Please specify any limitations on use and/or attribution concerning any materials you send.
I'm looking for a copy of the draft legislation that is supposed to emerge from LRB today.
Read breaking news from late last week here.
Feel free to send me documents that might be of interest to readers at: moderator1stc@yahoo.com
Please specify any limitations on use and/or attribution concerning any materials you send.
I'm looking for a copy of the draft legislation that is supposed to emerge from LRB today.
Read breaking news from late last week here.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Those That Got Get?
We noted some weeks ago the comment by Jim Reilly, the Chairman of the RTA, to the DuPage County Board that Metra is the "winner" in SB 572.
Now at least one suburban newspaper, the Naperville Sun, in an editorial in today's newspaper, has taken up the theme. The editorial urges approval of SB 572. Here is its analysis of why SB 572 favors the collar counties:
Proponents of the legislation, including Schillerstrom, point out that for the first time since the RTA was created the collar counties will not be sending money into Chicago to help the CTA. Also for the first time, tax money will be coming out of Chicago to help the suburbs - specifically the collar counties will be paying $121 million a year, while Pace will get a dedicated revenue of $100 million for paratransit purposes and Metra and Pace combined will get $163 million.
The legislation reforms the RTA to give it more authority vis-a-vis the transit agencies and improve the city/suburban balance of its board. Additionally, it changes the funding formula so that the CTA gets a smaller percentage of RTA money while Metra and Pace receive a larger percentage.
Schillerstrom thinks this bi-partisan legislation is the best deal the suburbs are ever likely to get, though some local legislators are dragging their feet and displaying their aversion to raising taxes.
Recall that both the Auditor General and the House Mass Transit Committee have concluded that under the current funding structure the collar counties--like Chicago--consume a larger share of transit resources than their share of the tax burden. Does SB 572 give the collar counties an even better deal?
Now at least one suburban newspaper, the Naperville Sun, in an editorial in today's newspaper, has taken up the theme. The editorial urges approval of SB 572. Here is its analysis of why SB 572 favors the collar counties:
Proponents of the legislation, including Schillerstrom, point out that for the first time since the RTA was created the collar counties will not be sending money into Chicago to help the CTA. Also for the first time, tax money will be coming out of Chicago to help the suburbs - specifically the collar counties will be paying $121 million a year, while Pace will get a dedicated revenue of $100 million for paratransit purposes and Metra and Pace combined will get $163 million.
The legislation reforms the RTA to give it more authority vis-a-vis the transit agencies and improve the city/suburban balance of its board. Additionally, it changes the funding formula so that the CTA gets a smaller percentage of RTA money while Metra and Pace receive a larger percentage.
Schillerstrom thinks this bi-partisan legislation is the best deal the suburbs are ever likely to get, though some local legislators are dragging their feet and displaying their aversion to raising taxes.
Recall that both the Auditor General and the House Mass Transit Committee have concluded that under the current funding structure the collar counties--like Chicago--consume a larger share of transit resources than their share of the tax burden. Does SB 572 give the collar counties an even better deal?
Saturday, August 4, 2007
SB 572: Final Action Deadline Now August 10
The "final action deadline" for SB 572 has been extended to Friday, August 10th.
Does anyone know if this deadline extension has any significance to the questions if and when SB 572 will be called for a vote in the Illinois House?
Does anyone know if this deadline extension has any significance to the questions if and when SB 572 will be called for a vote in the Illinois House?
"Wouldn't Metra Get Mad"?
I was discussing possible CTA rail extensions with a family member who is a transit enthusiast. I mentioned that in light of the congestion on the Eisenhower and the many shopping and employment centers in the area from Oakbrook to Naperville it made sense to extend the Congress branch of the Blue Line deep into the heart of DuPage County. (For some reason Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" came to mind, only all the natives are white!)
My young family member's response was: "But wouldn't Metra get mad?" I immediately thought how unfortunate it was that already impressed on this young mind was the notion that the service boards squabble and compete endlessly over "turf" in this purportedly regional public transit system. This started me thinking about the following comment to a recent post:
Mayor Daley better see that Metra get a lot of money from this bill. Hopefully, he'll require that they increase service levels in the City. More stops on the services they have today and more off-peak service. There are parts of Metra, all over the city, but particularly the Metra Electric, that could easily become more integrated into the urban fabric and really improve the quality of some neighborhoods.
Without that pressure, Metra will just keep fares artificially low on the far suburban zones and continue to sprawl, sprawl, sprawl themselves.
Some questions for us to chew on rather than our fingernails as we wait for something to emerge on the public transit front from Springfield:
1. How effective will the post SB 572 RTA be in ending the turf battles between the service boards? In the Congress Line extension example, would the RTA's power to control the alternatives analysis be sufficient to stop Metra from trying to prevent the CTA from expanding into "Metra territory"?
2. Does Metra under serve the City of Chicago? If so, what would be (and should be) the City/CTA response if Metra undertook a major expansion of service in the City and nearby suburbs? What would such a Metra expansion look like and what effect would it have on the CTA?
3. Is it accurate to say that Metra keeps fares "artificially low" in the "far suburban zones"? I thought Metra alone among the service boards had distance-based pricing and that folks in the far outlying areas did not get a price break? Is it also fair to say that the CTA and Pace keep their fares "artificially low" for long trips precisely because they have opted not to use Metra's distance-based pricing approach?
