It seems pretty uncontroversial that regular walking is good for people. We are bipedal creatures, after all. Walking gets the heart pumping and doesn't strain us too much. It's a good form of exercise and it is free.
It is a short leap from that common sense proposition to the conclusion that built environments that are not conducive to walking will on average yield a less healthy populace than built environments where regular walking in the course of daily life is encouraged.
Indeed, researchers have been examining the public health implications of the sprawl development patterns that have predominated since World War II. Some have found suggestive casual links between sprawl and unhealthy life practices--e.g., sedentary existences and obesity.
There has been a vigorous counterattack--reminiscent of the attacks on those who have concluded that human activity is responsible for global warming--by those who charge that the researchers are anti-sprawl zealots just itching to build Le Corbusier style apartment blocks over all the picket fenced manses in the Olde Oak Glens areas of the country. There are also plenty of legitimate methodological issues involved in trying to design a rigorous study testing the link between sprawl and public health.
The debate is summarized here. Walk (or drive!) to your nearest library or bookstore and read up on the subject.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
One Trip Generating Idea MBC Forgot
The Final Report of the Moving Beyond Congestion project is packed full of ideas on how to increase the use of public transit in the region.
They missed this technique, however: Bulgaria is showing soft core porn films on plasma TVs in the main bus terminal in the capital city of Sofia.
The rationale for this approach seems almost plausible after the extended cold snap that has gripped this region and made commuting by transit challenging:
A station spokesman said: 'We wanted to give the passengers something to take their minds off the cold and to pass the time while waiting for a bus.'
They missed this technique, however: Bulgaria is showing soft core porn films on plasma TVs in the main bus terminal in the capital city of Sofia.
The rationale for this approach seems almost plausible after the extended cold snap that has gripped this region and made commuting by transit challenging:
A station spokesman said: 'We wanted to give the passengers something to take their minds off the cold and to pass the time while waiting for a bus.'
Friday, February 9, 2007
Dorothy Brown Takes a Swipe
Dorothy Brown, a candidate for Chicago Mayor, took a swipe at the incumbent and his team at the CTA, who she claims are fixated more on glamour projects rather than keeping the existing system in good order.
The media reports that Brown has a public transit plan. Unfortunately, the plan is not yet posted on her campaign website.
The media reports that Brown has a public transit plan. Unfortunately, the plan is not yet posted on her campaign website.
George Ranney Ranting?
George A. Ranney, Jr., currently President and CEO of Chicago Metropolis 2020, was one of the architects of the current RTA Act. Like Helmut Jahn contemplating his Thompson Center design, Ranney appears to be looking back on his creation with some pangs of regret. Ranney has concluded that the RTA is too weak to do much good when it comes to the region's public transit system.
Metropolis 2020 issued a press statement under Ranney's name upon the release of the Moving Beyond Congestion Final Report yesterday. The thrust of the statement is that the RTA "passes money along to the three transit agencies, but it is powerless to demand
improved operations in exchange for those funds."
According to Ranney, the RTA is now but a mere "bureaucratic appendage" of the service boards--CTA, Metra and Pace. He urges that that RTA be given "the ability to direct the flow
of funds to make transit service convenient for all travelers in the region."
Ranney's assessment is that "if the state decides not to entrust the RTA with that power and provides new funding anyway, it will be wasting money on an unaccountable, uncoordinated transit system."
It is unclear what Ranney means when he says that the RTA must have "the ability to direct the flow of funds to make transit service convenient for all travelers in the region." Earlier in the statement he says that "for many, especially suburban commuters, mass transit options are so limited that there is no practical way to ride buses or trains." This would suggest that Ranney joins the suburban cadres who call for more transit service in low-density areas ill-suited to transit because of the cultural preferences and land-use decisions of these same suburbanites. After all, Ranny is a substantial suburban landowner himself, although one who to his great credit is attempting transit supportive development.
More likely, and more charitably, what Ranney really intends is something more than the sight of even more empty Pace buses rolling past the strip malls. Rather, he is urging that the RTA be given "the authority to coordinate and lead the region's three service providers -- the CTA, Metra and Pace -- to perform as an integrated regional system."
The sad truth is that the RTA already has much of the authority needed to "coordinate and lead" us to an integrated regional transit system. The RTA has the power of purse, because it gets 15 percent of the RTA sales tax receipts, including the State of Illinois 25 percent match, that it can use at its discretion. This is plenty of money for the RTA to allocate to projects that will improve and coordinate public transit service in the region. Instead, the RTA sticks to politically-expedient allocation formulas so as to not rock the boat.
The RTA also has the power of the pursestrings. It must approve the service board operating budgets and capital plans, which would give it an ample opportunity to push capital and operating dollars to uses the promote the health of the regional transit system as a whole. The RTA does not exercise this power either.
The RTA is also supposed to take the lead in obtaining state and federal capital for the system, but the RTA has given up this power as well. Ranney is thus on the mark when he describes the RTA as a "bureaucratic appendage" of the service boards.
Perhaps Ranney wants the service boards to become operating units of the RTA, just like the key transit operations are units of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York. That approach did not go well during the first few years after the RTA was created in the mid-1970s. Since this is the same RTA that failed to provide information on how people could use public transit to attend public hearings on the Moving Beyond Congestion initiative, providing detailed driving instructions instead, one wonders whether the RTA is up to the task of actually running a public transit system.
Maybe it is time for a new crew, a new organization altogether, to take this bull by the horns.
Metropolis 2020 issued a press statement under Ranney's name upon the release of the Moving Beyond Congestion Final Report yesterday. The thrust of the statement is that the RTA "passes money along to the three transit agencies, but it is powerless to demand
improved operations in exchange for those funds."
According to Ranney, the RTA is now but a mere "bureaucratic appendage" of the service boards--CTA, Metra and Pace. He urges that that RTA be given "the ability to direct the flow
of funds to make transit service convenient for all travelers in the region."
Ranney's assessment is that "if the state decides not to entrust the RTA with that power and provides new funding anyway, it will be wasting money on an unaccountable, uncoordinated transit system."
It is unclear what Ranney means when he says that the RTA must have "the ability to direct the flow of funds to make transit service convenient for all travelers in the region." Earlier in the statement he says that "for many, especially suburban commuters, mass transit options are so limited that there is no practical way to ride buses or trains." This would suggest that Ranney joins the suburban cadres who call for more transit service in low-density areas ill-suited to transit because of the cultural preferences and land-use decisions of these same suburbanites. After all, Ranny is a substantial suburban landowner himself, although one who to his great credit is attempting transit supportive development.
More likely, and more charitably, what Ranney really intends is something more than the sight of even more empty Pace buses rolling past the strip malls. Rather, he is urging that the RTA be given "the authority to coordinate and lead the region's three service providers -- the CTA, Metra and Pace -- to perform as an integrated regional system."
The sad truth is that the RTA already has much of the authority needed to "coordinate and lead" us to an integrated regional transit system. The RTA has the power of purse, because it gets 15 percent of the RTA sales tax receipts, including the State of Illinois 25 percent match, that it can use at its discretion. This is plenty of money for the RTA to allocate to projects that will improve and coordinate public transit service in the region. Instead, the RTA sticks to politically-expedient allocation formulas so as to not rock the boat.
The RTA also has the power of the pursestrings. It must approve the service board operating budgets and capital plans, which would give it an ample opportunity to push capital and operating dollars to uses the promote the health of the regional transit system as a whole. The RTA does not exercise this power either.
The RTA is also supposed to take the lead in obtaining state and federal capital for the system, but the RTA has given up this power as well. Ranney is thus on the mark when he describes the RTA as a "bureaucratic appendage" of the service boards.
Perhaps Ranney wants the service boards to become operating units of the RTA, just like the key transit operations are units of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York. That approach did not go well during the first few years after the RTA was created in the mid-1970s. Since this is the same RTA that failed to provide information on how people could use public transit to attend public hearings on the Moving Beyond Congestion initiative, providing detailed driving instructions instead, one wonders whether the RTA is up to the task of actually running a public transit system.
Maybe it is time for a new crew, a new organization altogether, to take this bull by the horns.
More Media Response to MBC Final Report
There was a bit of a morning after hangover tone to the media coverage of the Moving Beyond Congestion's final Report.
Joe Ryan, whose Daily Herald beat is focused on the good burghers of suburbia, was the most pessimistic. His story opened with the two ominous paragraphs:
Key politicians plugged their ears Thursday to cries from business, labor and transit advocates to relieve congestion through $5 billion in new taxes for road, train and bus repairs and upgrades.
At the same time, sparring between Chicago and suburban leaders appears to be undermining once-budding local support for one of Illinois’ biggest transportation packages ever.
Apparently Joe didn't interview Chicago Transit Authority President Frank Kruesi, who was quoted by WBBM 780 as follows:
CTA President Frank Kruesi noted that the turf wars of recent years have given way to unanimity in the lobbying effort, and called it "an extraordinary day.”
Truly an extraordinary day if such is the case.
The same article reports that the RTA Chairman has not yet met with the Governor to discuss the MBC's proposals, a somewhat troubling confession from someone leading the charge to extract up to $12 billion in new State money over the next five years.
The Northwest Indiana Times, in an article under the misleading headline "RTA: Transit Seeks $2 Billion State Boost," takes the novel approach of interviewing a few people on the street about the recently released 136 page report packed full of facts and figures. The comments are predictable. People want substantially better transit service for little or no new money.
The Chicago Tribune talked to Julie Hamos, the head of the House Committee on Mass Transit. She stated that the Committee will hold hearings on the MBC proposals next month. Hamos welcomed the fact that the Report did not propose a specific package of revenue enhancements:
It's probably a good idea the RTA did not give us a specific funding approach. Then it's too easy to shoot it down," Hamos said. "It makes sense to put forward a whole set of options. Then we'll see if we can forge a bipartisan consensus."
Such a bipartisan consensus might be tough to build, if comments from the Govenor's office are any indication. The article goes on to quote a spokesperson from that office as saying: "It would be shortsighted of the RTA to rely solely on the state to fill its budget needs." Speaker Madigan's office was equally lukewarm, according to the article.
It is a long road ahead. Hopefully, the RTA, the service boards and the other MBC proponents can be nimble enough in Springfield to put together under tight time pressures a package of cost-saving operational efficiencies and reasonable revenue enhancements that can at least preserve the existing public transit system in good order.
Joe Ryan, whose Daily Herald beat is focused on the good burghers of suburbia, was the most pessimistic. His story opened with the two ominous paragraphs:
Key politicians plugged their ears Thursday to cries from business, labor and transit advocates to relieve congestion through $5 billion in new taxes for road, train and bus repairs and upgrades.
At the same time, sparring between Chicago and suburban leaders appears to be undermining once-budding local support for one of Illinois’ biggest transportation packages ever.
Apparently Joe didn't interview Chicago Transit Authority President Frank Kruesi, who was quoted by WBBM 780 as follows:
CTA President Frank Kruesi noted that the turf wars of recent years have given way to unanimity in the lobbying effort, and called it "an extraordinary day.”
Truly an extraordinary day if such is the case.
The same article reports that the RTA Chairman has not yet met with the Governor to discuss the MBC's proposals, a somewhat troubling confession from someone leading the charge to extract up to $12 billion in new State money over the next five years.
The Northwest Indiana Times, in an article under the misleading headline "RTA: Transit Seeks $2 Billion State Boost," takes the novel approach of interviewing a few people on the street about the recently released 136 page report packed full of facts and figures. The comments are predictable. People want substantially better transit service for little or no new money.
The Chicago Tribune talked to Julie Hamos, the head of the House Committee on Mass Transit. She stated that the Committee will hold hearings on the MBC proposals next month. Hamos welcomed the fact that the Report did not propose a specific package of revenue enhancements:
It's probably a good idea the RTA did not give us a specific funding approach. Then it's too easy to shoot it down," Hamos said. "It makes sense to put forward a whole set of options. Then we'll see if we can forge a bipartisan consensus."
Such a bipartisan consensus might be tough to build, if comments from the Govenor's office are any indication. The article goes on to quote a spokesperson from that office as saying: "It would be shortsighted of the RTA to rely solely on the state to fill its budget needs." Speaker Madigan's office was equally lukewarm, according to the article.
It is a long road ahead. Hopefully, the RTA, the service boards and the other MBC proponents can be nimble enough in Springfield to put together under tight time pressures a package of cost-saving operational efficiencies and reasonable revenue enhancements that can at least preserve the existing public transit system in good order.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
NCBG R.I.P
The Neighborhood Capital Budget Group has expired.
