While the Chicago region's population as a whole is expected to grow at a decent rate over the next 20 years, this general growth masks population shifts within the region that have important implications for the region's transportation system.
This article indicates that the congressional districts represented by Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Rahm Emanuel are among the ten districts in the nation with the fastest shirking populations in the 2000-05 period. Schakowsky's district lost 51,906 (7.9%) of its population during that period, the third greatest decrease in the nation. Emanuel's district lost 33,260 (5.1%) of its population during that period, the eighth largest decrease in the nation.
The national map (here) based on Almanac of American Politics (site) data showing population changes indicates that the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th congressional districts also lost population during the 2000-05 period. All of these districts cover the City of Chicago and nearby suburbs.
These congressional districts have the highest population and employment density in the region. For the most part they embody the kind of transit-oriented development so prized these days as an antidote to everything from obesity to global warming. The current level of transit investment and infrastructure in these districts is higher than in the congressional districts farther out from Chicago.
The shift in population away from these high-density, transit-friendly areas to the urban fringe does not bode well for public transit (or the environment) in this region. The loss of population in the urban core cuts away at the sales tax funding base for the Chicago Transit Authority. Transit is harder and more expensive to provide in sprawling exurbs. It also is harder to make the business case for heavy new capital investment in transit when the ridership base of the CTA, which still carries about 80% of the region's transit customers, is shrinking.
Could the current difficulties in finding increased capital and operating funding for the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace be driven in part by an almost unconscious recognition that the demographic trends in this region are pointing us in the direction of becoming a sprawling, auto-centric region like Detroit (but with a more vibrant downtown) instead of a city like London or Paris with a strong public transit system?
Speaking of which, are there any provisions in SB 572, the long-stalled bill to provide more operating funding for the service boards and "reform" the Regional Transportation Authority, that will help counteract the centrifugal forces that are pulling this region into a development pattern largely inhospitable to transit?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Setting STAR Line?
Crain's reports that a group of suburban municipalities is gearing up to oppose the Canadian National Railway's purchase of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway's line that stretches in a giant circle from Waukegan to Gary. CN is going to use this line to reroute freight trains that currently have to travel through the City of Chicago. This will allow railroad properties in the City to be developed for other uses. As anyone who had taken Metra's Aurora and Geneva lines to Chicago can observe, railroad property in Chicago has been extensively developed with relatively high density housing.
As previously reported, Metra has designs on part of the EJ&E line for the western branch of its much-anticipated STAR Line. Metra will find it much harder and certainly more expensive to acquire this right of way if CN proceeds with transforming it into a key link in the nation's rail transportation network. It will be interesting to see if Metra gives aid and comfort to the suburban NIMBY group (meant only to be descriptive in this case). According to the article, the opponents of the CN move are unlikely to be able to block CN's acquisition of the EJ&E line.
The juxtaposition of a group of suburban municipalities with low density/auto-centric development patterns opposing the expansion of a rail line that will free up space for higher density, more transit-friendly development elsewhere in the region is instructive. It does not appear that there is any public body--be it the RTA or the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning--whose job it is to weigh the cost and benefits of the CN takeover from a regional perspective. In terms of CO2 emission reduction, for example, which will do more--build the STAR Line in areas that are mostly sprawling and auto-centric or build walkable, transit friendly development is an area already comparatively well served by transit (at least until the 1/20/08 Doomsday).
Even if the STAR Line wins that contest, is it time for Metra to put the STAR Line to rest anyway? Metra seems to be having a hard time developing believable projected ridership numbers that would support such a major new capital investment. The fact that the proposed State capital plan has a 10:1 highway/transit funding ratio (compared to a 2:1 ratio in the last capital bill) certainly does not indicate strong support for the STAR Line specifically and public transit generally. Metra can't pay its bills now without raiding its capital funds. Adding a new line that will surely operate at a substantial operating loss would only make its financial position worse.
Put these all together--a weak business case, lack of public/political support for the STAR Line in the State capital bill, Metra's operating funding challenges, and arguably other transit investments that will do more to reduce congestion and auto travel than the STAR Line--and maybe it is time for the STAR Line to be mothballed.
As previously reported, Metra has designs on part of the EJ&E line for the western branch of its much-anticipated STAR Line. Metra will find it much harder and certainly more expensive to acquire this right of way if CN proceeds with transforming it into a key link in the nation's rail transportation network. It will be interesting to see if Metra gives aid and comfort to the suburban NIMBY group (meant only to be descriptive in this case). According to the article, the opponents of the CN move are unlikely to be able to block CN's acquisition of the EJ&E line.
The juxtaposition of a group of suburban municipalities with low density/auto-centric development patterns opposing the expansion of a rail line that will free up space for higher density, more transit-friendly development elsewhere in the region is instructive. It does not appear that there is any public body--be it the RTA or the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning--whose job it is to weigh the cost and benefits of the CN takeover from a regional perspective. In terms of CO2 emission reduction, for example, which will do more--build the STAR Line in areas that are mostly sprawling and auto-centric or build walkable, transit friendly development is an area already comparatively well served by transit (at least until the 1/20/08 Doomsday).
Even if the STAR Line wins that contest, is it time for Metra to put the STAR Line to rest anyway? Metra seems to be having a hard time developing believable projected ridership numbers that would support such a major new capital investment. The fact that the proposed State capital plan has a 10:1 highway/transit funding ratio (compared to a 2:1 ratio in the last capital bill) certainly does not indicate strong support for the STAR Line specifically and public transit generally. Metra can't pay its bills now without raiding its capital funds. Adding a new line that will surely operate at a substantial operating loss would only make its financial position worse.
Put these all together--a weak business case, lack of public/political support for the STAR Line in the State capital bill, Metra's operating funding challenges, and arguably other transit investments that will do more to reduce congestion and auto travel than the STAR Line--and maybe it is time for the STAR Line to be mothballed.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
I-355 South Extension Opens: Cause For Celebration Or Mourning?
The South Extension of I-355 opens tomorrow after today's festivities. The South Extension runs about 13 miles from I-55 to I-80 in New Lenox, mostly in Will County. While much of the corridor is still rural in character, subdivisions are replacing cornfields and there is much commercial development along the corridor, including at least two developments of around two million square feet apiece. In short, the Chicago metropolitan region is sprawling some more.
From all accounts, Will County residents are generally in favor of the South Extension. A Sierra Club lawsuit stopped construction in the mid-1990s, but no environmental group filed such a challenge this time. (Timeline here.)
Should we view the South Extension as a welcome addition to the region's transportation system or is it an investment in auto transportation that is a reckless gamble when oil prices are continuing their climb to $100/barrel and beyond? Is the increase in convenience for Will County residents outweighed by the environmental costs associated with ramming an expressway through a rural area and the sprawl-type development that will inevitably result? Why did the Sierra Club (and other such groups) take a pass on challenging the South Extension this time around?
Final question: The South Extension cost about $750 million. Is the region better off with this investment or would the money have been better used on fixing the region's public transportation system?
From all accounts, Will County residents are generally in favor of the South Extension. A Sierra Club lawsuit stopped construction in the mid-1990s, but no environmental group filed such a challenge this time. (Timeline here.)
Should we view the South Extension as a welcome addition to the region's transportation system or is it an investment in auto transportation that is a reckless gamble when oil prices are continuing their climb to $100/barrel and beyond? Is the increase in convenience for Will County residents outweighed by the environmental costs associated with ramming an expressway through a rural area and the sprawl-type development that will inevitably result? Why did the Sierra Club (and other such groups) take a pass on challenging the South Extension this time around?
Final question: The South Extension cost about $750 million. Is the region better off with this investment or would the money have been better used on fixing the region's public transportation system?
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Regional Distribution Of IDOT's Highway Capital Dollars
Introduction
This post looks at the allocation of highway capital dollars by the Illinois Department of Transportation throughout the State of Illinois, using factors such as population, highway miles, and daily vehicle miles traveled in each IDOT district. Likely to no one's surprise, it shows that District 1, which encompasses the six counties of northeastern Illinois, receives less than any other district on a vehicle miles traveled basis and is second lowest on a per capita basis, although it tops the State in terms of investment on a per highway mile basis. This analysis indicates that northeastern Illinois subsidizes highway capital investment in the rest of the State, a fact that may have some relevance in the ongoing debates over the "bailout" of the public transit agencies operating in District 1.
Methodology
The Illinois Department of Transportation has posted its FY 2008-2013 Proposed Highway Improvement Program (here). Such detailed capital program documents were long shrouded in bureaucratic secrecy by IDOT. Governor Blagojevich's administration should get some credit for posting the Program in the public domain and, in general, making more information about IDOT and its programs publicly available.
The Program allocates capital dollars for highway improvements among each of IDOT's nine districts (district map here). District 1 covers the same six counties in northeastern Illinois that make up the service area for the Regional Transportation Authority and its three service boards--Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, and Pace. The remaining districts are Downstate. Generally speaking, the higher the district number the further south the district.
I pulled highway miles, daily vehicle miles traveled, and FY 2008-2013 capital investment data from the Program. I aggregated 2000 Census data for each Illinois county into district population figures. Then, I utilized my primitive Excel skills and went to town.
Summary Results
Per Capita Highway Investment
District 1 $382.44
District 2 $917.26
District 3 $1,649.3
District 4 $1,058.47
District 5 $600.11
District 6 $313.74
District 7 $1,011.16
District 8 $1,175.02
District 9 $1,425.75
Statewide Average $621.75
Downstate Average $935.20
Investment Per Highway Mile
District 1 $918,623.88
District 2 $387,403.45
District 3 $446,224.26
District 4 $350,153.85
District 5 $206,870.80
District 6 $147,072.82
District 7 $241,463.41
District 8 $466,703.66
District 9 $344,217.69
Statewide: $432,536.06
Downstate: $322,941.53
Investment Per Daily Mile Traveled
District 1 $26.96
District 2 $52.16
District 3 $66.67
District 4 $60.53
District 5 $28.85
District 6 $29.71
District 7 $43.04
District 8 $54.26
District 9 $58.84
Statewide Average: $37.42
Downstate Average: $49.83
Analysis
This summary lends itself to two related conclusions. First, it appears from both the per capita and vehicle miles traveled data that the denser land-use patterns in District 1 lend themselves to more cost-effective highway transportation than in the less densely populated areas Downstate. This was a bit of surprise to me, given the higher land acquisition and construction costs in an urban area, but it makes sense when one considers the higher level of use of urban roadways.