4. Is Metra investing in the wrong places in the region as the poster argues? Instead of possibly marginal projects like the STAR Line or the Johnsburg extension might Metra get a better bang for its buck investing in new lines in more densely populated areas. For example, would Metra do better running in the rail corridor running near Cicero Avenue (the Crosstown Expressway route) than the STAR Line?
5. Does Metra contribute to sprawl in this region by focusing its investment on projects such as the STAR Line, Manhattan extension, Elburn extension and Johnsburg extension?
6. Last, but certainly not least, have the drafters of SB 572 missed a historic opportunity by not consolidating the service boards into the RTA as operating units rather than retaining them as standalone service boards?
My young family member's response was: "But wouldn't Metra get mad?" I immediately thought how unfortunate it was that already impressed on this young mind was the notion that the service boards squabble and compete endlessly over "turf" in this purportedly regional public transit system. This started me thinking about the following comment to a recent post:
Mayor Daley better see that Metra get a lot of money from this bill. Hopefully, he'll require that they increase service levels in the City. More stops on the services they have today and more off-peak service. There are parts of Metra, all over the city, but particularly the Metra Electric, that could easily become more integrated into the urban fabric and really improve the quality of some neighborhoods.
Without that pressure, Metra will just keep fares artificially low on the far suburban zones and continue to sprawl, sprawl, sprawl themselves.
Some questions for us to chew on rather than our fingernails as we wait for something to emerge on the public transit front from Springfield:
1. How effective will the post SB 572 RTA be in ending the turf battles between the service boards? In the Congress Line extension example, would the RTA's power to control the alternatives analysis be sufficient to stop Metra from trying to prevent the CTA from expanding into "Metra territory"?
2. Does Metra under serve the City of Chicago? If so, what would be (and should be) the City/CTA response if Metra undertook a major expansion of service in the City and nearby suburbs? What would such a Metra expansion look like and what effect would it have on the CTA?
3. Is it accurate to say that Metra keeps fares "artificially low" in the "far suburban zones"? I thought Metra alone among the service boards had distance-based pricing and that folks in the far outlying areas did not get a price break? Is it also fair to say that the CTA and Pace keep their fares "artificially low" for long trips precisely because they have opted not to use Metra's distance-based pricing approach?
4. Is Metra investing in the wrong places in the region as the poster argues? Instead of possibly marginal projects like the STAR Line or the Johnsburg extension might Metra get a better bang for its buck investing in new lines in more densely populated areas. For example, would Metra do better running in the rail corridor running near Cicero Avenue (the Crosstown Expressway route) than the STAR Line?
5. Does Metra contribute to sprawl in this region by focusing its investment on projects such as the STAR Line, Manhattan extension, Elburn extension and Johnsburg extension?
6. Last, but certainly not least, have the drafters of SB 572 missed a historic opportunity by not consolidating the service boards into the RTA as operating units rather than retaining them as standalone service boards?
Friday, August 3, 2007
The Moving Target: Legislation Update & Scheduling
Pasted in below is what appears to be the outline of a comprehensive RTA funding/reform bill as it existed as of the middle of last week. Much of it will be familiar to those who are acquainted with Amendments #1 and #2 to SB 572.
The draft bill underlying this summary has been the subject of extensive debate and revisions since it was circulated. The Legislative Research Bureau is putting together another draft, which is likely to be in the range of 200 pages. This revised bill should be ready by Monday. A vote is planned on Tuesday even if the House Republicans have not climbed on board as a group in support of the bill .
Note the sweetners in this outline:
-- Metra and Pace get a bigger share of the new money raised from the collar counties.
-- There is a $20 million Suburban Community Mobility Fund, which presumably funds the extremely expensive (e.g., $25/ride) but extremely popular suburban vanpool services.
-- The Chairman of the Cook County Board gets to appoint one RTA and one Metra board member.
-- The increased draw on the State General Revenue Fund through the Public Transportaton Fund match is deferred until 2009.
-- The RTA does not take 15% off the top of the new tax money for its discretionary use.
-- $25.6 million to Downstate transit--no recovery ratio requirement and no funding source identified.
-- No change to the current statutory formula for allocating sales tax revenue.
I had to scratch around for this dated bill summary. I hope someone will be kind enough to send me a copy of the bill that emerges from LRB on Monday.
Send interesting materials to: moderator1stc@yahoo.com
Post your breaking news here.
* * *
The draft bill underlying this summary has been the subject of extensive debate and revisions since it was circulated. The Legislative Research Bureau is putting together another draft, which is likely to be in the range of 200 pages. This revised bill should be ready by Monday. A vote is planned on Tuesday even if the House Republicans have not climbed on board as a group in support of the bill .
Note the sweetners in this outline:
-- Metra and Pace get a bigger share of the new money raised from the collar counties.
-- There is a $20 million Suburban Community Mobility Fund, which presumably funds the extremely expensive (e.g., $25/ride) but extremely popular suburban vanpool services.
-- The Chairman of the Cook County Board gets to appoint one RTA and one Metra board member.
-- The increased draw on the State General Revenue Fund through the Public Transportaton Fund match is deferred until 2009.
-- The RTA does not take 15% off the top of the new tax money for its discretionary use.
-- $25.6 million to Downstate transit--no recovery ratio requirement and no funding source identified.
-- No change to the current statutory formula for allocating sales tax revenue.