For almost 20 year NCBG has played an active role on transit issues. It could be counted on for a gritty, practical perspective on transit funding and transit operations issues. Unlike many academic and think tank analyses, which hide all sorts of class and racial assumptions under the rubric of "efficiency," the NCBG was never shy about discussing race and equity issues as they related to transit.
The NCBG website is here. The website of the Campaign for Better Transit, one of the NCBG's major initiatives, is here. The wealth of reports and other information about transit-related issues may be posted for only a few more weeks, so download away.
It would be great to have had NCBG's perspective on the Moving Beyond Congestion (and TFIF) initiative. Losing NCBG's voice will impoverish the ongoing discussion about transit issues in the region.
For almost 20 year NCBG has played an active role on transit issues. It could be counted on for a gritty, practical perspective on transit funding and transit operations issues. Unlike many academic and think tank analyses, which hide all sorts of class and racial assumptions under the rubric of "efficiency," the NCBG was never shy about discussing race and equity issues as they related to transit.
The NCBG website is here. The website of the Campaign for Better Transit, one of the NCBG's major initiatives, is here. The wealth of reports and other information about transit-related issues may be posted for only a few more weeks, so download away.
It would be great to have had NCBG's perspective on the Moving Beyond Congestion (and TFIF) initiative. Losing NCBG's voice will impoverish the ongoing discussion about transit issues in the region.
And Don't Forget The TFIC
The Transportation for Illinois Coalition (TFIF), a project of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, made a bit of a splash the day before the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents released their final Report.
According to reports (e.g., here) the TFIC and the AFL-CIO have collaborated on a report recommending--surprise--an increase in funding for the Illinois transportation system. TFIF representatives spent yesterday in Springfield lobbying legislators, armed with a fact sheet and report that it has not yet seen fit to share with the public. (Unfortunately, the full report is still not available on the TFIF website.)
The Coalition recommends a $10.8 billion annual investment in the State's transportation system. This is about $5 billion more than the current annual outlay. The Coalition recommends that this new money be allocated as follows:
-- $1.8 billion for state highways
-- $340 million for local roads
-- $2 billion in Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) capital
-- $61 million, downstate transit capital
-- $400 million, RTA operating
-- $35 million, downstate transit operating
-- $100 million, Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation
Efficiency program (easing freight rail congestion in northern
Illinois)
-- $6 million, state rail freight
-- $260 million, intercity passenger rail
-- $20 million, airports outside Chicago
Under this proposal, public transit will get almost exactly half of the new money. Note that the new operating subsidy for the RTA is $400 million, which is more than the $225 million in the RTA's 2007 budget, but close to what the RTA will need to close the deficit in 2009.
It is pretty incredible to think that the General Assembly will allocate half of this new money to public transit when public transit accounts for a small percentage of total trips in the State as a whole and even in Northeastern Illinois.
Both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, the key members of TFIC, are card carrying members of the Moving Beyond Congestion group. One wonders if the MBC proponents wrote the script for TFIC. It seems a bit beyond coincidence that the MBC and TFIF propose the same amounts of new money for the RTA system: $2 billion a year in new capital money and $400 million a year in new operating money over the next five years.
Perhaps this will be the year for a transit home run if indeed business and labor heavy hitters join the MBC effort.
According to reports (e.g., here) the TFIC and the AFL-CIO have collaborated on a report recommending--surprise--an increase in funding for the Illinois transportation system. TFIF representatives spent yesterday in Springfield lobbying legislators, armed with a fact sheet and report that it has not yet seen fit to share with the public. (Unfortunately, the full report is still not available on the TFIF website.)
The Coalition recommends a $10.8 billion annual investment in the State's transportation system. This is about $5 billion more than the current annual outlay. The Coalition recommends that this new money be allocated as follows:
-- $1.8 billion for state highways
-- $340 million for local roads
-- $2 billion in Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) capital
-- $61 million, downstate transit capital
-- $400 million, RTA operating
-- $35 million, downstate transit operating
-- $100 million, Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation
Efficiency program (easing freight rail congestion in northern
Illinois)
-- $6 million, state rail freight
-- $260 million, intercity passenger rail
-- $20 million, airports outside Chicago
Under this proposal, public transit will get almost exactly half of the new money. Note that the new operating subsidy for the RTA is $400 million, which is more than the $225 million in the RTA's 2007 budget, but close to what the RTA will need to close the deficit in 2009.
It is pretty incredible to think that the General Assembly will allocate half of this new money to public transit when public transit accounts for a small percentage of total trips in the State as a whole and even in Northeastern Illinois.
Both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, the key members of TFIC, are card carrying members of the Moving Beyond Congestion group. One wonders if the MBC proponents wrote the script for TFIC. It seems a bit beyond coincidence that the MBC and TFIF propose the same amounts of new money for the RTA system: $2 billion a year in new capital money and $400 million a year in new operating money over the next five years.
Perhaps this will be the year for a transit home run if indeed business and labor heavy hitters join the MBC effort.
It's Here! MBC's Final Report
The Moving Beyond Congestion project's final report, entitled "2007 - The Year of Decision: Regional Transportation Strategic Plan," has been released.
You can find the Report here.
The Report is 135 pages long. At first glance it appears much improved over the MBC's draft report (yanked from the MBC website). Indeed, it appears filled with crackling good ideas that were largely absent from the draft report--things like congestion pricing, tying new transit investment to transit oriented development requirements, greater coordination of highway and transit service, lessons learned from transit funding overseas. The list of interesting ideas in the Report appears to be a long one.
There are some disturbing things as well, such as an analysis that the net present value of the benefits from the proposed new capital investment in the transit system over the next five years barely equals the price of that investment.
The Report has a five year horizon, which permits a much sharper focus than the 30 year program in the draft report. It proposes $10 billion in new capital dollars and $2 billion in new operating dollars over the next five years. The Report outlines a menu of options for raising that kind of new money, but the MBC proponents throw themselves on the mercy of the General Assembly and the Governor in that regard.
There appear to be no recommendations for changing the organizational structure or governance of regional transit. The list of capital projects appears to be mere roll-ups of the CTA, Metra and Pace wish lists. But at least this time the work is animated by a spark of creativity and a greater sense of confidence. It will be fun to spend some quality time with this Report.
Here are some initial news reports on the Report. (Crain's, Chicago Tribune, Channel 7, Daily Herald). Once the news media move on to other stories, we can dig into the Report in some detail.
You can find the Report here.
The Report is 135 pages long. At first glance it appears much improved over the MBC's draft report (yanked from the MBC website). Indeed, it appears filled with crackling good ideas that were largely absent from the draft report--things like congestion pricing, tying new transit investment to transit oriented development requirements, greater coordination of highway and transit service, lessons learned from transit funding overseas. The list of interesting ideas in the Report appears to be a long one.
There are some disturbing things as well, such as an analysis that the net present value of the benefits from the proposed new capital investment in the transit system over the next five years barely equals the price of that investment.
The Report has a five year horizon, which permits a much sharper focus than the 30 year program in the draft report. It proposes $10 billion in new capital dollars and $2 billion in new operating dollars over the next five years. The Report outlines a menu of options for raising that kind of new money, but the MBC proponents throw themselves on the mercy of the General Assembly and the Governor in that regard.
There appear to be no recommendations for changing the organizational structure or governance of regional transit. The list of capital projects appears to be mere roll-ups of the CTA, Metra and Pace wish lists. But at least this time the work is animated by a spark of creativity and a greater sense of confidence. It will be fun to spend some quality time with this Report.
Here are some initial news reports on the Report. (Crain's, Chicago Tribune, Channel 7, Daily Herald). Once the news media move on to other stories, we can dig into the Report in some detail.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
More on Privatization
A few posts back we noted the hint that the RTA was considering privatization of at least a portion of the region's public transit system. Such a move seems uncharacteristically bold of the RTA and the service board members (CTA, Metra, Pace) of the Moving Beyond Congestion initiative. After all, the CTA complained bitterly in its latest budget document (accessible here) about an arbitrator's failure to allow it to implement over $100 million annually in labor cost savings, yet the Moving Beyond Congestion folks have yet to propose any legislation that would allow the RTA and the service boards to address labor cost issues.
There is a wide range of privatization options and a wide variety of opinions about whether privatization makes sense. Here's just a sampling of a large literature on privatization:
The 1999 report by the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the New York City MTA entitled "Privatizing MTA Services, Cost Savings or Political Buzzword?" is a good introduction to the issue. The report recommends against sweeping privatization, but identifies several situations in which privatization might work.
"A New Look at Urban Transit: Control vs. Market Approaches," is an article by John Due, a professor emeritis at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He argues that the persistence of public transit being run by governmant monopolies in the face of determined calls by free marketeers for privatization suggests that the public really does prefer the current big vehicle/big streets natural monopoly model.
A highly critical article by Maria Tomchick on the privatization of British Rail.
A study by Neal Denno (National Transit Institute) and Martin Robins (Transportation Policy Institute) to the effect transit labor costs in the 1982-97 period did not grow abnormally. Labor cost savings are one of the highly-touted benefits of privatization. This study suggests that the opportunity for such savings may be overstated by the proponents of privatization.
Gary Becker/Richard Posner exchange on privatization of government assets.
Article by Professor Ian Savage entitled "Can Privatization Solve All of Chicago's Public Transportation Problems." The good professor seems to think so.
There is a wide range of privatization options and a wide variety of opinions about whether privatization makes sense. Here's just a sampling of a large literature on privatization:
The 1999 report by the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the New York City MTA entitled "Privatizing MTA Services, Cost Savings or Political Buzzword?" is a good introduction to the issue. The report recommends against sweeping privatization, but identifies several situations in which privatization might work.
"A New Look at Urban Transit: Control vs. Market Approaches," is an article by John Due, a professor emeritis at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He argues that the persistence of public transit being run by governmant monopolies in the face of determined calls by free marketeers for privatization suggests that the public really does prefer the current big vehicle/big streets natural monopoly model.
A highly critical article by Maria Tomchick on the privatization of British Rail.
A study by Neal Denno (National Transit Institute) and Martin Robins (Transportation Policy Institute) to the effect transit labor costs in the 1982-97 period did not grow abnormally. Labor cost savings are one of the highly-touted benefits of privatization. This study suggests that the opportunity for such savings may be overstated by the proponents of privatization.
Gary Becker/Richard Posner exchange on privatization of government assets.
Article by Professor Ian Savage entitled "Can Privatization Solve All of Chicago's Public Transportation Problems." The good professor seems to think so.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Trick Bag: The Limits on the RTA's Power to Generate New Revenue
Given Greg Hinz's recent pessimistic assessment of the prospects for the State to step up with a new $225 million operating subsidy on top of the State's existing financial support for public transit in the six-county Chicago region, the reader will surely ask "why can't the RTA use its powers to raise revenue in the region?" It turns out that the RTA's power to impose new taxes has been crippled legislatively.
Sections 4.03 and 4.03.1 of the RTA Act set out the RTA's power to impose various kinds of taxes. There are two key bundles of taxes. Sections 4.03(b) - 4.03(d) consist of a gas tax and a tax on for-profit parking spaces. These taxes are imposed uniformly throughout the region.
The second bundle of taxes are regional sales taxes, found at sections 4.03(e) - 4.03(g) of the RTA Act. These taxes are imposed in a non-uniform manner. Cook County residents pay at a rate of 1 percent. Collar county (Lake, McHenry, Kane, DuPage, Will) residents pay at a rate of 0.25 percent.
During its early years, the RTA apparently imposed a gas tax. A gas tax makes sense because it send drivers a price incentive to use public transit, which is being funded by the tax. The gas tax apparently proved unpopular, especially in the suburbs, where people felt they weren't getting their money's worth of transit. The revenue stream was not steady from this tax either. Consequently, the RTA board abolished the gas tax and replaced it with the current sales tax.
So why doesn't the RTA raise the sales tax? It cannot, because the current sales tax rates are capped by statute. So why doesn't the RTA reimpose the gas tax and throw in the parking space tax to boot? It cannot do that either due to 4.03(p) of the RTA Act, which provides that the RTA cannot impose the gas/parking space taxes at the same time that it imposes the sales tax.
Nor can the RTA even decide to revoke the sales tax and go back to the gas tax. Section 4.03(p) goes on to provide that once the RTA has imposed the sales tax it cannot reimpose the gas tax (and parking space tax) unless the sales tax "becomes ineffective by means other than a [RTA] Board ordinance." In other words, only if a court strikes down the sales tax or the General Assembly revokes it can the RTA move back to a gas tax.