Second, because of that higher level of cost-efficiency, IDOT is able to shift money from Northeastern Illinois to fund Downstate highway projects. District 1, after all, accounts for 63.52% of the population and 54.24% of the daily vehicle miles traveled in Illinois, yet it will receive only 39.07% of IDOT's highway capital dollars under the Program. Presumably, the percentage of vehicle miles traveled in a district approximates that district's contribution of gas taxes and other revenues for IDOT's highway program. The major difference between District 1's revenue contribution and its return in the form of IDOT highway capital investment is highly significant.
Some caveats. First, this analysis does not consider IDOT's investment in other transportation modes such as airports and public transit. When IDOT's investments in those other modes are factored in--something I hope to do down the line--District 1 may not be such a heavy donor region after all. Second, the Illinois Tollway system, which is centered in District 1 and is completely funded by user fees--frees up District 1 money for use Downstate. It is quite possible that these two effects cancel each other, leaving District 1 as a major donor region.
Third, it is possible that the distribution of IDOT's capital investment reflects a certain ebb and flow among the districts. Maybe the 2008-13 period is a down period for District 1 and that it might even become a donee district at some point in the future when it finally undertakes expensive new projects like the Western O'Hare Bypass. Finally, this analysis does not consider the value of the products being carried on the highway in each district. It is possible, although I don't think it is likely, that the value of goods carried on Downstate highways is higher than the value of goods carried on District 1 highways.
The purpose of this analysis is not to incite more Chicago vs. Downstate antagonism. Every great urban region, after all, needs to be linked effectively to its hinterland. The notion that "Chicago" is soaking up a disproportionate share of the State's transportation dollars, however, appears to be a myth.
This summary lends itself to two related conclusions. First, it appears from both the per capita and vehicle miles traveled data that the denser land-use patterns in District 1 lend themselves to more cost-effective highway transportation than in the less densely populated areas Downstate. This was a bit of surprise to me, given the higher land acquisition and construction costs in an urban area, but it makes sense when one considers the higher level of use of urban roadways.
Second, because of that higher level of cost-efficiency, IDOT is able to shift money from Northeastern Illinois to fund Downstate highway projects. District 1, after all, accounts for 63.52% of the population and 54.24% of the daily vehicle miles traveled in Illinois, yet it will receive only 39.07% of IDOT's highway capital dollars under the Program. Presumably, the percentage of vehicle miles traveled in a district approximates that district's contribution of gas taxes and other revenues for IDOT's highway program. The major difference between District 1's revenue contribution and its return in the form of IDOT highway capital investment is highly significant.
Some caveats. First, this analysis does not consider IDOT's investment in other transportation modes such as airports and public transit. When IDOT's investments in those other modes are factored in--something I hope to do down the line--District 1 may not be such a heavy donor region after all. Second, the Illinois Tollway system, which is centered in District 1 and is completely funded by user fees--frees up District 1 money for use Downstate. It is quite possible that these two effects cancel each other, leaving District 1 as a major donor region.
Third, it is possible that the distribution of IDOT's capital investment reflects a certain ebb and flow among the districts. Maybe the 2008-13 period is a down period for District 1 and that it might even become a donee district at some point in the future when it finally undertakes expensive new projects like the Western O'Hare Bypass. Finally, this analysis does not consider the value of the products being carried on the highway in each district. It is possible, although I don't think it is likely, that the value of goods carried on Downstate highways is higher than the value of goods carried on District 1 highways.
The purpose of this analysis is not to incite more Chicago vs. Downstate antagonism. Every great urban region, after all, needs to be linked effectively to its hinterland. The notion that "Chicago" is soaking up a disproportionate share of the State's transportation dollars, however, appears to be a myth.
Detailed Results
District 1
Population 7,261,176 63.52%
Highway Miles 3,023 18.40%
Daily Vehicle Miles 103,000,000 54.24%
FY 2008-13 Investment $2,777,000,000 39.07%
Per Capita Investment $382.44
Per Mile Investment $918,623.88
Per VMT Investment $26.96
District 2
Population 710,814 6.22%
Highway Miles 1,683 10.24%
Daily Vehicle Miles 12,500,000 6.58%
FY 2008-13 Investment $652,000,000 9.17%
Per Capita Investment $917.26
Per Mile Investment $387,403.45
Per VMT Investment $52.16
District 3
Population 472,901 4.14%
Highway Miles 1,748 10.64%
Daily Vehicle Miles 11,700,000 6.16%
FY 2008-13 Investment $780,000,000 10.98%
Per Capita Investment $1,649.39
Per Mile Investment $446,224.26
Per VMT Investment $66.67
District 4
Population 537,568 4.70%
Highway Miles 1,625 9.89%
Daily Vehicle Miles 9,400,000 4.95%
FY 2008-13 Investment $569,000,000 8.01%
Per Capita Investment $1,058.47
Per Mile Investment $350,153.85
Per VMT Investment $60.53
District 5
Population 461,585 4.04%
Highway Miles 1,339 8.15%
Daily Vehicle Miles 9,600,000 5.06%
FY 2008-13 Investment $277,000,000 3.90%
Per Capita Investment $600.11
Per Mile Investment $206,870.80
Per VMT Investment $28.85
District 6
Population 984,879 8.62%
Highway Miles 2,101 12.79%
Daily Vehicle Miles 10,400,000 5.48%
FY 2008-13 Investment $309,000,000 4.35%
Per Capita Investment $313.74
Per Mile Investment $147,072.82
Per VMT Investment $29.71
District 7
Population 391,631 3.43%
Highway Miles 1,640 9.98%
Daily Vehicle Miles 9,200,000 4.84%
FY 2008-13 Investment $396,000,000 5.57%
Per Capita Investment $1,011.16
Per Mile Investment $241,463.41
Per VMT Investment $43.04
District 8
Population 715,734 6.26%
Highway Miles 1,802 10.97%
Daily Vehicle Miles 15,500,000 8.16%
FY 2008-13 Investment $841,000,000 11.83%
Per Capita Investment $1,175.02
Per Mile Investment $466,703.66
Per VMT Investment $54.26
District 9
Population 354,901 3.10%
Highway Miles 1,470 8.95%
Daily Vehicle Miles 8,600,000 4.53%
FY 2008-13 Investment $506,000,000 7.12%
Per Capita Investment $1,425.75
Per Mile Investment $344,217.69
Per VMT Investment $58.84
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Voters And Transit Funding: Why Is This Region So Skittish?
The notion of asking voters in the six county area to approve a regional tax increase to fund public transit seems anathema to transit supporters in this region. Presumably, transit supporters fear that voters will turn down such a tax increase and believe that public transit will fare better in Springfield in the General Assembly. The doomsday cycles of the last few years and the success of transit funding referenda across the country should prompt a re-evaluation of that assumption.
The Center for Transportation Excellence tracks the success of transit funding ballot measures and has found an approval rate of over 50 percent nationwide. The elections earlier this week were no exception. Of the 19 transit funding measures on the ballot 13 were approved by the voters.
The biggest wins for transit came in San Francisco, where voters approved a measure that will increase funding and allow reforms of Muni, and in Charlotte, North Carolina, where voters rejected a repeal of the existing sales tax for transit.
The biggest loss came in Seattle, where voters rejected a measure that would have increased taxes to fund 50 miles of new rail transit and 186 miles of new road lanes. According to this article, however, the defeat might have been because the measure was insufficiently supportive of public transit and thus did not do enough to address global warning. Indeed, the Sierra Club opposed the measure.
Given the tough sledding in Springfield and the national success rate for transit funding referenda, why are transit officials and regional leaders here reluctant to proceed with a transit funding referendum to provide additional funds to the RTA and the three service boards, Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace? After all, public transit has a larger market share here than in most if not all of the areas that have approved transit funding referenda over the past decade.
I suspect that there are two answers. First, transit supporters fear that voters won't agree that the additional funding necessary to stave off doomsday and provide sufficient capital is worth the congestion relief and other benefits from public transit. Second, they fear that the State would not increase its Public Transportation Fund match of the new revenue generated regionally if the referendum did pass.
What would be the result if SB 572 were packaged into a regional referendum? How would you vote?
The Center for Transportation Excellence tracks the success of transit funding ballot measures and has found an approval rate of over 50 percent nationwide. The elections earlier this week were no exception. Of the 19 transit funding measures on the ballot 13 were approved by the voters.
The biggest wins for transit came in San Francisco, where voters approved a measure that will increase funding and allow reforms of Muni, and in Charlotte, North Carolina, where voters rejected a repeal of the existing sales tax for transit.
The biggest loss came in Seattle, where voters rejected a measure that would have increased taxes to fund 50 miles of new rail transit and 186 miles of new road lanes. According to this article, however, the defeat might have been because the measure was insufficiently supportive of public transit and thus did not do enough to address global warning. Indeed, the Sierra Club opposed the measure.
Given the tough sledding in Springfield and the national success rate for transit funding referenda, why are transit officials and regional leaders here reluctant to proceed with a transit funding referendum to provide additional funds to the RTA and the three service boards, Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace? After all, public transit has a larger market share here than in most if not all of the areas that have approved transit funding referenda over the past decade.
I suspect that there are two answers. First, transit supporters fear that voters won't agree that the additional funding necessary to stave off doomsday and provide sufficient capital is worth the congestion relief and other benefits from public transit. Second, they fear that the State would not increase its Public Transportation Fund match of the new revenue generated regionally if the referendum did pass.
What would be the result if SB 572 were packaged into a regional referendum? How would you vote?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
What's Got Into IDOT?
The Illinois Department of Transportation has announced a series of public hearings on its Illinois State Transportation Plan. You can get a draft of the Plan here.