I had to scratch around for this dated bill summary. I hope someone will be kind enough to send me a copy of the bill that emerges from LRB on Monday.
Send interesting materials to: moderator1stc@yahoo.com
Post your breaking news here.
* * *
MASS TRANSIT FUNDING AND REFORM: SB 572
To address the operating funding shortfall at Metra, CTA and Pace, and to provide additional funding for transportation needs in the Collar Counties (DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will), the RTA Act is amended to authorize additional funds to be raised, primarily from the RTA region.
Operating revenue sources
• $280 million from 0.25% regional sales tax increase (imposed by RTA)
• $70 million* from traditional state-funded match of 25%
*Phased in, starting Jan. 1, 2009. GRF impact $0 in SFY’08, approx. $40m SFY’09
• $55 million continuation of State paratransit funding
Additional 5% match on all sales tax and on RETT; effective immediately
Revenue neutral for State in SFY ’08: replaces GRF appropriation of $54.3 million for ADA paratransit
Operating revenue allocation
• $100 million to Pace for ADA paratransit service for seniors and disabled in the region
Held in RTA trust fund; allocated to Pace only as needed for annual ADA paratransit costs. RTA annually assesses costs of providing services required by the ADA, and conducts triennial audits of paratransit costs.
• $20 million to Pace for a Suburban Community Mobility Fund (SCMF)
• $10 million for an RTA transit innovation, coordination and enhancement fund (ICE Fund)
Competitive selection process for projects in the region
• $275 million distributed among Metra, Pace and CTA for mainline operations:
o $144 to Metra and Pace (52%)
• $107.3 million to Metra (39%)
• $35.7 million to Pace (13%)
o $132 million to CTA (48%)
Notes:
• Annual funding for paratransit, SCMF and ICE increase or decrease consistent with tax collections.
• Allocation of existing RTA sales taxes is not changed.
• All new revenues are allocated, there is no 15% RTA discretionary portion.
• $200 million of new expenses would be exempted from the ratio to avoid the need to match each new dollar with a 50 cent fare increase. This exemption would be phased out over 10 years, thereby requiring gradual fare increase. Debt service on pension obligation bonds and security costs are also exempted from the farebox recovery ratio.
Additional Chicago Contribution to Pay for CTA Costs
• $100 million Real Estate Transfer Tax imposed in Chicago by Chicago City Council
Tax imposed at rate up to .3% ($1.50 per $500 valuation)
• $25 million* traditional State-funded match of 25% allocated to CTA
*Phased in, starting Jan. 1, 2009. GRF impact $0 in SFY’08, approx. $12.5m SFY’09.
Collar County Empowerment
• $121.3 million from additional 0.25% sales tax increase in the Collar Counties to produce for the Collar Counties to use at their discretion for local road and transit projects.
• Tax imposed by RTA ordinance, collected by Department of Revenue, and allocated directly to the counties based on point of sale.
Downstate Operating Funding
• To address operating shortfalls for downstate transit systems, $25.6 million is provided.
RTA Reforms for Coordination, Efficiency and Transparency
To achieve a better coordinated and more efficient regional transit system, and to implement the recommendations of the Illinois Auditor General, the RTA Act is amended to enhance the RTA’s responsibilities and accountability with respect to regional planning, fiscal oversight, and fare and service coordination.Adoption of Strategic Plan
• Requires RTA Board to adopt (by 10 votes) a comprehensive, long-term Strategic Plan for regional transit, to be reviewed and updated periodically (§2.01a(a)).
• The Plan will establish (i) goals and objectives, e.g., ridership increases, service and fare coordination, job access for low-income communities, (ii) standards, measurements and reporting requirements related to achieving the goals, and (iii) criteria for evaluating which capital projects are included in the Five-Year Capital Program (§2.01a(b, c, d)).
• The Plan also will include a 10-year assessment of the transit system’s financial condition (§2.01a(f).
• RTA is authorized to adopt sub-regional or corridor plans (§2.01a(h)).
• RTA must coordinate with the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning in developing the Strategic Plan and capital program (§2.01a(g)).
Capital program
• Capital projects can only be in the Five-Year Capital Program if they meet the criteria in the Strategic Plan and can be funded within amounts determined by the RTA to be available during that period (§2.01b, §2.01a(c)).
• RTA is required to do “alternatives analysis” for any newly-proposed transit expansion projects with construction costs of over $25 million where potentially more than one Service Board could be the provider of the proposed service (§2.01a(i)).
Annual budgets
• Annual Service Board budgets and two-year financial plans to be consistent with Strategic Plan as a condition for approval by RTA (determination made by 10 votes) (§4.11(b)(2)(vii)).
• Service Board budgets must include additional details, including long-term obligations such as pension and employee benefit expenses (§4.01(a), §4.11(d).
• Allows RTA to adopt (by 10 votes) required formats, financial practices and assumptions that Service Boards must use in preparing annual budgets and capital programs. Provides that if the Executive Director certifies that a Service Board has not submitted its budget in the required form, etc., and such certification is accepted by the Board (10 votes) the Service Board is limited to the previous year’s operating funding levels (§4.01(f), §4.11(b)(1), §4.11(d)).
• RTA is required to withhold up to 25% of sales tax revenues allocated by formula (in addition to current withholding of discretionary funds) until a Service Board budget is approved by the RTA (§4.11(b)(4)).
Auditing and Access to Information
• The Service Boards are required to comply in a timely manner with requests for information from the RTA (§4.01(g)).