Now we know why the RTA is in Springfield hat in hand.
Sections 4.03 and 4.03.1 of the RTA Act set out the RTA's power to impose various kinds of taxes. There are two key bundles of taxes. Sections 4.03(b) - 4.03(d) consist of a gas tax and a tax on for-profit parking spaces. These taxes are imposed uniformly throughout the region.
The second bundle of taxes are regional sales taxes, found at sections 4.03(e) - 4.03(g) of the RTA Act. These taxes are imposed in a non-uniform manner. Cook County residents pay at a rate of 1 percent. Collar county (Lake, McHenry, Kane, DuPage, Will) residents pay at a rate of 0.25 percent.
During its early years, the RTA apparently imposed a gas tax. A gas tax makes sense because it send drivers a price incentive to use public transit, which is being funded by the tax. The gas tax apparently proved unpopular, especially in the suburbs, where people felt they weren't getting their money's worth of transit. The revenue stream was not steady from this tax either. Consequently, the RTA board abolished the gas tax and replaced it with the current sales tax.
So why doesn't the RTA raise the sales tax? It cannot, because the current sales tax rates are capped by statute. So why doesn't the RTA reimpose the gas tax and throw in the parking space tax to boot? It cannot do that either due to 4.03(p) of the RTA Act, which provides that the RTA cannot impose the gas/parking space taxes at the same time that it imposes the sales tax.
Nor can the RTA even decide to revoke the sales tax and go back to the gas tax. Section 4.03(p) goes on to provide that once the RTA has imposed the sales tax it cannot reimpose the gas tax (and parking space tax) unless the sales tax "becomes ineffective by means other than a [RTA] Board ordinance." In other words, only if a court strikes down the sales tax or the General Assembly revokes it can the RTA move back to a gas tax.
Now we know why the RTA is in Springfield hat in hand.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
MBC Plan: DOA In The General Assembly?
Greg Hinz has an article in today's Crain's Chicago Business that all but pronounces the proposal by the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents for an extra $225 million in operating subsidies in 2007 dead on arrival in the General Assembly.
The thrust of the article is that the key State leaders have higher priorities than transit. Senate President Jones is focused on education funding, Speaker Madigan is focused on government employee pension obligations and Governor Blagojevich is focused on health care.
The articles states that "at a minimum" the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents are likely to seek about $150 million a year in new money to fill holes in the operating budges of the three service boards, the CTA, Metra and Pace.
This figure may be too low because it ignores the State subsidy for paratransit service, which in the RTA's budget brings the total request for new money to $225 million. Alternatively, Hinz is privy to a plan by the MBC proponents to come to the General Assembly with a package of cost cutting measures in order to soften the pain from the new money request. Hinz's statement later in the article that the CTA has resisted detailing service cuts if no bailout package in approved suggests that his math is incomplete.
The article notes the City/suburban political fault line that may prevent a bailout this legislative session, observing that "the mayor [of Chicago] has made it clear he opposes tying new funds to a shift of power from the CTA to the RTA" while "some transit experts and suburban leaders argue that only a strengthened RTA can fully monitor spending and set regional priorities."
The stage is being set for some interesting political brinkmanship. Now that Pace has taken over the region's paratransit service its appetite for new public subsidies has increased dramatically. Thus, the suburban public officials have a greater incentive to work with the MBC proponents on this legislative push for more funding.
If funding for paratransit service can be secured separately, however, then suburban officials may be sorely tempted to let the CTA face the music and cut service and raise fares. (Metra can do fine if its raises fares a bit.) Then the City of Chicago can maintain its control over the CTA and take the heat for the shrinkage of the CTA system.
It will be up to the RTA to try to keep its MBC coalition together is the face of these competing interests. Given the RTA's long-time allegiance with Metra and suburban public officials, holding together this coalition will require the RTA to undergo a cultural change of its own.
Hinz' assessment is as follows:
The best odds are for a capital plan, because it's politically tied to new money for highways. Operating assistance is a harder sell unless the CTA unveils extremely deep service cuts, something it has been reluctant to do so far.
This might not be much of a solution. The service boards would be inclined to convert any extra capital funds to cover their operating deficits, something they have been doing the past several years. This only postpones the inevitable point where the operating deficit can no longer be bridged, even by raiding the seed corn.
After several years when it has allowed the service boards to use operating funds to cover operating needs, would the RTA board have the gumption to say no when the service boards wanted to use new capital dollars to stave off service cuts and fare increases. It is doubtful that the board would do so. At a minimum the Chicago representatives and the CTA Chairman likely would exercise their precarious veto power to block approval of an RTA budget that denied the service boards the right to tap into capital funds to pay operating expenses.
If, however, the General Assembly conditioned new capital investment in public transit upon a requirement that the new capital funds not be converted to cover operating expenses then the region could face the difficult choices of how much public transit service it wants rolled out in the region. In other words, we might get newer buses and train cars but less service.
The thrust of the article is that the key State leaders have higher priorities than transit. Senate President Jones is focused on education funding, Speaker Madigan is focused on government employee pension obligations and Governor Blagojevich is focused on health care.
The articles states that "at a minimum" the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents are likely to seek about $150 million a year in new money to fill holes in the operating budges of the three service boards, the CTA, Metra and Pace.
This figure may be too low because it ignores the State subsidy for paratransit service, which in the RTA's budget brings the total request for new money to $225 million. Alternatively, Hinz is privy to a plan by the MBC proponents to come to the General Assembly with a package of cost cutting measures in order to soften the pain from the new money request. Hinz's statement later in the article that the CTA has resisted detailing service cuts if no bailout package in approved suggests that his math is incomplete.
The article notes the City/suburban political fault line that may prevent a bailout this legislative session, observing that "the mayor [of Chicago] has made it clear he opposes tying new funds to a shift of power from the CTA to the RTA" while "some transit experts and suburban leaders argue that only a strengthened RTA can fully monitor spending and set regional priorities."
The stage is being set for some interesting political brinkmanship. Now that Pace has taken over the region's paratransit service its appetite for new public subsidies has increased dramatically. Thus, the suburban public officials have a greater incentive to work with the MBC proponents on this legislative push for more funding.
If funding for paratransit service can be secured separately, however, then suburban officials may be sorely tempted to let the CTA face the music and cut service and raise fares. (Metra can do fine if its raises fares a bit.) Then the City of Chicago can maintain its control over the CTA and take the heat for the shrinkage of the CTA system.
It will be up to the RTA to try to keep its MBC coalition together is the face of these competing interests. Given the RTA's long-time allegiance with Metra and suburban public officials, holding together this coalition will require the RTA to undergo a cultural change of its own.
Hinz' assessment is as follows:
The best odds are for a capital plan, because it's politically tied to new money for highways. Operating assistance is a harder sell unless the CTA unveils extremely deep service cuts, something it has been reluctant to do so far.
This might not be much of a solution. The service boards would be inclined to convert any extra capital funds to cover their operating deficits, something they have been doing the past several years. This only postpones the inevitable point where the operating deficit can no longer be bridged, even by raiding the seed corn.
After several years when it has allowed the service boards to use operating funds to cover operating needs, would the RTA board have the gumption to say no when the service boards wanted to use new capital dollars to stave off service cuts and fare increases. It is doubtful that the board would do so. At a minimum the Chicago representatives and the CTA Chairman likely would exercise their precarious veto power to block approval of an RTA budget that denied the service boards the right to tap into capital funds to pay operating expenses.
If, however, the General Assembly conditioned new capital investment in public transit upon a requirement that the new capital funds not be converted to cover operating expenses then the region could face the difficult choices of how much public transit service it wants rolled out in the region. In other words, we might get newer buses and train cars but less service.
How About A Transit Funding Referendum?
The RTA was created in 1974 when the voters in the six-county region narrowly approved the RTA. (See section 1.05 of the RTA Act and RTA history.) Is another referendum, this time on the issue of regional transit funding, something the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents such as the CTA, Metra and Pace should consider?
It seems likely that this spring the General Assembly will pass some sort of State capital funding bill and that the transit agencies will get their share of this money. Reopening the capital funding spigot will relieve some pressure facing the transit agencies on the capital side.
The tougher sell for the MBC proponents is their request for a new $225 million operating subsidy for 2007, which comes on top of the State's substantial existing financial support for the transit agencies. If the legislators read the RTA's 2007 budget book, they will also see that this new operating subsidy (including paratransit) is projected to grow to $430 million by 2009, a 91% increase in just three years. (Budget Book, pg. 5 of 50)
The General Assembly may well balk at this kind of "blank check" new subsidy. Presumably, it will be tough to drum up much support among downstate legislators for shifting this kind of new State money to Chicago area public transit. Transit proponents are competing with supporters of increased school funding and universal health care for scarce public dollars. Are taxpayers and their representatives likely to rank public transit--which in the end will provide limited congestion relief and modest environmental benefits--over education and healthcare.
Raising the RTA's sales tax in the five collar counties is likely to be a political tough sell. The collar counties already contribute 16% of the RTA's sales tax revenue and that percentage is growing as the collar counties continue to attract new residents and jobs. Suburban legislators will argue why should the collar counties increase that level of financial contribution to the RTA system when the collar counties generate less than 8% of the transit trips in the region. (See here at page 13 of 18.) (Note, however, that the same data shows that collar county riders consume 25% of the vehicle miles produced by the regional transit system.)
Might a politically palatable--even astute--approach be to put any regional tax increase or other RTA revenue enhancement technique on the ballot in the six counties? Who better to decide if the congestion relief and environmental benefits of public transit are worth the price quoted by the MBC proponents than the voters who use our regional transportation system every day.
The MBC proponents might consider a referendum a death sentence for their initiative to increase funding for public transit. They should reconsider. The Center for Transportation Excellence has tracked the fate of the many transit funding referenda from around the county. As this report and supplement show, transit funding referenda have a passage rate of approximately 70 percent. The defeats tend to come in those areas when a super-majority vote is required for passage.
This spring the MBC proponents may well fail to obtain sufficient State support for their request for a sharp increase in operating funding for public transit. Rather than walk away from Springfield empty-handed or with insufficient new State operating funding to stave off major service cuts or fare increases, the MBC proponents should consider making the following proposal: If the General Assembly provides sufficient operating funding through the end of 2007 in November 2007 there will be a referendum on the ballot in the six-county region asking for voter approval of a package of tax increases and revenue enhancements that will make up the difference between any additional operating funding the State is willing to supply and what is necessary to maintain, if not grow, the public transit system in the region. (A referendum at the time of the 2008 Illinois primary might be an even more favorable time for such a referendum, but who knows if the State will be willing to wait that long.)
The legislation could be crafted in the form of a sort of challenge grant. The State might pledge to provide a higher level of operating and capital funding if and only if the region approves a referendum that results in the region raising significantly more revenue for public transit. If the referendum is not approved, then State support would continue, but at a significantly lower level and our public transit system would begin shrinking and/or fares would increase sharply.
Certainly, it is not unreasonable for the State to insist that the voters and taxpayers in the six-county region show their support for public transit before the State substantially increases its financial commitment to public transit. The MBC's public hearings late last year were sparsely attended, suggesting that the general public may be indifferent to the prospect of a slimmed down public transit system. Might this referendum process energize the RTA and the MBC proponents to connect with the public and make their case for public transit in the region in a compelling manner.
Unless the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents get too greedy and seek an unrealistically high bundle of new taxes and fees, the prospects for passage of this referendum would be good. First, the requirement of a simple majority to pass the referendum would set the bar lower for the proponents and suggest that a 70% chance of passage is very realistic. Second, the challenge grant approach would be a powerful tool to help persuade voters in the region to support the transit funding referendum to ensure that the region will not "leave on the table" State transit funding.
Maybe it is time to hear directly from the people on transit funding.
It seems likely that this spring the General Assembly will pass some sort of State capital funding bill and that the transit agencies will get their share of this money. Reopening the capital funding spigot will relieve some pressure facing the transit agencies on the capital side.
The tougher sell for the MBC proponents is their request for a new $225 million operating subsidy for 2007, which comes on top of the State's substantial existing financial support for the transit agencies. If the legislators read the RTA's 2007 budget book, they will also see that this new operating subsidy (including paratransit) is projected to grow to $430 million by 2009, a 91% increase in just three years. (Budget Book, pg. 5 of 50)
The General Assembly may well balk at this kind of "blank check" new subsidy. Presumably, it will be tough to drum up much support among downstate legislators for shifting this kind of new State money to Chicago area public transit. Transit proponents are competing with supporters of increased school funding and universal health care for scarce public dollars. Are taxpayers and their representatives likely to rank public transit--which in the end will provide limited congestion relief and modest environmental benefits--over education and healthcare.