The Plan has some bad news. Vehicle miles traveled in Illinois continue to grow faster than the rate of population. Yet, IDOT has no money to expand the transportation system, spending 95 percent of its money on maintaining the current system. Existing funding sources like the gas tax are expected to show anemic growth in the years ahead. If that is not bad enough, construction costs in the Chicago area are growing significantly faster than the already robust rate of increase nationally. In short it looks like more of the same Soviet-style management of our limited road capacity lies ahead, namely, long, slow lines of cars on busy highways inching through the roadway chokepoints.
Yet, there are some glimmers of hope in the Plan. Might IDOT be ready to emerge from an extended slumber that has kept it well behind innovative departments of transportations in other states? Several examples:
-- Intelligent Transportation Systems: The Plan tips its hat toward intelligent transportation technologies that increase highway capacity without increasing lane miles and improve safety.
-- Congestion Pricing: Despite indications that the Governor opposes congestion pricing, the Plan treats congestion pricing as a viable transportation system option and calls for "explor[ing] the effectiveness of congestion pricing as a to reduce congestion." Wow.
-- Public/Private Partnerships: The Plan states that a goal is to "support joint public-private partnership and private sector initiatives to provide transportation facilities and services where public expenditures can be reduced and the quality, quantity and long-term stability of service is maintained."
-- User Fees/tolling: More IDOT surprise goals: "Extend user-pay financing to new technologies [and] . . . explore toll opportunities and innovative financing methods, including value capture pricing, to fund transportation facilities and services."
Maybe IDOT is learning from its recent loss of an Urban Partnership Program grant because of its failure to embrace congestion pricing and other such transportation management techniques. Or is this just window dressing to keep civic groups focused on Chicago area public transit--a tiny part of the State's transportation system--while IDOT and the roadbuilders go to town slinging asphalt Downstate?
I prefer to be optimistic and hope that members of the transportation, business and environmental communities press IDOT to make good on the innovations hinted at in this draft Plan.
The Plan has some bad news. Vehicle miles traveled in Illinois continue to grow faster than the rate of population. Yet, IDOT has no money to expand the transportation system, spending 95 percent of its money on maintaining the current system. Existing funding sources like the gas tax are expected to show anemic growth in the years ahead. If that is not bad enough, construction costs in the Chicago area are growing significantly faster than the already robust rate of increase nationally. In short it looks like more of the same Soviet-style management of our limited road capacity lies ahead, namely, long, slow lines of cars on busy highways inching through the roadway chokepoints.
Yet, there are some glimmers of hope in the Plan. Might IDOT be ready to emerge from an extended slumber that has kept it well behind innovative departments of transportations in other states? Several examples:
-- Intelligent Transportation Systems: The Plan tips its hat toward intelligent transportation technologies that increase highway capacity without increasing lane miles and improve safety.
-- Congestion Pricing: Despite indications that the Governor opposes congestion pricing, the Plan treats congestion pricing as a viable transportation system option and calls for "explor[ing] the effectiveness of congestion pricing as a to reduce congestion." Wow.
-- Public/Private Partnerships: The Plan states that a goal is to "support joint public-private partnership and private sector initiatives to provide transportation facilities and services where public expenditures can be reduced and the quality, quantity and long-term stability of service is maintained."
-- User Fees/tolling: More IDOT surprise goals: "Extend user-pay financing to new technologies [and] . . . explore toll opportunities and innovative financing methods, including value capture pricing, to fund transportation facilities and services."
Maybe IDOT is learning from its recent loss of an Urban Partnership Program grant because of its failure to embrace congestion pricing and other such transportation management techniques. Or is this just window dressing to keep civic groups focused on Chicago area public transit--a tiny part of the State's transportation system--while IDOT and the roadbuilders go to town slinging asphalt Downstate?
I prefer to be optimistic and hope that members of the transportation, business and environmental communities press IDOT to make good on the innovations hinted at in this draft Plan.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
SB 572: Hope Springs Eternal For Representative Hamos
Representative Julie Hamos has circulated a newsletter discussing SB 572 and the transit funding situation. She describes why SB 572 failed to advance out of the Illinois House as follows:
The House of Representatives returned to Springfield last Thursday with the expectation that there would be a vote on SB 572, our comprehensive transit plan. However, the House Republicans again held firm that they were unwilling to support transit legislation without a capital infrastructure bill. Since transit is a truly regional, bipartisan issue that deserves bipartisan support, it was impossible to pass the transit bill with hardly any Republican support.
The newsletter goes on to note that the Governor and three of the four legislative leaders have pledged to work hard over the next two weeks to craft a long-term transit funding solution by coming up with a state-wide capital plan. (You can access the letters through the Hamos newsletter.) The lone holdout is Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, perhaps smarting over the less than complete description of SB 572 contained in a letter he received from the RTA recently.
In any event, Representative Hamos closes her newsletter with the following: "I remain hopeful that the leaders will fashion a capital infrastructure bill that will pave the way for a successful vote on SB 572 in the next two weeks."
What, if any, of SB 572 will survive the legislative back and forth over the next days or weeks?
Is transit funding the only issue that needs to be resolved by the Governor and the legislative leaders or are the RTA "reform" provisions also up in the air?
Will the CTA unions agree to honor their concessions if a solution is not enacted before 2008? Are greater concessions possible in 2008 if the CTA's 2008 doomsday is even worse than the 2007 doomsday that was just averted?
Is the Governor or any of the legislative leaders inclined to radically reform the Chicago area public transit system by, for example, combining the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace into the RTA as operating units of the RTA?
Will enough of SB 572 pass so that Representative Hamos can feel like the effort she has put into this issue has been worthwhile?
The House of Representatives returned to Springfield last Thursday with the expectation that there would be a vote on SB 572, our comprehensive transit plan. However, the House Republicans again held firm that they were unwilling to support transit legislation without a capital infrastructure bill. Since transit is a truly regional, bipartisan issue that deserves bipartisan support, it was impossible to pass the transit bill with hardly any Republican support.
The newsletter goes on to note that the Governor and three of the four legislative leaders have pledged to work hard over the next two weeks to craft a long-term transit funding solution by coming up with a state-wide capital plan. (You can access the letters through the Hamos newsletter.) The lone holdout is Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, perhaps smarting over the less than complete description of SB 572 contained in a letter he received from the RTA recently.
In any event, Representative Hamos closes her newsletter with the following: "I remain hopeful that the leaders will fashion a capital infrastructure bill that will pave the way for a successful vote on SB 572 in the next two weeks."
What, if any, of SB 572 will survive the legislative back and forth over the next days or weeks?
Is transit funding the only issue that needs to be resolved by the Governor and the legislative leaders or are the RTA "reform" provisions also up in the air?
Will the CTA unions agree to honor their concessions if a solution is not enacted before 2008? Are greater concessions possible in 2008 if the CTA's 2008 doomsday is even worse than the 2007 doomsday that was just averted?
Is the Governor or any of the legislative leaders inclined to radically reform the Chicago area public transit system by, for example, combining the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace into the RTA as operating units of the RTA?
Will enough of SB 572 pass so that Representative Hamos can feel like the effort she has put into this issue has been worthwhile?
Monday, November 5, 2007
Shake Your Spunky Bottoms For The WRDA!
It is easy to forget in the welter of highways and railroad tracks that water transportation was the key to the economic development of Illinois. William Cronon in the book Nature’s Metropolis and others have argued that Chicago’s rise was on account of its perch between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds that was ably exploited via the I & M Canal. Water transportation of bulk goods is still a significant part of the Illinois transportation network.
Congress recently passed the $23 billion Water Resources Development Act. (Summaries here and here.) The WRDA provides about $3.6 billion for navigational improvements and ecosystem restoration projects in the Upper Mississippi River region. Here’s a description from the Conference Report:
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System
The upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway system is an important waterway, used to ship grain, predominantly from the heartland, all across the country. The conference report will:
Authorize $256 million for near-term navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration along the system;
Authorize $1.95 billion for new locks;
Authorize the Army Corps to address the cumulative environmental impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River through a $1.7 billion program; and
Create an advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the development of environmental and navigation improvements.
Illinois appears to be a big beneficiary of these dollars. According to a weekend story in the Peoria Journal Star $2 billion of this money will be used to rebuild locks on the Illinois River in Peoria and LaGrange. The bill also authorizes $16 million to build three islands from 1 1/2 million cubic yards of dredged sediment along East Peoria's banks of the Lower Peoria Lake, which is filling with silt. Beardstown’s marina, which has been silt-choked since the Sangamon River’s course was changed the last time such a bill was passed, will see another revamping of the river’s course, which may enhance the prospects for marine recreation in this city on Route 67.
The full list of authorized Illinois projects in the WRDA is as follows:
Sec. 3058. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
Sec. 3059. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3060. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3061. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois.
Sec. 3062. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3063. Lasalle, Illinois.
Sec. 3064. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers are the barriers designed to prevent the Asian carp and other non-native species from traveling from the Mississippi River watershed to the Great Lakes.
The $7.5 million Spunky Bottoms project is for production of a series of aquatic exercise videos of the same name for the federal anti-obesity program using the generously proportioned men and women of that area. No, really, it is a very cool 2000 acre wetlands restoration project on the Illinois River.
President Bush barely had a chance to sheath his veto pen after vetoing a bill that would provide hundreds of thousands of uninsured kids health care before he used it to veto the WRDA on Friday. Bush may have been responding to criticisms that the WRDA is full of “pork.” Urged on by the National Corn Growers Association, the Illinois Farm Bureau and other supporters of the transport of goods by barge, Congress is expected to override the President’s veto soon, since the House voted 381-40 and the Senate voted 81-12 in favor of the WRDA.
The likelihood of a veto override has prompted some observers to suggest that the President used the veto as a publicity stunt to portray a sense of fiscal discipline without interfering with the transfer of such “pork” as we roll into an election year. Indeed, the President signaled that he was "fine" with the veto override.
While we wait for the veto override, shake those spunky bottoms!
.