• The RTA is required to audit the Service Boards no less than every five years; such audits may include management, performance, financial and infrastructure condition audits (§2.01(b)).
• RTA is required to audit ADA paratransit costs every three years (§2.01d).
Coordinated Sales and Marketing: The RTA is required to develop and adopt (with 10 votes) a coordinated sales, marketing, advertising and public information program for all transit in the region. Service Boards’ programs must be consistent with the regional program (§2.05(c)).
Coordination of Fares and Service: At the request of a Service Board, and with the authorization by the RTA Board (7 votes), the RTA Executive Director is given power to mediate and, if mediation is unsuccessful, recommend to the RTA Board decisions in disputes between Service Boards regarding fare coordination, transfers, service coordination, and duplication of service; such decision is binding if approved by the RTA Board (7 votes) (§2.12b).
Innovation, Coordination and Enhancement Fund: A new fund is created to award grants to Service Boards, transportation agencies, and local governments, for short-term, lower-cost projects and service enhancements (§2.01c, §4.11(a)).
CTA Pension and Retiree Health Care Reform
To stabilize the long-term financial health of the CTA pension and retiree health care system, the funding for pensions and retiree health care are separated, employee and employer contributions are increased, benefits are adjusted, governance is strengthened, bonds are issued, and ongoing financial oversight by the Auditor General is established.The proposal is endorsed by the RTA, CTA, ATU, CFL, AFL-CIO, Mayor Daley, Civic Federation, Commercial Club, Taxpayers Federation, IRMA, IMA and State Chamber.
Pension Reform
• CTA contribution increases from 6% of payroll to 12%; employee contribution increases from 3% to 6%. CTA gets “credit” for debt service up to 6% of their contribution.
• $1 billion in pension obligation bond proceeds deposited into pension fund to bring it to approximately 72% funded. Debt service paid from CTA’s share of new operating funds.
• Pension fund must stay above 60% funded through 2038, and reach 90% funded by 2059. If additional contributions are needed to comply with this requirement, they are made 2/3 by CTA, 1/3 by employees.
• Governance reforms by elimination of ‘bloc” voting (each member would vote independently); 11 member Board of Trustees established: five union, five CTA, and expert member selected by RTA Board.
• Benefits changes for employees hired on or after January 1, 2008:
o Reduced pensions available at 55 years of age and 10 years of service (currently 3 years).
o Full pension available at 64 years of age (currently 55) and 25 years of service.
o CTA executive pension eliminated.
Retiree Healthcare Reform
• An independent healthcare trust is established to manage retiree benefits seeded with $450 million in bond proceeds. No later than January 1, 2009, the Trust is solely responsible for providing retiree health care benefits.
• Contributions by active employees would be at least 3% of compensation on a pre-tax basis (currently they contribute nothing) bringing total pension and health care contribution to at least 9%.
• Retirees and their dependents would contribute up to 45% of the cost of coverage (currently retirees contribute nothing and dependents pay approximately 2% of the costs of coverage).
• Governance reforms by elimination of ‘bloc” voting (each member would vote independently); 7 member Board of Trustees: three union, three CTA, and expert member selected by RTA Board. Trustees can adjust contributions and/or benefits as needed financially.
• Retiree benefits would be no greater than 90% in network, 70% out of network (currently benefits include 100% indemnity coverage option).
Oversight by Auditor General
• Auditor General certifies financials prior to issuance of bonds.
• Auditor General annually submits financial report to General Assembly.
Wages
• Five-year contract with wage increases between 3 and 3.5 percent.
Governance Reforms
The following reforms are made to the Boards of the RTA and Metra, in part to implement the recommendations of the Illinois Auditor General. No changes are made to the CTA or Pace Boards.
RTA
Current
RTA Board: 13 members (5 Chicago – 4 Cook – 3 collar counties)
4 by Mayor
1 Chairman of CTA
4 by suburban members of Cook County Board
1 by Chairman of DuPage County Board.
2 jointly by Chairman of Boards of Lake, McHenry, Kane and Will
Board Chair appointed by 9 members of Board
Proposed
RTA Board: 13 members (4 Chicago - 4 Cook - 4 collar counties); supermajority vote requirement changed from 9 to 10
4 by Mayor
3 by suburban members of Cook County Board
1 by President of Cook County Board.(from Suburban Cook County)
1 by Chairman of DuPage Board
1 by Chairman of Lake County Board
1 by Chairman of Will County Board
1 jointly by Chairmen of Boards of McHenry and Kane
Board Chair appointed by 10 members of Board
Metra
Current
Metra Board: 7 members
1 by Mayor
3 by suburban members of Cook County Board
1 by Chairman of DuPage County Board
2 jointly by Chairmen of Boards of Lake, McHenry, Kane and Will
Chairman appointed from among the members, with 5 votes
Proposed
Metra Board: 8 members
1 by Mayor
2 by suburban members of Cook County Board.
1 by President of Cook County Board (from Suburban Cook County)
1 by Chairman of DuPage County Board
1 by Chairman of Lake County Board
1 by Chairman of Will County Board
1 jointly by Chairmen of Boards of McHenry and Kane
Chairman appointed from among the members, with 5 votes
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Post Your Breaking News Here-Edition #1
For a variety of reasons I cannot post breaking news about the transit funding package as quickly or as completely as I would like. Two kind readers posted deliciously interesting news items in response to one of yesterday's posts. They suggest that the transit funding package is running aground.