Raising the RTA's sales tax in the five collar counties is likely to be a political tough sell. The collar counties already contribute 16% of the RTA's sales tax revenue and that percentage is growing as the collar counties continue to attract new residents and jobs. Suburban legislators will argue why should the collar counties increase that level of financial contribution to the RTA system when the collar counties generate less than 8% of the transit trips in the region. (See here at page 13 of 18.) (Note, however, that the same data shows that collar county riders consume 25% of the vehicle miles produced by the regional transit system.)
Might a politically palatable--even astute--approach be to put any regional tax increase or other RTA revenue enhancement technique on the ballot in the six counties? Who better to decide if the congestion relief and environmental benefits of public transit are worth the price quoted by the MBC proponents than the voters who use our regional transportation system every day.
The MBC proponents might consider a referendum a death sentence for their initiative to increase funding for public transit. They should reconsider. The Center for Transportation Excellence has tracked the fate of the many transit funding referenda from around the county. As this report and supplement show, transit funding referenda have a passage rate of approximately 70 percent. The defeats tend to come in those areas when a super-majority vote is required for passage.
This spring the MBC proponents may well fail to obtain sufficient State support for their request for a sharp increase in operating funding for public transit. Rather than walk away from Springfield empty-handed or with insufficient new State operating funding to stave off major service cuts or fare increases, the MBC proponents should consider making the following proposal: If the General Assembly provides sufficient operating funding through the end of 2007 in November 2007 there will be a referendum on the ballot in the six-county region asking for voter approval of a package of tax increases and revenue enhancements that will make up the difference between any additional operating funding the State is willing to supply and what is necessary to maintain, if not grow, the public transit system in the region. (A referendum at the time of the 2008 Illinois primary might be an even more favorable time for such a referendum, but who knows if the State will be willing to wait that long.)
The legislation could be crafted in the form of a sort of challenge grant. The State might pledge to provide a higher level of operating and capital funding if and only if the region approves a referendum that results in the region raising significantly more revenue for public transit. If the referendum is not approved, then State support would continue, but at a significantly lower level and our public transit system would begin shrinking and/or fares would increase sharply.
Certainly, it is not unreasonable for the State to insist that the voters and taxpayers in the six-county region show their support for public transit before the State substantially increases its financial commitment to public transit. The MBC's public hearings late last year were sparsely attended, suggesting that the general public may be indifferent to the prospect of a slimmed down public transit system. Might this referendum process energize the RTA and the MBC proponents to connect with the public and make their case for public transit in the region in a compelling manner.
Unless the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents get too greedy and seek an unrealistically high bundle of new taxes and fees, the prospects for passage of this referendum would be good. First, the requirement of a simple majority to pass the referendum would set the bar lower for the proponents and suggest that a 70% chance of passage is very realistic. Second, the challenge grant approach would be a powerful tool to help persuade voters in the region to support the transit funding referendum to ensure that the region will not "leave on the table" State transit funding.
Maybe it is time to hear directly from the people on transit funding.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Great Scott! Is The RTA Considering Privatization?
Scott McPherson, identified in a recent article as an RTA spokeman, may have earned he and his RTA colleagues a whole new set of friends.
At a meeting with south suburban officials, McPherson hinted that the RTA and the rest of the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents will be asking for an increase in the RTA's sales tax, which is currently 1 percent in Cook County but only 0.25% in the collar counties. So far, no surprises. This tax increase trial balloon has been released at many MBC events. Thus far, the tax increase idea has yet to be pricked.
But this is not all that McPherson said. The article quotes him as follows:
McPherson said that in addition to state and federal funding, RTA is considering privatization and bonding to hedge the budget shortfall.
Neither privatization nor bonding have been publicly reported as ideas being considered by the MBC proponents. But the whiff of such initiatives no doubt will get the investment banker and bond counsel types all wound up and beating a path to the senior executives at the RTA.
The bonding idea doesn't deserve much comment at this point. It is not likely that going into debt to meet operating expenses--assuming this is what McPherson meant--will meet with much favor. That is not much of a long-term strategy, although it may be necessary if the General Assembly rejects some or all of the proposed increase in the State operating subsidy sought by the MBC proponents.
The privatization idea, however, is much more intriguing. At first glance, the idea seems like a complete non-starter. After all, the transit agencies lose copious amounts of money, have high capital investment requirements, are heavily regulated, and are closely scrutinized by the media and the public. Who wouldn't want to shell out lots of money for that kind of asset?
So it is unlikely that by privatization the RTA/MBC means a long-term lease of the public transit system in exchange for an upfront payment like the $1.9 billion the City of Chicago received for a long-term lease of the Chicago Skyway. It is more likely that the RTA is intending to privatize some or all of the service provided by the public transit agencies.
This is just speculation of course, but here is how it might work. The RTA would put together a package consisting of (a) a bundle of public transit services (e.g., north suburban bus service), the equipment and other capital assets used for such service (e.g., buses) and, most importantly, the subsidies that would be payable to that service if it continued in public hands.
A private operator selected through competitive bidding would then agree to provide service according to the RTA's service standards. This operator would not be subject to the public sector labor contracts and work rules that continue to cost the service boards so much. If the private operator can deliver quality service at lower cost than the service board then the operator will, in effect, be able to pocket a portion of the RTA's operating subsidy pledged to it for its profit. (Note: Isn't there an onerous federal law that bars displacing public sector transit service employees by letting private operators use federally funded capital assets?)
This kind of privatization would send a shock wave through the area's transportation system and no doubt the political system as well. Labor strife would be guaranteed. Nonetheless, this model has been used in other countries with some success (e.g., British bus service). The City of Chicago is no stranger to privatization, as the labor unions' recent refusal to endorse Mayor Daley for re-election indicates.
Privatization might be the last best hope that the RTA/MBC proponents have to rein in labor costs, improve customer service and increase service efficiency before a transit system meltdown. After all, the MBC's request for additional operating subsidies starts at over $200 million for 2007 and rises rapidly after that. There is no guarantee that the General Assembly is going to give the RTA and the service boards that kind of blank check unless they take radical cost cutting measures.
Public transit systems rest on the notion that public transportation is a "natural monopoly" best left to public agencies with the exclusive franchise to run mass transit. That model may have fit the era--immediately after World World II--when public transit agencies emerged. The proliferation of private transportation providers such as those awful fake trolleys, employer-run bus shuttles, paratransit service providers and the like suggests that there may be real opportunities for some of the current public transit service to be shifted to private parties.
Such privately provided transit service would have to meet service standards, safety and other reasonable requirements. The RTA could be very helpful in prescribing a technological platform so that privately-supplied vehicles could be tracked and put into real-time vehicle arrival databases and the like. Maybe this effort could be the wedge by which the RTA finally prescribes a fare collection system that allows seamless travel among the various transit providers via a single fare card.
There are many hazards in this approach. The RTA's lack of spine when it comes to managing capital investments suggests that it would be incapable of the hard work of competitively bidding transit work to private providers, negotiating appropriate contracts and supervising the private providers to ensure that they are complying with the contracts.
However, energized by a legislative vote of confidence or scared stiff by the prospect of massive service cuts/fare increases if the MBC proponents return from Springfleld empty handed, the RTA just might find itself to try privatization. Indeed, the RTA Act already allows the RTA to enter into purchase of service contracts with private companies. But go through the hassle of privatization if there is a chance the General Assembly will appropriate enough money to keep funding the existing public sector wage rates, work rules and pensions.
Scott, it's Goldman Sachs on line one.
At a meeting with south suburban officials, McPherson hinted that the RTA and the rest of the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents will be asking for an increase in the RTA's sales tax, which is currently 1 percent in Cook County but only 0.25% in the collar counties. So far, no surprises. This tax increase trial balloon has been released at many MBC events. Thus far, the tax increase idea has yet to be pricked.
But this is not all that McPherson said. The article quotes him as follows:
McPherson said that in addition to state and federal funding, RTA is considering privatization and bonding to hedge the budget shortfall.
Neither privatization nor bonding have been publicly reported as ideas being considered by the MBC proponents. But the whiff of such initiatives no doubt will get the investment banker and bond counsel types all wound up and beating a path to the senior executives at the RTA.
The bonding idea doesn't deserve much comment at this point. It is not likely that going into debt to meet operating expenses--assuming this is what McPherson meant--will meet with much favor. That is not much of a long-term strategy, although it may be necessary if the General Assembly rejects some or all of the proposed increase in the State operating subsidy sought by the MBC proponents.
The privatization idea, however, is much more intriguing. At first glance, the idea seems like a complete non-starter. After all, the transit agencies lose copious amounts of money, have high capital investment requirements, are heavily regulated, and are closely scrutinized by the media and the public. Who wouldn't want to shell out lots of money for that kind of asset?
So it is unlikely that by privatization the RTA/MBC means a long-term lease of the public transit system in exchange for an upfront payment like the $1.9 billion the City of Chicago received for a long-term lease of the Chicago Skyway. It is more likely that the RTA is intending to privatize some or all of the service provided by the public transit agencies.
This is just speculation of course, but here is how it might work. The RTA would put together a package consisting of (a) a bundle of public transit services (e.g., north suburban bus service), the equipment and other capital assets used for such service (e.g., buses) and, most importantly, the subsidies that would be payable to that service if it continued in public hands.
A private operator selected through competitive bidding would then agree to provide service according to the RTA's service standards. This operator would not be subject to the public sector labor contracts and work rules that continue to cost the service boards so much. If the private operator can deliver quality service at lower cost than the service board then the operator will, in effect, be able to pocket a portion of the RTA's operating subsidy pledged to it for its profit. (Note: Isn't there an onerous federal law that bars displacing public sector transit service employees by letting private operators use federally funded capital assets?)
This kind of privatization would send a shock wave through the area's transportation system and no doubt the political system as well. Labor strife would be guaranteed. Nonetheless, this model has been used in other countries with some success (e.g., British bus service). The City of Chicago is no stranger to privatization, as the labor unions' recent refusal to endorse Mayor Daley for re-election indicates.
Privatization might be the last best hope that the RTA/MBC proponents have to rein in labor costs, improve customer service and increase service efficiency before a transit system meltdown. After all, the MBC's request for additional operating subsidies starts at over $200 million for 2007 and rises rapidly after that. There is no guarantee that the General Assembly is going to give the RTA and the service boards that kind of blank check unless they take radical cost cutting measures.
Public transit systems rest on the notion that public transportation is a "natural monopoly" best left to public agencies with the exclusive franchise to run mass transit. That model may have fit the era--immediately after World World II--when public transit agencies emerged. The proliferation of private transportation providers such as those awful fake trolleys, employer-run bus shuttles, paratransit service providers and the like suggests that there may be real opportunities for some of the current public transit service to be shifted to private parties.
Such privately provided transit service would have to meet service standards, safety and other reasonable requirements. The RTA could be very helpful in prescribing a technological platform so that privately-supplied vehicles could be tracked and put into real-time vehicle arrival databases and the like. Maybe this effort could be the wedge by which the RTA finally prescribes a fare collection system that allows seamless travel among the various transit providers via a single fare card.
There are many hazards in this approach. The RTA's lack of spine when it comes to managing capital investments suggests that it would be incapable of the hard work of competitively bidding transit work to private providers, negotiating appropriate contracts and supervising the private providers to ensure that they are complying with the contracts.
However, energized by a legislative vote of confidence or scared stiff by the prospect of massive service cuts/fare increases if the MBC proponents return from Springfleld empty handed, the RTA just might find itself to try privatization. Indeed, the RTA Act already allows the RTA to enter into purchase of service contracts with private companies. But go through the hassle of privatization if there is a chance the General Assembly will appropriate enough money to keep funding the existing public sector wage rates, work rules and pensions.
Scott, it's Goldman Sachs on line one.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tidbits: Libertarians; Tax Fever; Spreading the Booty
Three items:
Libertarians: Libertarians have always struck me as the kind of people who regale you at lunch with tales about the miracles of the free market and then try to stick you with the check. That's an unfair stereotype, but this is a blog so so be it.
To their credit libertarians clustered around the Reason Foundation have been very active and very creative in the global discussion on transportation issues. A Reason Foundation study entitled "Innovative Roadway Design: Making Highways More Likable" shows why the Foundation and its ideas are playing such a role.