Congress recently passed the $23 billion Water Resources Development Act. (Summaries here and here.) The WRDA provides about $3.6 billion for navigational improvements and ecosystem restoration projects in the Upper Mississippi River region. Here’s a description from the Conference Report:
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System
The upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway system is an important waterway, used to ship grain, predominantly from the heartland, all across the country. The conference report will:
Authorize $256 million for near-term navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration along the system;
Authorize $1.95 billion for new locks;
Authorize the Army Corps to address the cumulative environmental impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River through a $1.7 billion program; and
Create an advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the development of environmental and navigation improvements.
Illinois appears to be a big beneficiary of these dollars. According to a weekend story in the Peoria Journal Star $2 billion of this money will be used to rebuild locks on the Illinois River in Peoria and LaGrange. The bill also authorizes $16 million to build three islands from 1 1/2 million cubic yards of dredged sediment along East Peoria's banks of the Lower Peoria Lake, which is filling with silt. Beardstown’s marina, which has been silt-choked since the Sangamon River’s course was changed the last time such a bill was passed, will see another revamping of the river’s course, which may enhance the prospects for marine recreation in this city on Route 67.
The full list of authorized Illinois projects in the WRDA is as follows:
Sec. 3058. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
Sec. 3059. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3060. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3061. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois.
Sec. 3062. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3063. Lasalle, Illinois.
Sec. 3064. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers are the barriers designed to prevent the Asian carp and other non-native species from traveling from the Mississippi River watershed to the Great Lakes.
The $7.5 million Spunky Bottoms project is for production of a series of aquatic exercise videos of the same name for the federal anti-obesity program using the generously proportioned men and women of that area. No, really, it is a very cool 2000 acre wetlands restoration project on the Illinois River.
President Bush barely had a chance to sheath his veto pen after vetoing a bill that would provide hundreds of thousands of uninsured kids health care before he used it to veto the WRDA on Friday. Bush may have been responding to criticisms that the WRDA is full of “pork.” Urged on by the National Corn Growers Association, the Illinois Farm Bureau and other supporters of the transport of goods by barge, Congress is expected to override the President’s veto soon, since the House voted 381-40 and the Senate voted 81-12 in favor of the WRDA.
The likelihood of a veto override has prompted some observers to suggest that the President used the veto as a publicity stunt to portray a sense of fiscal discipline without interfering with the transfer of such “pork” as we roll into an election year. Indeed, the President signaled that he was "fine" with the veto override.
While we wait for the veto override, shake those spunky bottoms!
.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Farebox Recovery Ratio, Senator Watson And RTA Candor
Section 4.09(g) of RTA Act contains a requirement that the service boards--Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace--recover half of their operating costs from fares and other system generated revenue. The three service boards must generate sufficient revenue to meet 50 percent of their operating expenses. This is the so-called farebox recovery ratio. Because of existing exceptions already written into the RTA Act, the actual farebox recovery ratio is significantly lower than 50 percent. That is, public subsidies--i.e., tax revenue--cover significantly more than 50 percent of the cost of operating the RTA system and customer fares (and other system-generated revenue) cover significantly less than 50 percent of those costs.
The purpose of the farebox recovery ratio is to require the RTA and the service boards to step up and raise fares when necessary to keep the public subsidy of the public transit system at roughly 50 percent of the cost of providing the service. It is meant to provide an objective standard upon which the service boards can rely when going through the difficult and unpopular task of raising fares. The recovery ratio reflects the General Assembly's public policy judgment about how much public support the transit system in northeastern Illinois deserves and how much should be paid by the public transit customers.
Senate Minority leader Frank Watson has indicated that he views fare increases by the service boards as a necessary part of the solution to the transit funding problems that have occupied so much time and attention over the past year. He sent a letter to that effect to Jim Reilly, the head of the RTA, about a week ago.
Reilly's reply, available through the Capital Fax Blog (here) or upon request, urges Senator Watson to support SB 572. Reilly responds to Watson's request for a fare increase as follows:
You suggest that a moderate fare increase might be part of the solution. Certainly if the Governor and four leaders agree on that approach we would most definitely implement it but again the Auditor General's report makes it clear that a fare increase alone does not come close to solving the problem. SB 572 does continue the requirement that 50% of the costs of operating transit be received from the farebox so there will be a requirement for fare increases over time.
This statement is incomplete under even the most charitable interpretation of the letter. The RTA, speaking through its Chairman, seems to be telling Senator Watson that SB 572 retains the 50% farebox recovery ratio requirement of the current RTA Act and thus preserves the General Assembly's current policy balance between fares and public subsidies for the support of transit operations.
What the RTA failed to tell Senator Watson is that the current version of SB 572 contains major new exemptions that will mean in practice the actual farebox recovery ratio will fall even farther below the 50 percent farebox recovery ratio that will remain on the statute books. (See pages 206-08 of the bill.)
While the RTA may have been technically correct in telling Senator Watson that SB 572 retains the 50 percent farebox recovery ratio, it did its reputation for candor no service by failing to inform him of these major new exclusions and their effect on the proportion of public transit operations paid for by fare-paying customers and the proportion covered by public subsidies via regional and State tax revenue.
The purpose of the farebox recovery ratio is to require the RTA and the service boards to step up and raise fares when necessary to keep the public subsidy of the public transit system at roughly 50 percent of the cost of providing the service. It is meant to provide an objective standard upon which the service boards can rely when going through the difficult and unpopular task of raising fares. The recovery ratio reflects the General Assembly's public policy judgment about how much public support the transit system in northeastern Illinois deserves and how much should be paid by the public transit customers.
Senate Minority leader Frank Watson has indicated that he views fare increases by the service boards as a necessary part of the solution to the transit funding problems that have occupied so much time and attention over the past year. He sent a letter to that effect to Jim Reilly, the head of the RTA, about a week ago.
Reilly's reply, available through the Capital Fax Blog (here) or upon request, urges Senator Watson to support SB 572. Reilly responds to Watson's request for a fare increase as follows:
You suggest that a moderate fare increase might be part of the solution. Certainly if the Governor and four leaders agree on that approach we would most definitely implement it but again the Auditor General's report makes it clear that a fare increase alone does not come close to solving the problem. SB 572 does continue the requirement that 50% of the costs of operating transit be received from the farebox so there will be a requirement for fare increases over time.
This statement is incomplete under even the most charitable interpretation of the letter. The RTA, speaking through its Chairman, seems to be telling Senator Watson that SB 572 retains the 50% farebox recovery ratio requirement of the current RTA Act and thus preserves the General Assembly's current policy balance between fares and public subsidies for the support of transit operations.
What the RTA failed to tell Senator Watson is that the current version of SB 572 contains major new exemptions that will mean in practice the actual farebox recovery ratio will fall even farther below the 50 percent farebox recovery ratio that will remain on the statute books. (See pages 206-08 of the bill.)
- First, in calculating the farebox recovery ratio, the CTA and Metra (which SB 572 authorizes to issue up to $1 billion in debt) can exempt debt service from their operating expenses for purposes of calculating the farebox recovery ratio.
- Second, SB 572 provides that all passenger security expenses can be exempted from operating expenses, removing the current $5 million cap.
- Third, Pace can exclude from revenue grants it receives from the Suburban Community Mobility Fund, which should average $20 million each year under section 4.03.3(c)(i) of SB 572.
- Fourth, SB 572 lops off $200 million in costs from the calculation of the farebox recovery ratio in 2008. This amount of excluded costs reduces by $20 million a year over the next decade (e.g., $180 million in FY 2009).
While the RTA may have been technically correct in telling Senator Watson that SB 572 retains the 50 percent farebox recovery ratio, it did its reputation for candor no service by failing to inform him of these major new exclusions and their effect on the proportion of public transit operations paid for by fare-paying customers and the proportion covered by public subsidies via regional and State tax revenue.
Smart One: Doomsday Averted Once Again
Just as the first doomsday was set to arrive for the Chicago Transit Authority and Pace, transit apocalypse was averted when the State of Illinois and the federal government found a way to free up $27 million to keep Pace and the CTA afloat at current service/fare levels until at least the end of the year. From published reports (e.g., here), I hesitate to attempt to describe how the solution works. It appears that the FTA authorized the use of $27 million of federal capital funds for transit operating purposes. The State agreed to step up with $27 million of its capital dollars to fill the resulting hole. Essentially, this solution exploits the more liberal rules governing the use of federal capital funds for transit operations compared to State rules on the use of capital funds, a neat bit of arbitrage.
This last minute fix has all the earmarks of some smart person being creative and thinking outside of the proverbial box. It was a solution no one had discussed and "seemed to appear out of nowhere." Despite plenty of fulminating (here and here) about how the RTA no longer should accept short-term funding bailouts, the RTA and the service boards wasted no time in embracing this solution once the federal government gave the green light.
Who can we thank for this creative solution? Let's hope they get a raise and the opportunity to use that creativity on the many other challenges facing the Chicago area transit system even if a long-term operating and capital funding solution is enacted over the next few months. Of course, using capital dollars to fund operations is like eating your seed corn and is not sustainable in the long term. Nonetheless, the simple elegance of this latest short-term fix should be recognized.
This last minute fix has all the earmarks of some smart person being creative and thinking outside of the proverbial box. It was a solution no one had discussed and "seemed to appear out of nowhere." Despite plenty of fulminating (here and here) about how the RTA no longer should accept short-term funding bailouts, the RTA and the service boards wasted no time in embracing this solution once the federal government gave the green light.
Who can we thank for this creative solution? Let's hope they get a raise and the opportunity to use that creativity on the many other challenges facing the Chicago area transit system even if a long-term operating and capital funding solution is enacted over the next few months. Of course, using capital dollars to fund operations is like eating your seed corn and is not sustainable in the long term. Nonetheless, the simple elegance of this latest short-term fix should be recognized.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Post-Doomsday: Will The Equity Questions Reemerge?
The Metropolitan Planning Council is alerting public-spirited folks with time on their hands next Monday to attend the following:
Chicago Transit Authority Press Event
Chicago Transit Authority Press Event
What: A press event to highlight the impact of the cuts and fare increases
When: Monday, Nov. 5, 11 a.m.