If you have news about the status of the transit funding package (and don't forget the RTA "reform" package) please post that news in the comments to this post.
Let's work together to restore some of the transparency that was promised to us long ago.
NOTE: Please use this to post news. Try to save the commentary and debate for other posts. I may prune the comments accordingly so that this remains the spot for breaking news. Don't be offended if your comment disappears.
If you have news about the status of the transit funding package (and don't forget the RTA "reform" package) please post that news in the comments to this post.
Let's work together to restore some of the transparency that was promised to us long ago.
NOTE: Please use this to post news. Try to save the commentary and debate for other posts. I may prune the comments accordingly so that this remains the spot for breaking news. Don't be offended if your comment disappears.
Political Hectoring: Metra Edition
Observed on the scrolling message sign at the Metra station this afternoon:
SUPPORT SB 572, NEW FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT. VISIT RTACHICAGO.COM AND SEND A MESSAGE TO SPRINGFIELD TODAY
For the reasons set out in yesterday's post, this kind of explicit call to mass political action by a public agency is unseemly. In addition to the tough job of fulfilling their statutory responsibilities do public agencies now have to compete with each other through campaign-style political organizing? Is this how we want our public agency leadership to spend their time and our money?
SUPPORT SB 572, NEW FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT. VISIT RTACHICAGO.COM AND SEND A MESSAGE TO SPRINGFIELD TODAY
For the reasons set out in yesterday's post, this kind of explicit call to mass political action by a public agency is unseemly. In addition to the tough job of fulfilling their statutory responsibilities do public agencies now have to compete with each other through campaign-style political organizing? Is this how we want our public agency leadership to spend their time and our money?
The Region's Transportation Team: Response To Its Defenders
I've been taking some hits in the comments from those who believe that my criticisms (here, here and here) of this region's transportation team are unfair. (By "transportation team" I mean that extended network of planners, academics, NGOs and transportation agency executives that is largely responsible for the stewardship of our regional transportation system.)
I can take it. I'm a big person. But I feel compelled to respond. Bear with me. I think the issue of the performance of our transportation team is important to understanding the pickle the region finds itself when it comes to transportation generally, and public transit in particular.
The Blame The Politicians Argument
The thrust of the defenders' argument is that you shouldn't blame the team. Rather, the blame lies with an "Orweillan" political system that presumably squelches the creativity and best laid plans of the planners, transportation agency executives, and transportation NGOs who make up the team.
This argument doesn't hold water. Certainly, if we could clone John Norquist by the hundreds and install him in political offices throughout the region (and state) it might be a bit easier for transit and land-use plans favored by transit-oriented planners to be implemented. Barring that, are the political and demographic fundamentals of this region all that different from the fundamentals in large urban regions elsewhere in the United States?
Most if not all urban regions have sprawling suburbs/exurbs, a surplus of overlapping jurisdictions charged with transportation and planning, growing congestion problems and a continued decline in the relative importance of the central city in terms of population and employment. Is the quality of the local and state political leadership in this region markedly worse than the similarly situated political leadership in other large urban areas?
The transportation team, after all, has the responsibility to engage political leaders as they find them. Their job is to inform, inspire and, yes, cajole these political leaders to embrace transportation and land-use policies that will benefit the quality of life and enhance the economic competitiveness of the region. Politicians, be they as saintly as Paul Simon or as venal as [fill in the blank] typically don't come to office with a nuanced understanding of transportation issues. It's the team's job to bring them along, saint or sinner.
More Indicia Of Team Weakness
There are more indicia of the weakness of our region's transportation team than just the recent loss of an Urban Partnership Program grant because of an overly timid and undeveloped grant proposal, the seeming across-the-board rejection of congestion/roadway pricing by politic ans and editorialists, and the fact that Indiana is way ahead of Illinois in putting together the Illiana Expressway, an important addition to the region's interstate system to handle projected increases in east-west truck traffic.
Academia
This region has at least one substantial academic transportation center: The Urban Transportation Center at UIC. Other than a few quotes pooh-poohing congestion pricing (Siim Soot comment), what contribution did this academic center make to the debate over the Moving Beyond Congestion Plan? Surely there is some significance to the fact that the RTA chose to engage a private consultant to churn out the Moving Beyond Congestion analyses rather than rely on local academic talent from UIC or any of the other universities in the area.
Ask yourself, when is the last time you found that the work of a local transportation academic made a significant difference in your professional work? When did the the popular work of one of those local transportation academics (e.g., op-ed column) inspire you? Thought so.
Innovation
The last few federal transportation bills (ISTEA, TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU) contained a variety of innovative programs. It is impossible to survey all of these programs, so let's take innovative transportation financing programs. This region has ample public finance talent (e.g., investment bankers, lawyers) and a wide variety of transportation infrastructure needs. It was (and is) well situated to be at the edge of innovation. Yet, what does the record show with respect to how well our transportation team utilized these assets to take advantage of the federal innovative financing programs:
TIFIA Loan Program (see "TIFIA Projects"): $3.2 billion in TIFIA assistance used to support $13.2 billion total investment in 12 projects in 10 states. No Illinois participation.
State Infrastructure Banks: $6 billion dispersed in 33 states via 520 agreements. No Illinois participation.