The study, authored by Peter Samuel and Robert W. Poole, Jr., is just crackling with ideas about how to reconfigure highways so that they work better and have a much better environmental profile. They draw from examples worldwide where government and private highway operators are doing some very interesting things to press the envelope in terms of how we think about and practice highway design and operations. These hard-nosed libertarians even stress the importance of aesthetics in highway design.
While highways are not the focus of this blog, I commend the study as an example of the kind of creativity that we can only hope we will find in the Moving Beyond Congestion effort's upcoming final report. Such creativity certainly was missing from the interim report.
Kane: A recent article indicates that Kane County is thinking about doubling its local gas tax and tolling some new bridges. It is interesting that Kane County is doing this before seeing what kind of transportation capital program and/or transit bailout package comes out of the General Assembly this spring (or summer). I t appears that suburbanites--and hopefully City of Chicago folks--are increasingly willing to pony up more in tolls and gas taxes if such pain will result in tangible transportation improvements.
The proponents of the Kane County gas tax increase point to the fact that neighboring counties have a 4 cent tax and that after the increase Kane's tax would match that level. Apply the same logic regionwide. If a regional gas tax were imposed uniformly in the region, then maybe there would be less resistance than a tax--like the current RTA sales tax--whose rates vary by sub-region.
Booty: Another recent article reveals the strategy of the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents to travel around the region and promise the locals all sorts of public transit improvements if only the Moving Beyond Congestion package is approved.
The article reports that the MBC proponents "will consider requesting a tax increase for the six county area." T his is yet another trial balloon. The article gives no indication that the assembled group from the south suburbs objected to this notion. Indeed, State Senator Halvorson is quoted as saying she favored the MBC initiative.
Libertarians: Libertarians have always struck me as the kind of people who regale you at lunch with tales about the miracles of the free market and then try to stick you with the check. That's an unfair stereotype, but this is a blog so so be it.
To their credit libertarians clustered around the Reason Foundation have been very active and very creative in the global discussion on transportation issues. A Reason Foundation study entitled "Innovative Roadway Design: Making Highways More Likable" shows why the Foundation and its ideas are playing such a role.
The study, authored by Peter Samuel and Robert W. Poole, Jr., is just crackling with ideas about how to reconfigure highways so that they work better and have a much better environmental profile. They draw from examples worldwide where government and private highway operators are doing some very interesting things to press the envelope in terms of how we think about and practice highway design and operations. These hard-nosed libertarians even stress the importance of aesthetics in highway design.
While highways are not the focus of this blog, I commend the study as an example of the kind of creativity that we can only hope we will find in the Moving Beyond Congestion effort's upcoming final report. Such creativity certainly was missing from the interim report.
Kane: A recent article indicates that Kane County is thinking about doubling its local gas tax and tolling some new bridges. It is interesting that Kane County is doing this before seeing what kind of transportation capital program and/or transit bailout package comes out of the General Assembly this spring (or summer). I t appears that suburbanites--and hopefully City of Chicago folks--are increasingly willing to pony up more in tolls and gas taxes if such pain will result in tangible transportation improvements.
The proponents of the Kane County gas tax increase point to the fact that neighboring counties have a 4 cent tax and that after the increase Kane's tax would match that level. Apply the same logic regionwide. If a regional gas tax were imposed uniformly in the region, then maybe there would be less resistance than a tax--like the current RTA sales tax--whose rates vary by sub-region.
Booty: Another recent article reveals the strategy of the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents to travel around the region and promise the locals all sorts of public transit improvements if only the Moving Beyond Congestion package is approved.
The article reports that the MBC proponents "will consider requesting a tax increase for the six county area." T his is yet another trial balloon. The article gives no indication that the assembled group from the south suburbs objected to this notion. Indeed, State Senator Halvorson is quoted as saying she favored the MBC initiative.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The RTA Act (Capital Investment): What Were They Thinking?
When the RTA Act was last revamped in 1983 the federal government was getting into the business of providing both capital and operating subsidies to public transit agencies. Operating subsidies dried up in the 1990s, but the federal government has continued to provide substantial capital funds for public transit. This funding includes "formula" funds distributed according to a statutory formula and "New Starts" funding for new transit projects. New Starts funding is supposed to be allocated based on a comparative assessment of project merits, but in the last federal transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU) much of the new starts money is earmarked for specific projects.
It is very difficult to decide how to parcel capital dollars among transit projects and between service boards. The RTA Act clearly contemplates that the RTA will decide which transit projects in the region would be funded. Section 4.02 of the RTA Act provides in relevant part:
The Authority shall be the primary public body in the metropolitan region with authority to apply for and receive any grants, loans or other funds relating to public transportation programs from the State of Illinois or any department or agency thereof, or from the federal government or any department or agency thereof.
Section 4.02(b) goes on to bar the service boards or any other unit of local government from applying for federal (or state) capital funds unless the RTA has put the project in the RTA's Five-Year Program. The Five-Year Program is the RTA's detailed listing of future capital projects. (See section 2.01(b) of the RTA Act.)
The RTA has been derelict in its duty to set and enforce capital investment priorities. Today the RTA is far from the "primary body" seeking capital funds for transit. Instead, each of the service boards apply for state and federal dollars on their own. As we might expect, the service boards aggressively push their own capital investment agendas and in doing so they come into conflict, often to the dismay of the federal legislators who are supposed to be pushing the Illinois agenda in Congress. No one--not the region's metropolitan planning agency (CATS) and not the RTA--has stepped up and made critical judgments about which projects will advance the RTA's goal of developing a "comprehensive and coordinated" regional public transit system. (RTA Act, section 1.02(ii))
The RTA's failure to exercise its power over capital investment decisions has several deleterious effects. First, the RTA's fails to exert discipline over capital investment decisions means that the service boards can avoid making the hard decisions necessary to provide the public with a coordinated public transit system. Had the RTA exercised its capital investment powers, for example, the RTA long ago could have insisted that before it embarked on various line extensions Metra implement some sort of fare card reader system so that riders can transfer seamlessly among the three transit systems.
Second, there is lots of wasted effort because the RTA and the three service boards each have extensive staff devoted to planning for, applying for and then administering federal and state grants.
Third, the competition for federal money by the three service boards undercuts the principle of regionalism. Major projects such as the "CTA's" Circle Line project and "Metra's" STAR Line project are identified with particular service boards, which in turn are identified with particular regions. This kind of factionalism makes it all the more difficult for the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents jigger with the RTA's sale tax rates and the distribution of that money. That is because the RTA sales tax and the distribution of that revenue to the service boards differ by Chicago, suburban Cook County and the collar counties. Wouldn't it be much more consistent with the principles of regionalism to have "RTA" projects administered by the service boards?
Finally, the RTA's failure to screen capital investment projects based on some reasonable criteria mean that the region may not be making best us of federal and state capital dollars. In other words, what may look like a good investment to a single service board may not look like an especially good investment from a regional perspective.
The RTA's failure to assert its primacy in making capital investment decisions begs the question we posed many posts ago: Is the RTA just powerful enough to be irritating but not powerful enough to do much good?
It is very difficult to decide how to parcel capital dollars among transit projects and between service boards. The RTA Act clearly contemplates that the RTA will decide which transit projects in the region would be funded. Section 4.02 of the RTA Act provides in relevant part:
The Authority shall be the primary public body in the metropolitan region with authority to apply for and receive any grants, loans or other funds relating to public transportation programs from the State of Illinois or any department or agency thereof, or from the federal government or any department or agency thereof.
Section 4.02(b) goes on to bar the service boards or any other unit of local government from applying for federal (or state) capital funds unless the RTA has put the project in the RTA's Five-Year Program. The Five-Year Program is the RTA's detailed listing of future capital projects. (See section 2.01(b) of the RTA Act.)
The RTA has been derelict in its duty to set and enforce capital investment priorities. Today the RTA is far from the "primary body" seeking capital funds for transit. Instead, each of the service boards apply for state and federal dollars on their own. As we might expect, the service boards aggressively push their own capital investment agendas and in doing so they come into conflict, often to the dismay of the federal legislators who are supposed to be pushing the Illinois agenda in Congress. No one--not the region's metropolitan planning agency (CATS) and not the RTA--has stepped up and made critical judgments about which projects will advance the RTA's goal of developing a "comprehensive and coordinated" regional public transit system. (RTA Act, section 1.02(ii))
The RTA's failure to exercise its power over capital investment decisions has several deleterious effects. First, the RTA's fails to exert discipline over capital investment decisions means that the service boards can avoid making the hard decisions necessary to provide the public with a coordinated public transit system. Had the RTA exercised its capital investment powers, for example, the RTA long ago could have insisted that before it embarked on various line extensions Metra implement some sort of fare card reader system so that riders can transfer seamlessly among the three transit systems.
Second, there is lots of wasted effort because the RTA and the three service boards each have extensive staff devoted to planning for, applying for and then administering federal and state grants.
Third, the competition for federal money by the three service boards undercuts the principle of regionalism. Major projects such as the "CTA's" Circle Line project and "Metra's" STAR Line project are identified with particular service boards, which in turn are identified with particular regions. This kind of factionalism makes it all the more difficult for the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents jigger with the RTA's sale tax rates and the distribution of that money. That is because the RTA sales tax and the distribution of that revenue to the service boards differ by Chicago, suburban Cook County and the collar counties. Wouldn't it be much more consistent with the principles of regionalism to have "RTA" projects administered by the service boards?
Finally, the RTA's failure to screen capital investment projects based on some reasonable criteria mean that the region may not be making best us of federal and state capital dollars. In other words, what may look like a good investment to a single service board may not look like an especially good investment from a regional perspective.
The RTA's failure to assert its primacy in making capital investment decisions begs the question we posed many posts ago: Is the RTA just powerful enough to be irritating but not powerful enough to do much good?
Monday, January 29, 2007
Less Is More When It Comes To Transit?
The premise of the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents is that shrinking the public transit system in the region is unacceptable and maintaining the status quo is unacceptable. They are recommending that the State of Illinois provide substantial new capital and operating subsidies to expand the region's public transit system. The upcoming final MBC report also likely will recommend that the five collar counties within the RTA's jurisdiction pay a higher RTA sales tax. Currently, the five collar counties have a 0.25% RTA sales tax while Cook County residents pay 1 percent. The price tag--$57 billion in capital dollars over the next 30 years plus untold billions of dollars in operating subsidies.
A recent article in the Washington Post by Ted Balaker and Sam Staley entitled "5 Myths About Suburbia and our Car-Happy Culture" questions the wisdom of the proposed general expansion of the region's public transit system. The authors make some relevant points:
But public transit still has an important role. Millions of Americans rely on it as a primary means of transportation. Transit agencies should focus on serving those who need transit the most: the poor and the handicapped. They should also seek out the niches where they can be most useful, such as express bus service for commuters and high-volume local routes.
Two immediate reservations about the article. First, by choosing 2000 as the end date of their ridership analysis the authors miss the upward tick in public transit market share in recent years. Second, in the cold, cruel world of politics telling public agencies to focus on the poor is a recipe for marginalization and inadequate support. Transit agencies likely are better supported when they have a significant percentage of so-called choice riders, voter and taxpayers affluent enough to have a car but who choose to take transit anyway.
Their critique of the arguments in support of indiscriminately expanded public transit, however, still deserves serious consideration. Perhaps the General Assembly's goal should be to facilitate the evolution of the region's public transit system from the current one-size fits all, maximum coverage model to a more nuanced model where transit funding and resources are focused only on areas likely to support financially viable public transit service. In other areas, "public" transit could be cobbled together with privately run bus, jitney and van pool services, perhaps with the help of grants from local governments and large employers.
In other words, government would have two functions with respect to non-auto transit. Public transit would operate service in key regional corridors such as Metra and CTA rail lines, arterial streets, and the like. They would provide the kind of high-volume, high intensity service traditionally associated with public transit.
In other areas--e.g., those many parts of the region populated with near-empty Pace (and sometimes CTA) buses, the government would shift to more of a broker function. This function would involve extending a common technological platform--e.g., fare media, real-time vehicle location information--for all forms of transit in the region. It would also involve efforts to coordinate disparate forms of transportation so that they fit well with the mainline service run by the public agency or agencies. Finally, government might subsidize some service, but only if that service provided substantial benefit to the mainline service.
Under this approach capital investment decisions would be made differently than the current consensus/log-rolling model. Transit investment would be driven by mode-neutral comparative assessments such as (1) transit trips generated per million dollars of capital investment and (2) cost of ownership over life of asset. Currently, there is no binding prioritization of transit investment decisions among the three service boards that make up the RTA. The Moving Beyond Congestion proponents have no plan to spare us from even more investment in areas ill-suited and sometimes downright hostile to public transit while investment in relatively densely populated areas gets pushed to the back burner.