Where: Ogilvie Station, at Jefferson and Madison streets
This press event could be a real hoot if doomsday arrives on schedule. CTA management and its customers will be reeling from their first work day post-doomsday. They will be camped outside Ogilvie Station, from which puzzled Metra commuters will emerge wondering what the fuss is all about. After all, unlike Pace and the CTA, Metra is neither cutting service nor raising fares in this first doomsday. As for the second doomsday in January, when the CTA will truly gut its bus system and Pace becomes a shadow of its former self, Metra will raise its fares all of 10 percent and increase its unlimited ride weekend ticket from $5 to--you better sit down--$7.
The juxtaposition of the CTA folks standing in the street outside a Metra station highlighting the impact of the cuts and fare increases that affect everyone but Metra and its customers is striking. Maybe, just maybe, at this press event someone in attendance will raise the question, where is the fairness in that only two of the three service boards have to go through the first doomsday? Who was responsible for the financial oversight of the region's public transit system and how did they allow doomsday to fall so unevenly on the service boards? How is it that the service board with the most prosperous ridership base was spared the first doomsday round of service cuts and fare increases while the service boards serving the most transit-dependent populations must feel the pain? And when one looks at the racial composition of the customers served by the three service boards, which racial groups are bearing the brunt of the first doomsday cuts and fare increases and which are not?
Both the Moving Beyond Congestion effort and the SB 572 process were designed to steer clear of these kinds of questions. If they fail and doomsday does descend on two of three service boards, then maybe it is time to start asking those equity/justice questions.
SB 572 Sallies Forth Again
The House Mass Transit Committee has approved a revised version of the SB 572, in the form of Amendment No. 10 (here).
Please post in comments any significant changes you find in Amendment No. 10.
Please post in comments any significant changes you find in Amendment No. 10.
Gas Tax vs. Sales Tax: Which Wins?
In his statement today concerning public transit the Governor Blagojevich outlined his preferred plan to increase the level of transit funding:
The plan that I prefer would redirect – not increase – revenue from the existing sales tax on gas in Cook and the collar counties for the RTA. That’s money that is already collected from drivers who contribute to congested roads and air pollution in our region. It makes sense to dedicate that revenue to mass transit, and it also helps reduce congestion and air pollution.
The remaining hole in the state budget can then be filled with revenue from an expansion of gaming in Illinois – an expansion that every one of the legislative leaders has already agreed needs to get done to fund a statewide infrastructure plan.
There are some things to like about this approach, which appears to have the support of the Republican leaders and perhaps Senator Jones. The Governor recognizes that linking the gas tax (or more precisely the sales tax on gas) to transit makes good public policy. Drivers who create congestion, who benefit from the congestion relief benefits of public transit, and who contribute a large measure of air pollution, including greenhouse gases, properly are called upon to subsidize transit service. Those who drive the most tend to pay the most, which creates a bit of an economic incentive against sprawl.
While the Governor appears unwilling to increase the gas tax (or embrace congestion pricing for that matter) to reduce the congestion and pollution resulting from excessive private auto use relative to road capacity, linking transit funding to the gas tax is something that his successor can build on to start pricing auto travel in a way that promotes the most efficient use of the Chicago region's highway and transit systems.
The Governor's gas tax plan takes existing gas tax revenue from the six-county Northeastern Illinois region and applies ("diverts" in some eyes no doubt) that revenue to the region's public transit system. Filling the resulting hole in the State budget becomes someone else's problem while the RTA, the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace spend their new money. This is not a bad scenario if you are a transit supporter.
The Governor recommends that revenue from expanded gambling can fill the hole in the State budget created by the application of the gas tax monies to transit. There is something to like here as well, especially if you live in northeastern Illinois. A fair amount of that revenue will be generated from people from outside northeastern Illinois or even Illinois itself who gamble when visiting Chicago or other Illinois gambling facilities. The burden of transit funding thus is spread outside of the six-county region, another nice benefit for that region. The region gets the gas tax revenue for its public transit system but is not completely on the hook to fill the resulting hole in the State budget.
Using gambling revenue to replace the gas tax monies used for transit could put the City of Chicago is a difficult spot, however. On the one hand, the City presumably wants to find a source of funding for CTA and Metra service that serves the City. On the other hand, if that source of money requires the City to give up proceeds from a Chicago casino that would otherwise go to the City, then transit doomsday might not look so bad to the City.
In contrast, the sales tax built into SB 572 is not as directly tied to transit or driving. Charging a bit higher sales tax on a big screen TV, for example, is not likely to prompt anyone to change their driving habits. The sales tax has proved insufficient to keep up with transit agency costs, so it is a matter of time--likely only a few years--before the proposed sales tax increase in SB 572 proves inadequate for the transit agencies to maintain their current service levels. The increased reliance on the sales tax does not help the RTA diversify its funding base, even though such diversification is key to the long-term financial health of the public transit system.
When it comes to the predictability of revenue the sales tax wins. One virtue of the sales tax is that is does not vary that much from year to year. In contrast, a sales tax on gasoline sales is likely to bounce around with the changes gas prices.
On balance, however, taxing driving to pay for transit is at least as good an alternative as the sales tax to provide funding for transit. In many respects, a gas tax is superior.
Surely it is possible to amend SB 572 to swap out the sales tax increase in favor of the redirection of the sales tax revenue on gas, leaving in the CTA union concessions and the much ballyhooed RTA reforms. Hopefully, someone is work on that right now.
The plan that I prefer would redirect – not increase – revenue from the existing sales tax on gas in Cook and the collar counties for the RTA. That’s money that is already collected from drivers who contribute to congested roads and air pollution in our region. It makes sense to dedicate that revenue to mass transit, and it also helps reduce congestion and air pollution.
The remaining hole in the state budget can then be filled with revenue from an expansion of gaming in Illinois – an expansion that every one of the legislative leaders has already agreed needs to get done to fund a statewide infrastructure plan.
There are some things to like about this approach, which appears to have the support of the Republican leaders and perhaps Senator Jones. The Governor recognizes that linking the gas tax (or more precisely the sales tax on gas) to transit makes good public policy. Drivers who create congestion, who benefit from the congestion relief benefits of public transit, and who contribute a large measure of air pollution, including greenhouse gases, properly are called upon to subsidize transit service. Those who drive the most tend to pay the most, which creates a bit of an economic incentive against sprawl.
While the Governor appears unwilling to increase the gas tax (or embrace congestion pricing for that matter) to reduce the congestion and pollution resulting from excessive private auto use relative to road capacity, linking transit funding to the gas tax is something that his successor can build on to start pricing auto travel in a way that promotes the most efficient use of the Chicago region's highway and transit systems.
The Governor's gas tax plan takes existing gas tax revenue from the six-county Northeastern Illinois region and applies ("diverts" in some eyes no doubt) that revenue to the region's public transit system. Filling the resulting hole in the State budget becomes someone else's problem while the RTA, the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace spend their new money. This is not a bad scenario if you are a transit supporter.
The Governor recommends that revenue from expanded gambling can fill the hole in the State budget created by the application of the gas tax monies to transit. There is something to like here as well, especially if you live in northeastern Illinois. A fair amount of that revenue will be generated from people from outside northeastern Illinois or even Illinois itself who gamble when visiting Chicago or other Illinois gambling facilities. The burden of transit funding thus is spread outside of the six-county region, another nice benefit for that region. The region gets the gas tax revenue for its public transit system but is not completely on the hook to fill the resulting hole in the State budget.
Using gambling revenue to replace the gas tax monies used for transit could put the City of Chicago is a difficult spot, however. On the one hand, the City presumably wants to find a source of funding for CTA and Metra service that serves the City. On the other hand, if that source of money requires the City to give up proceeds from a Chicago casino that would otherwise go to the City, then transit doomsday might not look so bad to the City.
In contrast, the sales tax built into SB 572 is not as directly tied to transit or driving. Charging a bit higher sales tax on a big screen TV, for example, is not likely to prompt anyone to change their driving habits. The sales tax has proved insufficient to keep up with transit agency costs, so it is a matter of time--likely only a few years--before the proposed sales tax increase in SB 572 proves inadequate for the transit agencies to maintain their current service levels. The increased reliance on the sales tax does not help the RTA diversify its funding base, even though such diversification is key to the long-term financial health of the public transit system.
When it comes to the predictability of revenue the sales tax wins. One virtue of the sales tax is that is does not vary that much from year to year. In contrast, a sales tax on gasoline sales is likely to bounce around with the changes gas prices.
On balance, however, taxing driving to pay for transit is at least as good an alternative as the sales tax to provide funding for transit. In many respects, a gas tax is superior.
Surely it is possible to amend SB 572 to swap out the sales tax increase in favor of the redirection of the sales tax revenue on gas, leaving in the CTA union concessions and the much ballyhooed RTA reforms. Hopefully, someone is work on that right now.
SB 572: Let The Bidding For Votes Begin?
It's time to check back in with SB 572.
Representative Sidney Mathias filed House Amendment No. 7 to SB 572 on October 11, 2007. The amendment will obligate the RTA to make an annual grant of $250,000 to the Intertownship Transportation Program for Northwest Suburban Cook County. The ITPNSCC was created in 2004 as part of the the Illinois Transit Ridership and Economic Development (TRED) Pilot Project Program. ITPNSCC provides medical care related trips for senior citizens and disabled persons.
Representative Mathias is a Republican. He signed on as a co-sponsor of SB 572 at the end of May. In contrast, most of his suburban Republican Party colleagues opposed SB 572 when it came to a vote in September.
Does Mathias' Amendment No. 7 provide a model of what will be necessary to get suburban politicians on the SB 572 bandwagon? Will we see a string of $250,000 van pool service grants written into the RTA Act to encourage other suburban politicians to support SB 572?
Representative Sidney Mathias filed House Amendment No. 7 to SB 572 on October 11, 2007. The amendment will obligate the RTA to make an annual grant of $250,000 to the Intertownship Transportation Program for Northwest Suburban Cook County. The ITPNSCC was created in 2004 as part of the the Illinois Transit Ridership and Economic Development (TRED) Pilot Project Program. ITPNSCC provides medical care related trips for senior citizens and disabled persons.
Representative Mathias is a Republican. He signed on as a co-sponsor of SB 572 at the end of May. In contrast, most of his suburban Republican Party colleagues opposed SB 572 when it came to a vote in September.