Private Activity Bonds (see "PPP Update"): New program under SAFETEA-LU. $4.8 billion for three projects in three states. No Illinois participation.
GARVEE (see "GARVEE Roundup"): $6.6 billion in 41 bond issues in 20 states. No Illinois participation. (Note, however, that the CTA has been able to issue GARVEE-like bonds backed by FTA full funding grant agreements over the RTA's vigorous objections.)
This region has long been a laggard when it comes to keeping up with innovative financing techniques. ISTEA had an innovative financing program that ended a decade ago. The region's transportation team was asleep at the switch even back then:
TE-045 (see Appendix 1): Approximately 40 states took advantage of the program in 88 projects. No Illinois participation.
Professional Recognition
If the region's transportation team was top-notch, you would expect that the team members would get the recognition of their peers and play a major leadership role in transportation-related professional organizations. Alas, the team appears to be stuck at the end of the bench.
AASHTO
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") is the leading professional organization on the highway side. The region's team is pretty much a non-presence in the leadership ranks:
AASHTO Executive Committee: No Illinois representation.
Standing Committee on Finance and Administration: Nope.
Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety: Nope.
Standing Committee on Highways: Nope.
Standing Committee on Planning: Nope.
Standing Committee on Public Transportation: Tim Martin, formerly the Secretary of IDOT, is the Chair.
Standing Committee on Quality: Nope.
Standing Committee on Research: Nope.
Standing Committee on Rail Transportation: Nope.
Standing Committee on Water Transportation: Nope.
APTA
On the public transit side, things aren't any better. Bernard Ford from the CTA served as President of the American Public Transportation Association ("APTA") years ago. He was the only person from the region to serve in that capacity in the past 20-25 years.
Currently, there are no team members on the APTA Executive Committee. APTA's Board of Directors has 98--count 'em--members. The only local name I recognize as serving on that huge board is Steve Schlickman, the RTA's Executive Director. No offense to Steve, but the qualification for becoming a member of a 98 member board is probably just showing up for meetings.
Conclusion
The purpose of this exercise and my alleged "whining" about the region's transportation team is not to take cheap and anonymous shots at folks who on the whole are smart, dedicated and well-intentioned. Instead, the purpose is to remind us that fixing what ails the region's transportation system is more than just a matter of money and nips and tucks to the RTA Act.
The team with its accumulated expertise has a crucial role to play in jump-starting innovation when it comes to the design, execution and financing of transportation projects in this region. The first step is to recognize that this region is behind many of its competitors--e.g., New York City, Texas, and (it pains me to say it) Indiana. There are plenty of hard-knuckled and not always visionary politicians in those places too. The team needs to stop laying the failures of vision and innovation at the feet of their political clients and start figuring out how to yoke vision to power.
Maybe our politicians--and the public they represent--are having a hard time buying what the team is selling because they instinctively know that the product is mediocre. Witness the terribly difficult ongoing struggle to get just the operating funding portion of the Moving Beyond Congestion funding package through Springfield.
I can take it. I'm a big person. But I feel compelled to respond. Bear with me. I think the issue of the performance of our transportation team is important to understanding the pickle the region finds itself when it comes to transportation generally, and public transit in particular.
The Blame The Politicians Argument
The thrust of the defenders' argument is that you shouldn't blame the team. Rather, the blame lies with an "Orweillan" political system that presumably squelches the creativity and best laid plans of the planners, transportation agency executives, and transportation NGOs who make up the team.
This argument doesn't hold water. Certainly, if we could clone John Norquist by the hundreds and install him in political offices throughout the region (and state) it might be a bit easier for transit and land-use plans favored by transit-oriented planners to be implemented. Barring that, are the political and demographic fundamentals of this region all that different from the fundamentals in large urban regions elsewhere in the United States?
Most if not all urban regions have sprawling suburbs/exurbs, a surplus of overlapping jurisdictions charged with transportation and planning, growing congestion problems and a continued decline in the relative importance of the central city in terms of population and employment. Is the quality of the local and state political leadership in this region markedly worse than the similarly situated political leadership in other large urban areas?
The transportation team, after all, has the responsibility to engage political leaders as they find them. Their job is to inform, inspire and, yes, cajole these political leaders to embrace transportation and land-use policies that will benefit the quality of life and enhance the economic competitiveness of the region. Politicians, be they as saintly as Paul Simon or as venal as [fill in the blank] typically don't come to office with a nuanced understanding of transportation issues. It's the team's job to bring them along, saint or sinner.
More Indicia Of Team Weakness
There are more indicia of the weakness of our region's transportation team than just the recent loss of an Urban Partnership Program grant because of an overly timid and undeveloped grant proposal, the seeming across-the-board rejection of congestion/roadway pricing by politic ans and editorialists, and the fact that Indiana is way ahead of Illinois in putting together the Illiana Expressway, an important addition to the region's interstate system to handle projected increases in east-west truck traffic.
Academia
This region has at least one substantial academic transportation center: The Urban Transportation Center at UIC. Other than a few quotes pooh-poohing congestion pricing (Siim Soot comment), what contribution did this academic center make to the debate over the Moving Beyond Congestion Plan? Surely there is some significance to the fact that the RTA chose to engage a private consultant to churn out the Moving Beyond Congestion analyses rather than rely on local academic talent from UIC or any of the other universities in the area.
Ask yourself, when is the last time you found that the work of a local transportation academic made a significant difference in your professional work? When did the the popular work of one of those local transportation academics (e.g., op-ed column) inspire you? Thought so.