Maybe less could be more when it comes to transit.
A recent article in the Washington Post by Ted Balaker and Sam Staley entitled "5 Myths About Suburbia and our Car-Happy Culture" questions the wisdom of the proposed general expansion of the region's public transit system. The authors make some relevant points:
- Even in the areas with the strongest transit systems, travel by transit takes much longer than travel by car.
- Reliance on the automobile appears to be a function of a nation's wealth. The wealthier the country the greater the reliance on the auto. Even in Europe, with its excellent public transit and high gas taxes, over three quarters of all trips are by auto.
- Despite increasing levels of public funding for transit in the United States, the proportion of work trips by transit in this country fell from 63 percent in 1960 to 5 percent in 2000.
- Transit's small market share means that in many areas even sizeable percentage increases in transit's market share will have a limited impact on reducing traffic congestion.
- Further improvements in emissions controls (and gas mileage) are more likely to drive environmental improvements than driving more people to take public transit.
But public transit still has an important role. Millions of Americans rely on it as a primary means of transportation. Transit agencies should focus on serving those who need transit the most: the poor and the handicapped. They should also seek out the niches where they can be most useful, such as express bus service for commuters and high-volume local routes.
Two immediate reservations about the article. First, by choosing 2000 as the end date of their ridership analysis the authors miss the upward tick in public transit market share in recent years. Second, in the cold, cruel world of politics telling public agencies to focus on the poor is a recipe for marginalization and inadequate support. Transit agencies likely are better supported when they have a significant percentage of so-called choice riders, voter and taxpayers affluent enough to have a car but who choose to take transit anyway.
Their critique of the arguments in support of indiscriminately expanded public transit, however, still deserves serious consideration. Perhaps the General Assembly's goal should be to facilitate the evolution of the region's public transit system from the current one-size fits all, maximum coverage model to a more nuanced model where transit funding and resources are focused only on areas likely to support financially viable public transit service. In other areas, "public" transit could be cobbled together with privately run bus, jitney and van pool services, perhaps with the help of grants from local governments and large employers.
In other words, government would have two functions with respect to non-auto transit. Public transit would operate service in key regional corridors such as Metra and CTA rail lines, arterial streets, and the like. They would provide the kind of high-volume, high intensity service traditionally associated with public transit.
In other areas--e.g., those many parts of the region populated with near-empty Pace (and sometimes CTA) buses, the government would shift to more of a broker function. This function would involve extending a common technological platform--e.g., fare media, real-time vehicle location information--for all forms of transit in the region. It would also involve efforts to coordinate disparate forms of transportation so that they fit well with the mainline service run by the public agency or agencies. Finally, government might subsidize some service, but only if that service provided substantial benefit to the mainline service.
Under this approach capital investment decisions would be made differently than the current consensus/log-rolling model. Transit investment would be driven by mode-neutral comparative assessments such as (1) transit trips generated per million dollars of capital investment and (2) cost of ownership over life of asset. Currently, there is no binding prioritization of transit investment decisions among the three service boards that make up the RTA. The Moving Beyond Congestion proponents have no plan to spare us from even more investment in areas ill-suited and sometimes downright hostile to public transit while investment in relatively densely populated areas gets pushed to the back burner.
Maybe less could be more when it comes to transit.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
The RTA Act (Budgeting): What Were They Thinking?
The core RTA functions are set out in Article IV of the RTA Act. Review and approval of the service board operating budgets is one of those key RTA function. That process is set forth in sections 4.01(a) and 4.11:
The budgets of the service boards are combined with the RTA's own budget. The combined RTA budget must meet two requirements. First, the budget must be balanced and sufficient to cover obligations when they come due:
The budget shall show a balance between anticipated revenues from all sources and anticipated expenses including funding of operating deficits or the discharge of encumbrances incurred in prior periods and payment of principal and interest when due, and shall show cash balances sufficient to pay with reasonable promptness all obligations and expenses as incurred.
The other key requirement is the farebox recovery ratio. Section 4.01(b) provides in relevant part that the RTA budget must show that:
[T]he level of fares and charges for mass transportation provided by . . . the Service Boards is sufficient to cause the aggregate of all projected fare revenues from such fares and charges received in each fiscal year to equal at least 50% of the aggregate costs of providing such public transportation in such fiscal year.
The balanced budget and farebox recovery ratio requirements were intended to be important pieces of fiscal discipline. They were meant to prevent the service boards from rolling out expensive and underutilized service and then come running to the General Assembly seeking a bailout when operating deficits resulted. (The RTA, of course, sidestepped these requirements in its 2007 budget by writing into its budget a large new operating subsidy from the State of Illinois even though that subsidy is but a gleam in the eyes of the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents.)
The farebox recovery ratio is a contentious subject for the RTA and the service boards. RTA assigns different farebox recovery ratios to the service boards in recognition of their different operating environments. For 2007 those ratios were: Metra--55%; CTA--52%; Pace--36%; ADA paratransit: 10%. The service boards complain about these "inequities." Indeed, in recent years Pace sued the RTA, alleging that the RTA had unfairly raised Pace's recovery ratio requirement.
The farebox recovery ratio requirement also forces the service boards to confront the need to raise fares in order to raise sufficient revenue to meet the requirement. Raising fares is never a popular option in the highly politicized environment in which the service boards operate.
The CTA's 2007 Budget Recommendations (accessible here) has a cogent discussion of the farebox recovery ratio and its effects. (Pgs. 64-66 of 158). The CTA points out that the 50 percent farebox ratio requirement for the RTA system is higher than all but one of 25 other major metropolitan area (New York City). Only two other systems--New Jersey and Philadelphia--have farebox recovery ratios above 40 percent. (See here for some international farebox recovery ratio data.)
The CTA argues that the high farebox recovery ratio is especially hard on bus service because bus service has a higher ratio of operating to capital cost than rail service. Indeed, CTA bus ridership has dropped sharply during the RTA's watch and Pace ridership has failed to grow despite strong population and job growth in its service area.
The CTA also points out that the subsidy per ride in the RTA region is among the lowest in the nation. It argues that the relative lack of public support, coupled with the pressure to raise fares and/or reduce service to comply with the farebox recovery ratio, has put a strong downward pressure on ridership, especially on the bus side.
Both the high farebox recovery ratio and the low per ride subsidy may be a function of the sheer size of the RTA system. Generally speaking, the larger the system the higher the farebox recovery ration and the lower the per ride subsidy. This is just a reflection of the economic benefits of scale.
Nonetheless, the CTA's critique of the farebox recovery ratio will have to be taken into account by the General Assembly. As the CTA admits in its 2007 Budget Recommendations, its farebox recovery ratio will drop to 45 percent by 2009, dragging the RTA as a whole below the 50 percent level mandated by the RTA Act.
While the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents no doubt would welcome repeal of the farebox recovery ratio plus a big new operating subsidy, would it be prudent for the General Assembly to repeal all of the financial performance requirements written into the RTA Act. Indeed, the RTA's provocative disregard for the existing requirements, however justified in an effort to preserve the existing public transit system, may prompt the General Assembly to strengthen those requirements.
- RTA gives the service board so-called "marks," which are estimates of how much operating subsidies will be available to the service boards during the upcoming fiscal year.
- The service boards prepare their operating budgets and submit them to the RTA.
- The RTA board approves the budget by a super-majority (i.e., 9 out of 13) vote.
The budgets of the service boards are combined with the RTA's own budget. The combined RTA budget must meet two requirements. First, the budget must be balanced and sufficient to cover obligations when they come due:
The budget shall show a balance between anticipated revenues from all sources and anticipated expenses including funding of operating deficits or the discharge of encumbrances incurred in prior periods and payment of principal and interest when due, and shall show cash balances sufficient to pay with reasonable promptness all obligations and expenses as incurred.
The other key requirement is the farebox recovery ratio. Section 4.01(b) provides in relevant part that the RTA budget must show that:
[T]he level of fares and charges for mass transportation provided by . . . the Service Boards is sufficient to cause the aggregate of all projected fare revenues from such fares and charges received in each fiscal year to equal at least 50% of the aggregate costs of providing such public transportation in such fiscal year.
The balanced budget and farebox recovery ratio requirements were intended to be important pieces of fiscal discipline. They were meant to prevent the service boards from rolling out expensive and underutilized service and then come running to the General Assembly seeking a bailout when operating deficits resulted. (The RTA, of course, sidestepped these requirements in its 2007 budget by writing into its budget a large new operating subsidy from the State of Illinois even though that subsidy is but a gleam in the eyes of the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents.)
The farebox recovery ratio is a contentious subject for the RTA and the service boards. RTA assigns different farebox recovery ratios to the service boards in recognition of their different operating environments. For 2007 those ratios were: Metra--55%; CTA--52%; Pace--36%; ADA paratransit: 10%. The service boards complain about these "inequities." Indeed, in recent years Pace sued the RTA, alleging that the RTA had unfairly raised Pace's recovery ratio requirement.
The farebox recovery ratio requirement also forces the service boards to confront the need to raise fares in order to raise sufficient revenue to meet the requirement. Raising fares is never a popular option in the highly politicized environment in which the service boards operate.
The CTA's 2007 Budget Recommendations (accessible here) has a cogent discussion of the farebox recovery ratio and its effects. (Pgs. 64-66 of 158). The CTA points out that the 50 percent farebox ratio requirement for the RTA system is higher than all but one of 25 other major metropolitan area (New York City). Only two other systems--New Jersey and Philadelphia--have farebox recovery ratios above 40 percent. (See here for some international farebox recovery ratio data.)
The CTA argues that the high farebox recovery ratio is especially hard on bus service because bus service has a higher ratio of operating to capital cost than rail service. Indeed, CTA bus ridership has dropped sharply during the RTA's watch and Pace ridership has failed to grow despite strong population and job growth in its service area.
The CTA also points out that the subsidy per ride in the RTA region is among the lowest in the nation. It argues that the relative lack of public support, coupled with the pressure to raise fares and/or reduce service to comply with the farebox recovery ratio, has put a strong downward pressure on ridership, especially on the bus side.
Both the high farebox recovery ratio and the low per ride subsidy may be a function of the sheer size of the RTA system. Generally speaking, the larger the system the higher the farebox recovery ration and the lower the per ride subsidy. This is just a reflection of the economic benefits of scale.
Nonetheless, the CTA's critique of the farebox recovery ratio will have to be taken into account by the General Assembly. As the CTA admits in its 2007 Budget Recommendations, its farebox recovery ratio will drop to 45 percent by 2009, dragging the RTA as a whole below the 50 percent level mandated by the RTA Act.
While the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents no doubt would welcome repeal of the farebox recovery ratio plus a big new operating subsidy, would it be prudent for the General Assembly to repeal all of the financial performance requirements written into the RTA Act. Indeed, the RTA's provocative disregard for the existing requirements, however justified in an effort to preserve the existing public transit system, may prompt the General Assembly to strengthen those requirements.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
RTA Act (Article III): What Were They Thinking?
Article III of the RTA Act covers the organization and operation of the RTA board. We've discussed the allocation of RTA board seats among the three regions built in to the RTA: City of Chicago; suburban Cook County; and the collar counties. (Here here, here and here.)
Article III (70 ILCS 3615/3.06) establishes the six-county region that is subject to the RTA's jurisdiction. These counties--Cook, Lake, McHenry, Kane, DuPage and Will--no doubt comprised most of the known urban/suburban universe when the RTA was created. Since then, however, development continues to occur--some would say mestasize--in counties outside of the six county region. Kendall County, for example, nourished by federal dollars brought home by recently deposed Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, is growing rapidly. There has been talk of extending Metra service from Aurora to Yorkville and even beyond to Ottawa in LaSalle County. The Prairie Parkway, a key Hastert initiative, is another spur to development outside of the six-county region. Development is also occurring along the Northwest Tollway between Elgin and Rockford, leading to talk of a commuter rail line connecting Rockford with Chicago. (Here and here)
Should the RTA's jurisdiction be extended to include counties beginning the seeming inexorable path from farmland to strip mall franchises? The answer is probably not if the RTA's mission continues to be focused on public transit. These outlying regions are unlikely to generate all that much sales tax revenue for the RTA. Yet, including them in the RTA would create pressure to supply these exurban regions with expensive and relatively unused public transit service in order to show the local they are getting something for their tax dollars. Who needs more whining like that from Kane County officials.