Does Mathias' Amendment No. 7 provide a model of what will be necessary to get suburban politicians on the SB 572 bandwagon? Will we see a string of $250,000 van pool service grants written into the RTA Act to encourage other suburban politicians to support SB 572?
SB 572 Amendments: O'McHenry Has To Go
I've argued before that McHenry County (and possibly Kane County) should be booted from the RTA family for chronic whining and ingratitude. Representative Jack Franks, a suburban Democrat representing McHenry County who voted against SB 572, has introduced two amendments to SB 572 that help make my case that McHenry County should be granted its wish to leave the RTA.
Amendment No. 8 exempts McHenry County from the increase in the collar country RTA sales tax from 0.25% to 0.50%.
Amendment No. 9 provides that individual counties can block tax increases adopted by the RTA Board pursuant to SB 572.
Let's just take McHenry County out of the RTA. Its contribution of sales tax revenue is relatively small. Due to the County's embrace of sprawl-type development the cost of providing transit service in the area is very high. If McHenry County wants transit service, let it contract with Metra or Pace for such service or figure out a way to provide it on its own. The County's incessant digs at the RTA beg for (a) calling the County's bluff by threatening to cast it out of the RTA family or (b) casting it out and letting the County pay for whatever level of public transit service it deems fit for itself.
Isn't it time to focus public transit on counties that have a commitment to fund such service and who embrace land use policies that support the kinds of densities required for a viable public transit system? Let McHenry County go. Let's make Cal Skinner's day. He is a McHenry County figure who was a major opponent of the RTA in 1983. In this post he reports that George Ranney, one of the key supporters of the RTA back then (and now), stated during the run-up to the referendum that led to the creation of the RTA that it was a mistake to include McHenry County in the RTA. Someone please use SB 572 to fix that mistake.
Amendment No. 8 exempts McHenry County from the increase in the collar country RTA sales tax from 0.25% to 0.50%.
Amendment No. 9 provides that individual counties can block tax increases adopted by the RTA Board pursuant to SB 572.
Let's just take McHenry County out of the RTA. Its contribution of sales tax revenue is relatively small. Due to the County's embrace of sprawl-type development the cost of providing transit service in the area is very high. If McHenry County wants transit service, let it contract with Metra or Pace for such service or figure out a way to provide it on its own. The County's incessant digs at the RTA beg for (a) calling the County's bluff by threatening to cast it out of the RTA family or (b) casting it out and letting the County pay for whatever level of public transit service it deems fit for itself.
Isn't it time to focus public transit on counties that have a commitment to fund such service and who embrace land use policies that support the kinds of densities required for a viable public transit system? Let McHenry County go. Let's make Cal Skinner's day. He is a McHenry County figure who was a major opponent of the RTA in 1983. In this post he reports that George Ranney, one of the key supporters of the RTA back then (and now), stated during the run-up to the referendum that led to the creation of the RTA that it was a mistake to include McHenry County in the RTA. Someone please use SB 572 to fix that mistake.
Transit Rally Monday 11/5/07
News of this upcoming rally is circulating through the usual channels:
There are just a few days left before communities across Northeastern Illinois face severe transit cuts and huge fare increases. We need your help to hold lawmakers accountable for failing to act to adequately fund transit and reform the transit agencies.
Join Illinois PIRG and other transit advocates at a rally to save transit.
What: A rally to save transit – and hold our elected officials accountable!
When: Monday, November 5th at 12:00 Noon
Where: Thompson Center Plaza at the corner of Randolph and Clark
Organizers include Illinois PIRG, TransitFuture, and SaveChicagolandTransit.
RSVP here.
There are just a few days left before communities across Northeastern Illinois face severe transit cuts and huge fare increases. We need your help to hold lawmakers accountable for failing to act to adequately fund transit and reform the transit agencies.
Join Illinois PIRG and other transit advocates at a rally to save transit.
What: A rally to save transit – and hold our elected officials accountable!
When: Monday, November 5th at 12:00 Noon
Where: Thompson Center Plaza at the corner of Randolph and Clark
Organizers include Illinois PIRG, TransitFuture, and SaveChicagolandTransit.
RSVP here.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Politician Scorecard: Who Supports SB 572
Kind reader Matt Maldre has created a map showing where the votes for SB 572 came from when it was voted on by the House in September. His accompanying commentary browbeats the suburban Republicans who voted no despite the high per-ride public subsidies for Metra and Pace.
He has also prepared a downloadable flyer targeted at the representatives who voted against SB 572 but who represent areas served by Metra's line to Elgin. He asks that you print them out and distribute them.
Those representatives who voted against SB 572 even those they and their constituents benefit from the Elgin Metra line and other public transit services are: Timothy Schmitz, Ruth Munson, Harry Ranney, Fred Crespo, Franco Coladipietro, Dennis Reboletti, and Angelo Saviano.
It may make folks feel better to yell at Ron Huberman, but these seven representatives are key to getting SB 572 through the House. Act accordingly if you want SB 572 to pass.
He has also prepared a downloadable flyer targeted at the representatives who voted against SB 572 but who represent areas served by Metra's line to Elgin. He asks that you print them out and distribute them.
Those representatives who voted against SB 572 even those they and their constituents benefit from the Elgin Metra line and other public transit services are: Timothy Schmitz, Ruth Munson, Harry Ranney, Fred Crespo, Franco Coladipietro, Dennis Reboletti, and Angelo Saviano.
It may make folks feel better to yell at Ron Huberman, but these seven representatives are key to getting SB 572 through the House. Act accordingly if you want SB 572 to pass.
Local 241: Inside Track Or Taken For A Ride?
As we get closer to the first transit doomsday the rhetoric is heating up. The Mayor of Chicago tells Springfield that it is do-or-die time and to get its act together, but adds not a dime to Chicago's $3 million annual contribution to the Chicago Transit Authority's operating budget, which has not changed for almost 25 years. The CTA lines up 39 buses representing each of the bus routes that will be cut in the first doomsday. The Senate Minority leader, Frank Watson, sends a letter urging fare hikes. Federal legislators warn that the CTA's troubles may keep Chicago from ascending to the Olympian heights. The looming doomsday finally prompts a spirited public hearing at Lane Tech High School.
What may be most interesting, however, is yesterday's U-turn by the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241. Local 241 represents the CTA's bus drivers and will lose approximately 600 members if the cuts go through. Like the CTA's other unions, Local 241 has agreed to significant concessions as part of the SB 572 process.
According to reports (here and here) Local 241 was preparing a press conference to roll out a plan to file a lawsuit and take other aggressive action intended to forestall doomsday. At the last minute, Local 241 dropped these plans. Its spokesperson cited promises from legislative leaders that the transit funding problems would be fixed in time to avert doomsday.
Here is Channel 2's take:
by the time their 1 p.m. news conference finally got going at nearly 3:30, union officials had backed way off because, they said, of promises from key legislative leaders.
"The legislature will take action and will be responsible and not allow one of the largest mass transit systems become paralyzed," Melvin Caldwell, ATU Local Union 241, said.
No details were offered either by the union or state politicians. For his part, Mayor Richard M. Daley expressed sympathy with the angry bus drivers, noting that they had recently ratified a new contract that provides no immediate pay raise and makes long-term concessions on the cost of health care and pensions.
"They've done their part. Sure they're upset. This is ridiculous. Now, this is the week that adults in Springfield have to do their job," Daley said.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Madigan says he's not aware of any breakthrough.
Does Local 241 have an inside track to a transit funding solution, or has it been taken for a ride?
What may be most interesting, however, is yesterday's U-turn by the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241. Local 241 represents the CTA's bus drivers and will lose approximately 600 members if the cuts go through. Like the CTA's other unions, Local 241 has agreed to significant concessions as part of the SB 572 process.
According to reports (here and here) Local 241 was preparing a press conference to roll out a plan to file a lawsuit and take other aggressive action intended to forestall doomsday. At the last minute, Local 241 dropped these plans. Its spokesperson cited promises from legislative leaders that the transit funding problems would be fixed in time to avert doomsday.
Here is Channel 2's take:
by the time their 1 p.m. news conference finally got going at nearly 3:30, union officials had backed way off because, they said, of promises from key legislative leaders.
"The legislature will take action and will be responsible and not allow one of the largest mass transit systems become paralyzed," Melvin Caldwell, ATU Local Union 241, said.
No details were offered either by the union or state politicians. For his part, Mayor Richard M. Daley expressed sympathy with the angry bus drivers, noting that they had recently ratified a new contract that provides no immediate pay raise and makes long-term concessions on the cost of health care and pensions.
"They've done their part. Sure they're upset. This is ridiculous. Now, this is the week that adults in Springfield have to do their job," Daley said.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Madigan says he's not aware of any breakthrough.
Does Local 241 have an inside track to a transit funding solution, or has it been taken for a ride?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Do Americans Embrace Smart Growth And Tolls?
Smart Growth America has released the results of an opinion poll assessing the public's attitudes concerning some land use and transportation issues. The national survey of 1,000 adults has a 3.7% margin of error. Some of the results are interesting.
The study found relatively strong support for public transportation. In response to the question "which of the following proposals is the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in your areas" the results were as follows:
The respondents clearly favored improved fuel efficiency over increased taxes as a way to reduce energy use. When asked if they strongly approved of the following solutions to climate and energy problems, they responded:
When is comes to land use, 81% said they preferred that new housing and commercial development be placed in already developed areas rather than continuing to build suburbs on the edge of existing suburbs (14%). When it comes to more specifics, 61% favored limits on new home construction in outlying areas and investment in very urban areas, 57% said they favor building businesses and homes closer together, within walking distance (57%) and to shorten commutes (55%).
Respondents strongly opposed (72%) privatization of existing public roads and using toll concessions to private companies to build new roads (52%). Total oppose percentages were 84% and 66%, respectively.
Interestingly, the percentage of respondents who strongly approved charging tolls on more roads if the result was better roads and reduced traffic congestion (26%) almost matched the percentage of people of who strongly disapproved (33%). In all, 55% approved of tolling and 44% disapproved. In the Great Lake states, the approval rate was 58% and the disapproval rate only 41%.