Innovation
The last few federal transportation bills (ISTEA, TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU) contained a variety of innovative programs. It is impossible to survey all of these programs, so let's take innovative transportation financing programs. This region has ample public finance talent (e.g., investment bankers, lawyers) and a wide variety of transportation infrastructure needs. It was (and is) well situated to be at the edge of innovation. Yet, what does the record show with respect to how well our transportation team utilized these assets to take advantage of the federal innovative financing programs:
TIFIA Loan Program (see "TIFIA Projects"): $3.2 billion in TIFIA assistance used to support $13.2 billion total investment in 12 projects in 10 states. No Illinois participation.
State Infrastructure Banks: $6 billion dispersed in 33 states via 520 agreements. No Illinois participation.
Private Activity Bonds (see "PPP Update"): New program under SAFETEA-LU. $4.8 billion for three projects in three states. No Illinois participation.
GARVEE (see "GARVEE Roundup"): $6.6 billion in 41 bond issues in 20 states. No Illinois participation. (Note, however, that the CTA has been able to issue GARVEE-like bonds backed by FTA full funding grant agreements over the RTA's vigorous objections.)
This region has long been a laggard when it comes to keeping up with innovative financing techniques. ISTEA had an innovative financing program that ended a decade ago. The region's transportation team was asleep at the switch even back then:
TE-045 (see Appendix 1): Approximately 40 states took advantage of the program in 88 projects. No Illinois participation.
Professional Recognition
If the region's transportation team was top-notch, you would expect that the team members would get the recognition of their peers and play a major leadership role in transportation-related professional organizations. Alas, the team appears to be stuck at the end of the bench.
AASHTO
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") is the leading professional organization on the highway side. The region's team is pretty much a non-presence in the leadership ranks:
AASHTO Executive Committee: No Illinois representation.
Standing Committee on Finance and Administration: Nope.
Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety: Nope.
Standing Committee on Highways: Nope.
Standing Committee on Planning: Nope.
Standing Committee on Public Transportation: Tim Martin, formerly the Secretary of IDOT, is the Chair.
Standing Committee on Quality: Nope.
Standing Committee on Research: Nope.
Standing Committee on Rail Transportation: Nope.
Standing Committee on Water Transportation: Nope.
APTA
On the public transit side, things aren't any better. Bernard Ford from the CTA served as President of the American Public Transportation Association ("APTA") years ago. He was the only person from the region to serve in that capacity in the past 20-25 years.
Currently, there are no team members on the APTA Executive Committee. APTA's Board of Directors has 98--count 'em--members. The only local name I recognize as serving on that huge board is Steve Schlickman, the RTA's Executive Director. No offense to Steve, but the qualification for becoming a member of a 98 member board is probably just showing up for meetings.
Conclusion
The purpose of this exercise and my alleged "whining" about the region's transportation team is not to take cheap and anonymous shots at folks who on the whole are smart, dedicated and well-intentioned. Instead, the purpose is to remind us that fixing what ails the region's transportation system is more than just a matter of money and nips and tucks to the RTA Act.
The team with its accumulated expertise has a crucial role to play in jump-starting innovation when it comes to the design, execution and financing of transportation projects in this region. The first step is to recognize that this region is behind many of its competitors--e.g., New York City, Texas, and (it pains me to say it) Indiana. There are plenty of hard-knuckled and not always visionary politicians in those places too. The team needs to stop laying the failures of vision and innovation at the feet of their political clients and start figuring out how to yoke vision to power.
Maybe our politicians--and the public they represent--are having a hard time buying what the team is selling because they instinctively know that the product is mediocre. Witness the terribly difficult ongoing struggle to get just the operating funding portion of the Moving Beyond Congestion funding package through Springfield.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
"Pretty Optimistic"
The RTA's Chairman Jim Reilly is quoted in today's Daily Southtown that he is "pretty optimistic" about the prospects for the RTA funding package. As Mr. Reilly does not appear to be a person given to wild flights of irrational exuberance, this is good news for supporters of increased funding for this region's public transit system.
The same article reports that SB 572 (or some stealth alternative) will be subject of a hearing this week and will be voted on by the House next week. As of the time of this posting, no new amendments have been offered to SB 572 and no meeting of the House Mass Transit Committee has been publicly announced. The current final action deadline for the bill is August 4th.
Just a few days ago, Representative Hamos indicated that the House vote on the RTA funding/"reform" package would have occurred by now. With this delay maybe her office can post copies of the full legislative package that is coming.
The same article reports that SB 572 (or some stealth alternative) will be subject of a hearing this week and will be voted on by the House next week. As of the time of this posting, no new amendments have been offered to SB 572 and no meeting of the House Mass Transit Committee has been publicly announced. The current final action deadline for the bill is August 4th.
Just a few days ago, Representative Hamos indicated that the House vote on the RTA funding/"reform" package would have occurred by now. With this delay maybe her office can post copies of the full legislative package that is coming.
The Pace Of Political Activity By Public Agencies
Pace's Board met today and voted to implement its "doomsday" budget scenario via a sweeping set of service cuts and fare increases.