The RTA Act could be amended, however, to encourage the RTA to use intergovernmental agreements and the like to cooperate with public transit initiatives from outside of the six-county region if such cooperation enhances the RTA system. Thus, it might make sense for the RTA to cooperate with a rail or bus rapid transit initiatives that will deliver people to and from outlying areas to the RTA service area.
Another objection to expanding the RTA's geographical scope is that doing so would further dilute the influence of the City of Chicago and suburban Cook County, where the vast majority of transit trips are taken and where most of the funding for regional transit comes from.
In sum, there is no compelling reason to increase the size of the RTA's jurisdiction from the existing six counties.
Article III (70 ILCS 3615/3.06) establishes the six-county region that is subject to the RTA's jurisdiction. These counties--Cook, Lake, McHenry, Kane, DuPage and Will--no doubt comprised most of the known urban/suburban universe when the RTA was created. Since then, however, development continues to occur--some would say mestasize--in counties outside of the six county region. Kendall County, for example, nourished by federal dollars brought home by recently deposed Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, is growing rapidly. There has been talk of extending Metra service from Aurora to Yorkville and even beyond to Ottawa in LaSalle County. The Prairie Parkway, a key Hastert initiative, is another spur to development outside of the six-county region. Development is also occurring along the Northwest Tollway between Elgin and Rockford, leading to talk of a commuter rail line connecting Rockford with Chicago. (Here and here)
Should the RTA's jurisdiction be extended to include counties beginning the seeming inexorable path from farmland to strip mall franchises? The answer is probably not if the RTA's mission continues to be focused on public transit. These outlying regions are unlikely to generate all that much sales tax revenue for the RTA. Yet, including them in the RTA would create pressure to supply these exurban regions with expensive and relatively unused public transit service in order to show the local they are getting something for their tax dollars. Who needs more whining like that from Kane County officials.
The RTA Act could be amended, however, to encourage the RTA to use intergovernmental agreements and the like to cooperate with public transit initiatives from outside of the six-county region if such cooperation enhances the RTA system. Thus, it might make sense for the RTA to cooperate with a rail or bus rapid transit initiatives that will deliver people to and from outlying areas to the RTA service area.
Another objection to expanding the RTA's geographical scope is that doing so would further dilute the influence of the City of Chicago and suburban Cook County, where the vast majority of transit trips are taken and where most of the funding for regional transit comes from.
In sum, there is no compelling reason to increase the size of the RTA's jurisdiction from the existing six counties.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
That Sinking Feeling: CTA Bus Ridership
RTAMS data shows that public transit ridership in the region is almost 30% lower today than it was in 1980, despite substantial population growth in the region. The ridership losses, however, were primarily on the CTA bus system. The CTA bus system's poor performance continued in 2006, when bus ridership dropped another 1.6 percent (4.6 million riders.)
Figures are in millions:
Mode/1980/2005/% Change
CTA Bus/540.6m/305.5m/-43.5%
CTA Rail/155.5m/154.9m/-0.4%
Metra/79.7m/76.9m/-3.5%
Pace/38.2m/36.8m/-3.7%
RTA System/814.1m/574.2m/-29.5%
The CTA bus and rail systems were affected by the same general demographic trends, such as Chicago's population loss over the past 25 years, the decline in manufacturing employment and higher rates of auto ownership. Yet, the CTA rail system did better than any other transit system in the region, while the CTA bus system did far worse.
The most important factor in the decline in the CTA's bus system likely is growing traffic congestion. That congestion creates a vicious cycle: congestion reduces bus reliability (e.g., bunching) which prompts people to abandon the bus system for cars (or in some cases CTA rail) which causes more congestion, which causes more people to abandon the bus system. This cycle has been grinding away for the past 25 years or more.
The flip side of this market decline in the CTA bus system is that the lost CTA bus riders may be the people most likely to be lured back on to public transit if bus system reliability can be improved. Improving bus system reliability will depend on low-glamor but effective measures such as traffic signal priorization for buses, a system wide roll out of real time bus location technology so people can use their cellphones to know when their next bus will arrive, use of bus rapid transit techniques, and other efforts to improve the travel experience (e.g., even more bus shelters, onboard Wi-Fi).
Such mundane improvements do not seem to be on the radar screen of the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents, including the service boards. Except for middling efforts to develop a few BRT routes, the MBC capital improvements wish list is tilted towards rail line investments.
It seems that in the effort to buy political support by scattering big ticket capital items around the region, the MBC proponents are forgetting that their first mission should be to attract back to transit the many folks who abandoned transit under the RTA's watch.
The 235 million annual trips lost on the CTA bus system between 1980 and 2005, roughly 650,000 per day, might be the easiest trips to win back to the region's public transit system. It is a shame that the MBC proponents are overlooking this market opportunity and failing to propose investing in winning these folks back to public transit.
Instead, it looks like we'll continue mining for public transit riders in exurban areas through Metra line extensions and more Pace service. Given Metra and Pace's poor performance during 25 years when their primary service areas were booming with rapidly growing population and employment growth, this strategy may be necessary politically but it doesn't make good transit sense.
Figures are in millions:
Mode/1980/2005/% Change
CTA Bus/540.6m/305.5m/-43.5%
CTA Rail/155.5m/154.9m/-0.4%
Metra/79.7m/76.9m/-3.5%
Pace/38.2m/36.8m/-3.7%
RTA System/814.1m/574.2m/-29.5%
The CTA bus and rail systems were affected by the same general demographic trends, such as Chicago's population loss over the past 25 years, the decline in manufacturing employment and higher rates of auto ownership. Yet, the CTA rail system did better than any other transit system in the region, while the CTA bus system did far worse.
The most important factor in the decline in the CTA's bus system likely is growing traffic congestion. That congestion creates a vicious cycle: congestion reduces bus reliability (e.g., bunching) which prompts people to abandon the bus system for cars (or in some cases CTA rail) which causes more congestion, which causes more people to abandon the bus system. This cycle has been grinding away for the past 25 years or more.
The flip side of this market decline in the CTA bus system is that the lost CTA bus riders may be the people most likely to be lured back on to public transit if bus system reliability can be improved. Improving bus system reliability will depend on low-glamor but effective measures such as traffic signal priorization for buses, a system wide roll out of real time bus location technology so people can use their cellphones to know when their next bus will arrive, use of bus rapid transit techniques, and other efforts to improve the travel experience (e.g., even more bus shelters, onboard Wi-Fi).
Such mundane improvements do not seem to be on the radar screen of the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents, including the service boards. Except for middling efforts to develop a few BRT routes, the MBC capital improvements wish list is tilted towards rail line investments.
It seems that in the effort to buy political support by scattering big ticket capital items around the region, the MBC proponents are forgetting that their first mission should be to attract back to transit the many folks who abandoned transit under the RTA's watch.
The 235 million annual trips lost on the CTA bus system between 1980 and 2005, roughly 650,000 per day, might be the easiest trips to win back to the region's public transit system. It is a shame that the MBC proponents are overlooking this market opportunity and failing to propose investing in winning these folks back to public transit.
Instead, it looks like we'll continue mining for public transit riders in exurban areas through Metra line extensions and more Pace service. Given Metra and Pace's poor performance during 25 years when their primary service areas were booming with rapidly growing population and employment growth, this strategy may be necessary politically but it doesn't make good transit sense.
RTAMS--Another Data Source for Transportation Geeks
Kudos to the RTA and other regional public agencies (CTA, Metra, Pace, ISTHA, NIPC, CATS) for putting together and posting the Regional Transportation Asset Management System (found here)
The RTAMS webpage allows users to access data on travel patterns, capital investments, financial reports, and the like in the region.
Unfortunately, IDOT is not among the participants. Whether IDOT's absence is because it lacks data or because it chooses to hunker down with its data in its bureaucratic bunker or for some other reason is unknown. Hopefully, IDOT will participate soon.
The RTAMS webpage allows users to access data on travel patterns, capital investments, financial reports, and the like in the region.
Unfortunately, IDOT is not among the participants. Whether IDOT's absence is because it lacks data or because it chooses to hunker down with its data in its bureaucratic bunker or for some other reason is unknown. Hopefully, IDOT will participate soon.
Monday, January 22, 2007
What's Wrong With CTA: Crain's Explains
It is heartening to see at least one local publication beginning to dig into the thorny issues surrounding the Moving Beyond Congestion initiative. Crain's has an article by Greg Hinz entitled "Crain's Investigates: What's Wrong with the CTA" that is worth reading.
The article's summary answer: "a crippling combination of aging infrastructure, funding shortfalls, questionable choices by CTA management, a string of bad luck and a historic rise in ridership — up 25% since 1999 — that has overwhelmed a rail system once considered nearly as reliable as cold in January."
The "question choices by CTA management" are preferring investments in new infrastructure (e.g., Circle Line) rather than in things less flashy but more likely to be of immediate benefit (e.g., signal system upgrades).
On interesting tidbit in the article is that the CTA appears slow to spend its available capital dollars. According to the article as of August 2006 the CTA had "$1.5 billion in available but unspent grant money — $495 million of that not even under contract." Unnamed CTA sources pointed the finger at the Illinois Department of Transportation, citing IDOT's "overly restrictive rules." Unnamed IDOT sources disputed the charge.
Someone should look into that issue, which might affect other service boards as well. IDOT is hardly a hotbed of innovation and creativity, so it is quite possible that the CTA has a point. On the other hand, it appears from the news reports that the CTA has had difficult in administering its capital program.
I suspect Auditor General William Holland will have something to say on these points. In the meantime, this article is worth a look.
The article's summary answer: "a crippling combination of aging infrastructure, funding shortfalls, questionable choices by CTA management, a string of bad luck and a historic rise in ridership — up 25% since 1999 — that has overwhelmed a rail system once considered nearly as reliable as cold in January."
The "question choices by CTA management" are preferring investments in new infrastructure (e.g., Circle Line) rather than in things less flashy but more likely to be of immediate benefit (e.g., signal system upgrades).
On interesting tidbit in the article is that the CTA appears slow to spend its available capital dollars. According to the article as of August 2006 the CTA had "$1.5 billion in available but unspent grant money — $495 million of that not even under contract." Unnamed CTA sources pointed the finger at the Illinois Department of Transportation, citing IDOT's "overly restrictive rules." Unnamed IDOT sources disputed the charge.
Someone should look into that issue, which might affect other service boards as well. IDOT is hardly a hotbed of innovation and creativity, so it is quite possible that the CTA has a point. On the other hand, it appears from the news reports that the CTA has had difficult in administering its capital program.
I suspect Auditor General William Holland will have something to say on these points. In the meantime, this article is worth a look.
Touchdown
The Bears weren't the only team that scored. The Moving Beyond Congestion initiative got a big boost from the Daily Herald editorial board. The 1/22/07 editorial, found here, was a strong endorsement.
The editorial lamented past decisions to stop service on lines like the North Shore to Milwaukee and the Fox River trolley, pointing to the high expense of efforts to restore service to those corridors. (Interestingly, the editorial did not point to the STAR Line, that suburban sacred cow, as an example of throwing much money after bad decisions.) It also notes that if Chicago gets the 2016 Olympics, the region will have to upgrade its transit system.
The editorial closes with these words:
Whether the state can commit to the RTA’s full request is an open question, depending on the details and revenue sources. Generally speaking, however, the cost to improve public transit could be chump change compared to the cost we’ll all pay for failing to act.
It is something to see $57 billion in capital investment and many billions of dollars more in operating subsidies be described as "chump change." Let's hope that the Daily Herald's readers will be so sanguine if and when the General Assembly raises taxes or users fees to obtain this "chump change."
The editorial lamented past decisions to stop service on lines like the North Shore to Milwaukee and the Fox River trolley, pointing to the high expense of efforts to restore service to those corridors. (Interestingly, the editorial did not point to the STAR Line, that suburban sacred cow, as an example of throwing much money after bad decisions.) It also notes that if Chicago gets the 2016 Olympics, the region will have to upgrade its transit system.
The editorial closes with these words:
Whether the state can commit to the RTA’s full request is an open question, depending on the details and revenue sources. Generally speaking, however, the cost to improve public transit could be chump change compared to the cost we’ll all pay for failing to act.
It is something to see $57 billion in capital investment and many billions of dollars more in operating subsidies be described as "chump change." Let's hope that the Daily Herald's readers will be so sanguine if and when the General Assembly raises taxes or users fees to obtain this "chump change."
The RTA: What Were They Thinking?