What to make of these numbers? The percentage of people strongly approving of tolls (26%) was over three times as high as those who strongly approved of an increase in the gas tax (8%). Some of all of the difference might be how the questions were phrased. People were asked if they supported a gas tax to reduce driving or tolls to improve highways and reduce congestion. Perhaps the approval rate would be higher for the gas tax if respondents had been asked if they supported such a tax if it resulted in better roads and reduced congestion.
Nevertheless, the results suggest more public support for--or at least tolerance of--tolling than for gas taxes. This is too bad in at least one respect. It is much cheaper to collect gas taxes than it is to collect tolls.
Another interesting finding is the relatively strong public support for using toll revenue on transportation uses other than the toll highway on which the tolls are collected. When asked whether they approved of spending toll revenue on the following uses, the respondents responded as follows:
Despite some significant support for tolling, the respondents were less enthusiastic about congestion pricing. When asked if they supported charging tolls to reduce congestion during rush hour 47% strongly opposed the idea and only 20% strongly supported the idea. In all only 37% supported the idea and 61% opposed the idea. When asked if they favored congestion pricing if the money were spent on transportation alternatives to the highway, the strongly opposed percentage dropped from 47% to 35% and the strongly support percentage went from 20% to 26%. The public was evenly split--49% to 49% on whether they approved or disapproved of congestion pricing if proceeds were used to support travel alternatives.
For me the most surprising result was the level of support for (a) concentrating investment in existing built-up areas and restricting greenfield sprawl and (b) higher fuel economy limits. The level of support for tolling and "diverting" toll revenue from toll roads to other uses was also surprising, especially in light of the reluctance to embrace congestion pricing.
Is there a common theme in these results? If I had to pick one it is that policies or rhetoric that appear designed to reduce use of roads (e.g., gas taxes and to lesser extent congestion pricing) are disfavored while policies that do not seem intended to restrict freedom but may nonetheless raise the cost of driving (e.g., road tolling, increased fuel economy standards) are more heavily supported.
The study found relatively strong support for public transportation. In response to the question "which of the following proposals is the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in your areas" the results were as follows:
- Improve public transportation (49%)
- Develop communities where people do not have to drive as much (26%)
- Build new roads (21%)
The respondents clearly favored improved fuel efficiency over increased taxes as a way to reduce energy use. When asked if they strongly approved of the following solutions to climate and energy problems, they responded:
- Regulate the car industry to make vehicles more efficient (74% strongly approve/90% total approve)
- Provide improved public transportation (62%/88%)
- Require homes and other buildings to be more energy efficient (62%/88%)
- Build communities where people can walk places so that people can use their cars less (49%/83%)
- Increase taxes on gasoline to discourage driving (8%/16%)
When is comes to land use, 81% said they preferred that new housing and commercial development be placed in already developed areas rather than continuing to build suburbs on the edge of existing suburbs (14%). When it comes to more specifics, 61% favored limits on new home construction in outlying areas and investment in very urban areas, 57% said they favor building businesses and homes closer together, within walking distance (57%) and to shorten commutes (55%).
Respondents strongly opposed (72%) privatization of existing public roads and using toll concessions to private companies to build new roads (52%). Total oppose percentages were 84% and 66%, respectively.
Interestingly, the percentage of respondents who strongly approved charging tolls on more roads if the result was better roads and reduced traffic congestion (26%) almost matched the percentage of people of who strongly disapproved (33%). In all, 55% approved of tolling and 44% disapproved. In the Great Lake states, the approval rate was 58% and the disapproval rate only 41%.
What to make of these numbers? The percentage of people strongly approving of tolls (26%) was over three times as high as those who strongly approved of an increase in the gas tax (8%). Some of all of the difference might be how the questions were phrased. People were asked if they supported a gas tax to reduce driving or tolls to improve highways and reduce congestion. Perhaps the approval rate would be higher for the gas tax if respondents had been asked if they supported such a tax if it resulted in better roads and reduced congestion.
Nevertheless, the results suggest more public support for--or at least tolerance of--tolling than for gas taxes. This is too bad in at least one respect. It is much cheaper to collect gas taxes than it is to collect tolls.
Another interesting finding is the relatively strong public support for using toll revenue on transportation uses other than the toll highway on which the tolls are collected. When asked whether they approved of spending toll revenue on the following uses, the respondents responded as follows:
- Toll money would be spent on maintaining all roads (48% strongly approve/77% total approve)
- Toll money would be spent on public transportation as well as roads (41%/70%)
- Toll money would be spent only on building and maintaining the toll roads (26%/47%).
Despite some significant support for tolling, the respondents were less enthusiastic about congestion pricing. When asked if they supported charging tolls to reduce congestion during rush hour 47% strongly opposed the idea and only 20% strongly supported the idea. In all only 37% supported the idea and 61% opposed the idea. When asked if they favored congestion pricing if the money were spent on transportation alternatives to the highway, the strongly opposed percentage dropped from 47% to 35% and the strongly support percentage went from 20% to 26%. The public was evenly split--49% to 49% on whether they approved or disapproved of congestion pricing if proceeds were used to support travel alternatives.
For me the most surprising result was the level of support for (a) concentrating investment in existing built-up areas and restricting greenfield sprawl and (b) higher fuel economy limits. The level of support for tolling and "diverting" toll revenue from toll roads to other uses was also surprising, especially in light of the reluctance to embrace congestion pricing.
Is there a common theme in these results? If I had to pick one it is that policies or rhetoric that appear designed to reduce use of roads (e.g., gas taxes and to lesser extent congestion pricing) are disfavored while policies that do not seem intended to restrict freedom but may nonetheless raise the cost of driving (e.g., road tolling, increased fuel economy standards) are more heavily supported.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Dan Ryan Project Complete: Assessment
The Dan Ryan project is complete. The final cost ($975 million) is way over the original budget ($550 million), but the project was completed on schedule. Some questions to consider:
1. What accounts for the cost overruns and was the project a worthwhile investment of almost $1 billion of capital dollars?
2. How do you assess the outreach effort to motorists concerning the project?
3. There was a great deal of controversy over the level of minority participation in the project--How do you assess IDOT's efforts in this regard?
4. What lessons can be learned from the project?
5. Did IDOT blow it by not installing a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane?
6. The average daily traffic volume was 300,000 before the reconstruction: How soon before traffic volume (a) returns to that level and (b) reaches a level where the congestion is as bad as is was before the project?
1. What accounts for the cost overruns and was the project a worthwhile investment of almost $1 billion of capital dollars?
2. How do you assess the outreach effort to motorists concerning the project?
3. There was a great deal of controversy over the level of minority participation in the project--How do you assess IDOT's efforts in this regard?
4. What lessons can be learned from the project?
5. Did IDOT blow it by not installing a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane?
6. The average daily traffic volume was 300,000 before the reconstruction: How soon before traffic volume (a) returns to that level and (b) reaches a level where the congestion is as bad as is was before the project?
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Herald Of The Apocalypse
West North blog has a recent post by Payton Chung entitled "CTA Bus Cuts In Perspective" that got picked up Friday by Capitol Fax Blog to leaven its discussion of transit funding issues.
The post starts with the ridership on the 84 CTA bus routes that the CTA will cut when implementing the November and January doomsdays (308,262). Since cars on average carry only 1.2 passengers, this is the equivalent of "256,885 cars a day of capacity." The author points out that this figure is higher than the traffic volume at certain points on major local expressways and even approaches Metra's daily ridership.
The author then zooms in for the kill:
If the Kennedy bridge at Fullerton collapsed, or if terrorists took out both I-55 and Lake Shore Drive, or if Metra just up and died, how would this state’s government react? I bet they wouldn’t spend years squabbling, dilly-dallying, grand-standing, and pork-padding.
Sure, people will adapt to bus route elimination (reducing trips, taking alternate routes and modes), but they’d adapt to a freeway shutdown, too.
This is over the top, and not in a helpful way. It is wrong to assume that each trip on a bus route that is being eliminated will result in a new car on the road. If the typical trip on transit is to and from a work, school or other location, then 308,000 trips would represent about 150,000 new cars even if we assume that everyone taking the bus is going to use a car if the bus route is cut.
This assumption, however, doesn't stack up either. First, as the author recognizes, at least some of those taking bus routes that will be eliminated will switch to other public transit routes. Second, others will switch to different transportation modes, such as biking, scooters, car pools, taxis, and walking. Third, a certain percentage of people currently using the bus routes being eliminated will take fewer trips overall.
While it is dramatic to suggest that an inflated projection of new autos on the road is higher than the number of vehicles that pass through certain points on major highways, that observation overlooks the fact that the CTA bus lines being cut are spread around Chicago and the inner suburbs. Not all the folks whose bus lines are being cut, for example, will be traveling on the Kennedy Expressway at Fullerton. Some are going to the Loop. Some are going to the suburbs. Some are going to other parts of Chicago.
What is the capacity of the Chicago streets and highways to absorb the additional traffic generated from the elimination of these CTA bus lines? I haven't found a source for how many miles of streets are in Chicago. The Encyclopedia of Chicago says that "by the 1990s, the Chicago metropolitan area had 54,600 miles of streets and roads, including 2,500 miles of expressways, 17,300 miles of highways and arterial streets, and 34,800 miles of local streets."
Let's assume (a) that Chicago has 10,000 miles of streets and roads, a figure likely less than its actual complement, (b) 100,000 of the riders on the CTA bus routes being cut switch to cars, and (c) all their trips are in Chicago. This means that we have 10 additional cars per mile of available street. But, of course, we don't all travel at the same time. If we divide by 24 hours in the day, this results in 0.42 new cars per mile. Let's divide by 10, however, which leaves 1 additional car per mile.
Overstating the "devastating" consequences of the impending cuts and engaging in overblown rhetoric (e.g., equating the effect of the cuts to "terrorism") will further undermine the credibility of the public transit providers and their supporters. Folks are already suffering from "doomsday fatigue" after several years of doomsday scenarios. If the apocalypse fails to materialize when the doomsdays finally arrive, who is going to believe the public transit proponents the next time doomsday fever hits the town.