In the last 48 hours I've received "blast" email from Pace requesting that I contact my legislators and ask them to support Senate Bill 572. The email is as follows:
Can a public agency take up legislative causes championed by one political party or a fraction thereof? ("Pace supports Governor Blagoevich's health care plan because healthy bus riders are happy Pace customers. So call your legislators now.") Could Pace champion the fact that "Pace supports Republicans, whose tireless efforts to block a state capital plan over the past four years have helped the transit system immensely." (Or maybe not that one exactly!)
Drawing the the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in terms of using public resources to press for political action by members of the public may be an aesthetic matter as much as a legal matter. (The federal Hatch Act does put some real restrictions on political activities by the employees of state and local agencies that received federal grants but I'm not sure if it reaches the agencies themselves.)
In my admittedly old fashioned view, public agencies should focus on performing the tasks assigned to them by their enabling acts. Their involvement in the political side of things should be limited to providing accurate and complete information to any politician--indeed, any citizen--who asks. This includes, of course, briefing legislators on issues important to the public agency, but it does not include trying to orchestrate direct political pressure on the legislators. Public agencies hope that their good performance and the good will that results from treating all politicians evenhandedly regardless of party affiliation is sufficient to gain legislative support for their funding requests.
My preferred approach may be hopelessly naive. Agencies that fail to whip their clients into a frenzy of political action may well fall short of getting their "fair" share of the available public resources.
It certainly strikes me as acceptable for Pace's people to make speeches in favor of SB 572 that may get reported and for Pace's publicity machine to disseminate factual information about Pace's needs and the effect of SB 572. Moreover, as bills go, SB 572 is not a particularly bad one for Pace to use email blasts and other tactics to drum up political support. SB 572 appears to have bipartisan support. Pace's political advocacy on its behalf thus lacks the trappings of a public agency's use of public funds to prop up the platform of one political party.
I'm still troubled, however, by Pace's use of blast email urging its customers to engage in political action on behalf of SB 572. It puts a public agency in the middle of the political thicket. It is a high-risk operation that if effective in getting Pace's customers riled up may risk alienating the legislators and their staffs who have to field the calls and the visits.
I don't know if the retort "every agency is doing it" is factually accurate. Nor do I think that such an assertion, if true, justifies Pace's use of public resources to rev up its customers to do its political bidding.
In the last 48 hours I've received "blast" email from Pace requesting that I contact my legislators and ask them to support Senate Bill 572. The email is as follows:
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO HELP
AVOID A TRANSIT CRISIS
The calls and letters are working, but more support is needed immediately!
With the legislature still in session, Pace urges you to contact your state legislators and the Governor to tell them how important your service is to you.
Without your help, we may not get the required funding to prevent service cuts and fare increases. We encourage you— along with friends and family— to share your concerns about the impact that fare increases, the elimination of all weekend and Metra feeder service, and reduced paratransit service will have on you.
Ask your legislator to support Senate Bill 572, which provides new funding for
public transit. To find your legislators’ contact information, call 847-364-7223 or visit www.pacebus.com to send an email directly to your elected officials TODAY.
Share your story, your Pace service depends on it!
Am I old fashioned in my concern about public agencies using public money and resources (e.g., Pace's email system) to urge members of the public to engage in political action? If public agencies can urge folks to take political action via emails are they justified in using public money to run ads, do fake opinion polls designed to put agency opponents in a bad light, lend their name in support of candidates who support the public agency, and the like?Can a public agency take up legislative causes championed by one political party or a fraction thereof? ("Pace supports Governor Blagoevich's health care plan because healthy bus riders are happy Pace customers. So call your legislators now.") Could Pace champion the fact that "Pace supports Republicans, whose tireless efforts to block a state capital plan over the past four years have helped the transit system immensely." (Or maybe not that one exactly!)
Drawing the the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in terms of using public resources to press for political action by members of the public may be an aesthetic matter as much as a legal matter. (The federal Hatch Act does put some real restrictions on political activities by the employees of state and local agencies that received federal grants but I'm not sure if it reaches the agencies themselves.)
In my admittedly old fashioned view, public agencies should focus on performing the tasks assigned to them by their enabling acts. Their involvement in the political side of things should be limited to providing accurate and complete information to any politician--indeed, any citizen--who asks. This includes, of course, briefing legislators on issues important to the public agency, but it does not include trying to orchestrate direct political pressure on the legislators. Public agencies hope that their good performance and the good will that results from treating all politicians evenhandedly regardless of party affiliation is sufficient to gain legislative support for their funding requests.
My preferred approach may be hopelessly naive. Agencies that fail to whip their clients into a frenzy of political action may well fall short of getting their "fair" share of the available public resources.
It certainly strikes me as acceptable for Pace's people to make speeches in favor of SB 572 that may get reported and for Pace's publicity machine to disseminate factual information about Pace's needs and the effect of SB 572. Moreover, as bills go, SB 572 is not a particularly bad one for Pace to use email blasts and other tactics to drum up political support. SB 572 appears to have bipartisan support. Pace's political advocacy on its behalf thus lacks the trappings of a public agency's use of public funds to prop up the platform of one political party.
I'm still troubled, however, by Pace's use of blast email urging its customers to engage in political action on behalf of SB 572. It puts a public agency in the middle of the political thicket. It is a high-risk operation that if effective in getting Pace's customers riled up may risk alienating the legislators and their staffs who have to field the calls and the visits.
I don't know if the retort "every agency is doing it" is factually accurate. Nor do I think that such an assertion, if true, justifies Pace's use of public resources to rev up its customers to do its political bidding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