This is the first several posts looking at the RTA and the RTA Act. As part of the Moving Beyond Congestion process, the public and the General Assembly need to closely examine the RTA Act, the charter for the RTA, and determine what changes need to be made in the RTA's powers, functions, and mission.
Article I of the RTA Act outlines the purposes of the RTA Act. The more things change the more they stay the same. The General Assembly's list of findings and purposes (section 1.02) cites the importance of public transit to Northeastern Illinois and the financial crisis facing the public transit service providers. The General Assembly's description of the importance of public transit could be lifted from the more fervent Moving Beyond Congestion propaganda:
Comprehensive and coordinated regional public transportation is essential to the public health, safety and welfare. It is essential to economic well‑being, maintenance of full employment, conservation of sources of energy and land for open space and reduction of traffic congestion and for providing and maintaining a healthful environment for the benefit of present and future generations in the metropolitan region. Public transportation improves the mobility of the public and improves access to jobs, commercial facilities, schools and cultural attractions. Public transportation decreases air pollution and other environmental hazards resulting from excessive use of automobiles and allows for more efficient land use and planning.
It is rather ironic that public transit advocates have been beating the "congestion" drum for decades now, as illustrated by this language, when by today's standards the 1970s and 1980s was the blissful era of relatively uncongested roads.
If the case for public transit hasn't changed much in 25 years, how about the purpose of the RTA? Section 1.02(c) sets out these purposes:
It is the purpose of this Act to provide for, aid and assist public transportation in the northeastern area of the State without impairing the overall quality of existing public transportation by providing for the creation of a single authority responsive to the people and elected officials of the area and with the power and competence to provide financial review of the providers of public transportation in the metropolitan region and facilitate public transportation provided by Service Boards which is attractive and economical to users, comprehensive, coordinated among its various elements, economical, safe, efficient and coordinated with area and State plans.
Note that the "single authority" is intended to be "responsive to the people and elected officials of the area" (emphasis added). Thus, the RTA Act writes the State of Illinois out of the governance equation, even though over time the State has supplied a large and growing share of financial support to the RTA and its three service boards, CTA, Metra and Pace.
The General Assembly limits the RTA's powers to providing "financial review of the providers of public transportation" and "facilitating" comprehensive and coordinated public transit provided by the service boards. Thus, the RTA does not have a role in operations other than as a "facilitator." One big issue is whether the General Assembly intended to hobble the RTA by so limiting its powers and, if so, whether doing so still makes sense.
What is also interesting about this list of findings and purposes is that nowhere is there a finding that justifies, or an identified purpose served, by chopping up the six counties over which the RTA has jurisdiction into three regions--City of Chicago, suburban Cook County, and the five collar counties--for purposes of taxation, board representation and allocation of operating subsidies. That balkanization has fostered unhealthy rivalries between the regions and between the service boards. No wonder that we still do not have a universal fare card for the region.
In sum, is the RTA just powerful enough to be irritating but not powerful enough to do much good? Stay tuned.
Article I of the RTA Act outlines the purposes of the RTA Act. The more things change the more they stay the same. The General Assembly's list of findings and purposes (section 1.02) cites the importance of public transit to Northeastern Illinois and the financial crisis facing the public transit service providers. The General Assembly's description of the importance of public transit could be lifted from the more fervent Moving Beyond Congestion propaganda:
Comprehensive and coordinated regional public transportation is essential to the public health, safety and welfare. It is essential to economic well‑being, maintenance of full employment, conservation of sources of energy and land for open space and reduction of traffic congestion and for providing and maintaining a healthful environment for the benefit of present and future generations in the metropolitan region. Public transportation improves the mobility of the public and improves access to jobs, commercial facilities, schools and cultural attractions. Public transportation decreases air pollution and other environmental hazards resulting from excessive use of automobiles and allows for more efficient land use and planning.
It is rather ironic that public transit advocates have been beating the "congestion" drum for decades now, as illustrated by this language, when by today's standards the 1970s and 1980s was the blissful era of relatively uncongested roads.
If the case for public transit hasn't changed much in 25 years, how about the purpose of the RTA? Section 1.02(c) sets out these purposes:
It is the purpose of this Act to provide for, aid and assist public transportation in the northeastern area of the State without impairing the overall quality of existing public transportation by providing for the creation of a single authority responsive to the people and elected officials of the area and with the power and competence to provide financial review of the providers of public transportation in the metropolitan region and facilitate public transportation provided by Service Boards which is attractive and economical to users, comprehensive, coordinated among its various elements, economical, safe, efficient and coordinated with area and State plans.
Note that the "single authority" is intended to be "responsive to the people and elected officials of the area" (emphasis added). Thus, the RTA Act writes the State of Illinois out of the governance equation, even though over time the State has supplied a large and growing share of financial support to the RTA and its three service boards, CTA, Metra and Pace.
The General Assembly limits the RTA's powers to providing "financial review of the providers of public transportation" and "facilitating" comprehensive and coordinated public transit provided by the service boards. Thus, the RTA does not have a role in operations other than as a "facilitator." One big issue is whether the General Assembly intended to hobble the RTA by so limiting its powers and, if so, whether doing so still makes sense.
What is also interesting about this list of findings and purposes is that nowhere is there a finding that justifies, or an identified purpose served, by chopping up the six counties over which the RTA has jurisdiction into three regions--City of Chicago, suburban Cook County, and the five collar counties--for purposes of taxation, board representation and allocation of operating subsidies. That balkanization has fostered unhealthy rivalries between the regions and between the service boards. No wonder that we still do not have a universal fare card for the region.
In sum, is the RTA just powerful enough to be irritating but not powerful enough to do much good? Stay tuned.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Innovation + Integration = MIA?
What is it with long titles these days? Is there a inverse relationship between the length of the title to an article or conference and the merits of the event or publication?
Well, ponder these questions when you attend the conference sponsored by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) entitled: "Innovation + Innovation: A Summit on the Economic Impact of Linking, Jobs, Housing and Transportation Planning." The all-day conference is on February 6th on the UIC campus. Mike Moskow, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, is the headliner. (Agenda and registration form.)
Such conferences are interesting and fun in a geeky type of way. There is ritualized hand-wringing over how the region is sprawling to hell and earnest calls for transit oriented development and other putatively sound planning and public investment policies.
But a look at the actions two key sponsors of the Summit who have had the power and resources to make a difference in how the region does transportation and planning suggests that such conference are largely empty rituals.
-- What did the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS), the region's metropolitan planning organization that is now part of CMAP, ever do to stop sprawl? Did CATS ever take on IDOT or a group of local mayors and refuse to put in the regional plan transportation investments that increased sprawl? Did CATS oppose, for example, the South Extension of I-355 into the sprawling fields of Will County or any other significant road project proposed outside of the urban core of the region? Did CATS ever oppose a Metra rail line extension to exurban areas or insist that such extensions be tied to requirements that local communities permit transit-oriented development? Did CATS ever rank and prioritize public transit investments according to principled criteria such as trips per million dollars of investment? No. Instead, CATS was and presumably is a collection point for the ideas of the various transportation providers and local governments, most of whom are not particularly interested in TOD and the like.
-- The record with respect to the RTA, the mover behind the Moving Beyond Congestion initiative, is even more disappointing. The RTA oversees hundreds of millions of dollars of transportation investment in the region each year. Yet, in its almost 25 years of existence the RTA has yet to adopt any capital investment policy that ties these investments to local land-use policies that will result in transit-supportive development. If the RTA had barred the service boards from making substantial new investments in communities that do not support transit oriented development policies then maybe some of the hand wringing that we will see at the February 6th conference might have been avoided.
Likewise, RTA is responsible for years of overinvestment of capital in Metra projects relative to Metra's share of public transit trips. This RTA policy helped make the sprawling and auto-dependent suburban communities more attractive relative to the dense and efficient (from energy/environmental perspective) urban core served by the CTA, which has suffered from many years of underinvestment relative to its trip share.
So, let's enjoy the show on February 6th. But don't think for a minute that the key sponsors have earned the right to lament the state of the region. Their actions and inactions on the planning and capital investment fronts have contributed to the very problems they will be lamenting.
Well, ponder these questions when you attend the conference sponsored by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) entitled: "Innovation + Innovation: A Summit on the Economic Impact of Linking, Jobs, Housing and Transportation Planning." The all-day conference is on February 6th on the UIC campus. Mike Moskow, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, is the headliner. (Agenda and registration form.)
Such conferences are interesting and fun in a geeky type of way. There is ritualized hand-wringing over how the region is sprawling to hell and earnest calls for transit oriented development and other putatively sound planning and public investment policies.
But a look at the actions two key sponsors of the Summit who have had the power and resources to make a difference in how the region does transportation and planning suggests that such conference are largely empty rituals.
-- What did the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS), the region's metropolitan planning organization that is now part of CMAP, ever do to stop sprawl? Did CATS ever take on IDOT or a group of local mayors and refuse to put in the regional plan transportation investments that increased sprawl? Did CATS oppose, for example, the South Extension of I-355 into the sprawling fields of Will County or any other significant road project proposed outside of the urban core of the region? Did CATS ever oppose a Metra rail line extension to exurban areas or insist that such extensions be tied to requirements that local communities permit transit-oriented development? Did CATS ever rank and prioritize public transit investments according to principled criteria such as trips per million dollars of investment? No. Instead, CATS was and presumably is a collection point for the ideas of the various transportation providers and local governments, most of whom are not particularly interested in TOD and the like.
-- The record with respect to the RTA, the mover behind the Moving Beyond Congestion initiative, is even more disappointing. The RTA oversees hundreds of millions of dollars of transportation investment in the region each year. Yet, in its almost 25 years of existence the RTA has yet to adopt any capital investment policy that ties these investments to local land-use policies that will result in transit-supportive development. If the RTA had barred the service boards from making substantial new investments in communities that do not support transit oriented development policies then maybe some of the hand wringing that we will see at the February 6th conference might have been avoided.
Likewise, RTA is responsible for years of overinvestment of capital in Metra projects relative to Metra's share of public transit trips. This RTA policy helped make the sprawling and auto-dependent suburban communities more attractive relative to the dense and efficient (from energy/environmental perspective) urban core served by the CTA, which has suffered from many years of underinvestment relative to its trip share.
So, let's enjoy the show on February 6th. But don't think for a minute that the key sponsors have earned the right to lament the state of the region. Their actions and inactions on the planning and capital investment fronts have contributed to the very problems they will be lamenting.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Raising Kane II
An earlier post described the Kane County Board as a bunch of whiners. Despite Kane County's modest contribution of RTA sales tax revenue to the regional transit system, the county is served by multiple Metra lines plus local bus service. Nonetheless, the Kane County board members gave Moving Beyond Congestion leaders a hard time when they briefed the Board, complaining that Kane County is grossly under served by public transit.
Maybe the Kane County Board is starting to see the light. A recent news report (entitled "Kane Puts Priority on its Road Projects" BTW) indicates that the Board's Legislative Committee called "for a funding solution to the Regional Transportation Authority's strategic plan for the metropolitan area." (Also here.) Notice that the Committee did not oppose the Moving Beyond Congestion initiative.
A very interesting statement in the article is: "If a transit sale tax increase for the RTA is proposed, committee members said, the county should press for a fair return on service from Kane tax dollars." Note that the Board Committee did not reject outright the notion of an RTA sale tax increase in the collar counties. This suggests that the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents are successfully grooming suburban lawmakers to support--or at least not vociferously oppose--an increase in the RTA sales tax in the collar counties.
This could be a huge win if the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents can push through a collar county tax increase for public transit without the good burghers descending on them with pitchforks, flaming torches and vats of tar.
Maybe the Kane County Board is starting to see the light. A recent news report (entitled "Kane Puts Priority on its Road Projects" BTW) indicates that the Board's Legislative Committee called "for a funding solution to the Regional Transportation Authority's strategic plan for the metropolitan area." (Also here.) Notice that the Committee did not oppose the Moving Beyond Congestion initiative.
A very interesting statement in the article is: "If a transit sale tax increase for the RTA is proposed, committee members said, the county should press for a fair return on service from Kane tax dollars." Note that the Board Committee did not reject outright the notion of an RTA sale tax increase in the collar counties. This suggests that the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents are successfully grooming suburban lawmakers to support--or at least not vociferously oppose--an increase in the RTA sales tax in the collar counties.
This could be a huge win if the RTA and the Moving Beyond Congestion proponents can push through a collar county tax increase for public transit without the good burghers descending on them with pitchforks, flaming torches and vats of tar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