Let me be clear: There are going to be adverse consequences from the CTA bus line cuts and in some areas these consequences are going to be quite noticeable. In most of the city, however, these effects are going to be barely felt during most or all of the day because the current level of transit ridership in those areas is not that high. In denser areas already facing traffic congestion challenges and with heavier existing transit ridership, the effects will be more severe, especially during rush hour. These localized impacts, however, hardly add up to a city-wide apocalypse.
Rather than fear mongering, we should focus on dealing with those localized effects. There are a range of tools, including encouraging private sector transit (e.g., van pools), improving bike commuting options, and more efficiently utilizing our stock of automobiles through shared vehicle services like I-Go and ride-sharing social networking platforms like GoLoco.
The key problem is that our transit agencies are neither empowered nor inclined to roll out such alternatives to their services. Their hopes lie with SB 572 and its continuation of business as usual with an RTA twist or two and lots more operating subsidies.
The post starts with the ridership on the 84 CTA bus routes that the CTA will cut when implementing the November and January doomsdays (308,262). Since cars on average carry only 1.2 passengers, this is the equivalent of "256,885 cars a day of capacity." The author points out that this figure is higher than the traffic volume at certain points on major local expressways and even approaches Metra's daily ridership.
The author then zooms in for the kill:
If the Kennedy bridge at Fullerton collapsed, or if terrorists took out both I-55 and Lake Shore Drive, or if Metra just up and died, how would this state’s government react? I bet they wouldn’t spend years squabbling, dilly-dallying, grand-standing, and pork-padding.
Sure, people will adapt to bus route elimination (reducing trips, taking alternate routes and modes), but they’d adapt to a freeway shutdown, too.
This is over the top, and not in a helpful way. It is wrong to assume that each trip on a bus route that is being eliminated will result in a new car on the road. If the typical trip on transit is to and from a work, school or other location, then 308,000 trips would represent about 150,000 new cars even if we assume that everyone taking the bus is going to use a car if the bus route is cut.
This assumption, however, doesn't stack up either. First, as the author recognizes, at least some of those taking bus routes that will be eliminated will switch to other public transit routes. Second, others will switch to different transportation modes, such as biking, scooters, car pools, taxis, and walking. Third, a certain percentage of people currently using the bus routes being eliminated will take fewer trips overall.
While it is dramatic to suggest that an inflated projection of new autos on the road is higher than the number of vehicles that pass through certain points on major highways, that observation overlooks the fact that the CTA bus lines being cut are spread around Chicago and the inner suburbs. Not all the folks whose bus lines are being cut, for example, will be traveling on the Kennedy Expressway at Fullerton. Some are going to the Loop. Some are going to the suburbs. Some are going to other parts of Chicago.
What is the capacity of the Chicago streets and highways to absorb the additional traffic generated from the elimination of these CTA bus lines? I haven't found a source for how many miles of streets are in Chicago. The Encyclopedia of Chicago says that "by the 1990s, the Chicago metropolitan area had 54,600 miles of streets and roads, including 2,500 miles of expressways, 17,300 miles of highways and arterial streets, and 34,800 miles of local streets."
Let's assume (a) that Chicago has 10,000 miles of streets and roads, a figure likely less than its actual complement, (b) 100,000 of the riders on the CTA bus routes being cut switch to cars, and (c) all their trips are in Chicago. This means that we have 10 additional cars per mile of available street. But, of course, we don't all travel at the same time. If we divide by 24 hours in the day, this results in 0.42 new cars per mile. Let's divide by 10, however, which leaves 1 additional car per mile.
Overstating the "devastating" consequences of the impending cuts and engaging in overblown rhetoric (e.g., equating the effect of the cuts to "terrorism") will further undermine the credibility of the public transit providers and their supporters. Folks are already suffering from "doomsday fatigue" after several years of doomsday scenarios. If the apocalypse fails to materialize when the doomsdays finally arrive, who is going to believe the public transit proponents the next time doomsday fever hits the town.
Let me be clear: There are going to be adverse consequences from the CTA bus line cuts and in some areas these consequences are going to be quite noticeable. In most of the city, however, these effects are going to be barely felt during most or all of the day because the current level of transit ridership in those areas is not that high. In denser areas already facing traffic congestion challenges and with heavier existing transit ridership, the effects will be more severe, especially during rush hour. These localized impacts, however, hardly add up to a city-wide apocalypse.
Rather than fear mongering, we should focus on dealing with those localized effects. There are a range of tools, including encouraging private sector transit (e.g., van pools), improving bike commuting options, and more efficiently utilizing our stock of automobiles through shared vehicle services like I-Go and ride-sharing social networking platforms like GoLoco.
The key problem is that our transit agencies are neither empowered nor inclined to roll out such alternatives to their services. Their hopes lie with SB 572 and its continuation of business as usual with an RTA twist or two and lots more operating subsidies.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Pace's Doomsday--Shrug & Yawn
Pace reminds me of the tall, gawky kid wearing too short pants who always seemed out of place in high school, a kind of social embarrassment that no one knew what to do with. Pace runs big, central-city style buses through suburbs largely built and populated by folks who actively want to turn their back on urban life and prefer the rolling cocoon of a private auto over the--gasp!--social mixing required to ride in a bus. Pace's buses just don't fit in well in this milieu.
Despite all the moans and groans about traffic congestion in the suburbs, Pace can't compete against the private auto. As a result, its buses rarely carry full loads, which mean that they embarrass and anger many suburbanites. It has to be tough to try to run a public transit service in an region demographically, culturally and geographically stacked against you.
In the face of these odds, Pace has clung to life. In recent years it even took on the huge job of picking up the CTA's paratransit operation. This gave Pace full responsibility for coordinating and supplying paratransit services for the entire six-county region. Paratransit is another thankless job because it is an unfunded federal mandate. Fares cover only a fraction of the $25-$30 per trip cost and ridership demand is growing much faster than the rate of population growth or transit operating subsidies.
You would think that such a plucky agency would have earned some public support over the years. After all, American's like an underdog do they not? Think again.
Pace faces a doomsday scenario in a matter of days that appears to be at least as bad in the relative sense as the CTA's doomsday scenario, featuring fare increases, route cuts, job eliminations, and the like. Pace held a public hearing on its looming doomsday in Joliet earlier this week and here is what happened per the Joliet Herald News:
JOLIET -- Even though a Pace bus stopped right behind city hall Monday night, fewer than 10 people attended a Pace 2008 budget hearing to comment on cuts that could eliminate bus service on weekends and after 7 p.m. weeknights.
Amazing. The dismantling of what is portrayed as being a vital public service looms and fewer than 10 people show up to squawk or gawk at a public hearing held in a city of over 100,000 people that is the seat of a county of about 700,000. What has Pace done to merit such a striking lack support from the public, the politicians and the business community?
In light of this non-response to Pace's impending doomsday, do we have to assume that the suburban public would just as soon let Pace's mainline (i.e., non-paratransit) service die on the vine? And what if it did?
Moderator's note: Pace might have gotten a few more people at the hearing at its headquarters the next day, although the article does not mention the number of people who attended.
Despite all the moans and groans about traffic congestion in the suburbs, Pace can't compete against the private auto. As a result, its buses rarely carry full loads, which mean that they embarrass and anger many suburbanites. It has to be tough to try to run a public transit service in an region demographically, culturally and geographically stacked against you.
In the face of these odds, Pace has clung to life. In recent years it even took on the huge job of picking up the CTA's paratransit operation. This gave Pace full responsibility for coordinating and supplying paratransit services for the entire six-county region. Paratransit is another thankless job because it is an unfunded federal mandate. Fares cover only a fraction of the $25-$30 per trip cost and ridership demand is growing much faster than the rate of population growth or transit operating subsidies.
You would think that such a plucky agency would have earned some public support over the years. After all, American's like an underdog do they not? Think again.
Pace faces a doomsday scenario in a matter of days that appears to be at least as bad in the relative sense as the CTA's doomsday scenario, featuring fare increases, route cuts, job eliminations, and the like. Pace held a public hearing on its looming doomsday in Joliet earlier this week and here is what happened per the Joliet Herald News:
JOLIET -- Even though a Pace bus stopped right behind city hall Monday night, fewer than 10 people attended a Pace 2008 budget hearing to comment on cuts that could eliminate bus service on weekends and after 7 p.m. weeknights.
Amazing. The dismantling of what is portrayed as being a vital public service looms and fewer than 10 people show up to squawk or gawk at a public hearing held in a city of over 100,000 people that is the seat of a county of about 700,000. What has Pace done to merit such a striking lack support from the public, the politicians and the business community?
In light of this non-response to Pace's impending doomsday, do we have to assume that the suburban public would just as soon let Pace's mainline (i.e., non-paratransit) service die on the vine? And what if it did?
Moderator's note: Pace might have gotten a few more people at the hearing at its headquarters the next day, although the article does not mention the number of people who attended.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Get Your Kicks On Route 67
The Illinois Department of Transportation, which has taken a drubbing on occasion in this blog (e.g., here and here), nonetheless seems to be making an effort to keep folks informed about major highway projects via a set of project websites. Link to index of project websites is here.
The latest project to get its own website is the U.S. Route 67 project. The Route 67 project corridor goes 223 miles from Interstate 280 (I-280) at Rock Island to I-270 south of Alton. The communities along the way include Monmouth (pop. 9,900), Macomb (pop. 18,600), Beardstown (pop. 5,800) and Jerseyville (pop. 8,300). According to IDOT's traffic volume maps (here and here), daily traffic volumes on the corridor range from a low of 1900 to a high of 26,000.
Here's the project description from the website:
The existing US 67 Corridor extends nearly 220 miles from Rock Island south to Alton. The two and four lane corridor improvement costs awarded to date total more than $700 million and $142.6 million in projects are programmed during FY 2008-2013. Of this total, $11.4 million is programmed in FY 2008. The estimated unfunded cost to complete the four-lane sections in the US 67 corridor from Macomb southward to the Alton Bypass exceeds $1.5 billion.
More information here.
Given the traffic numbers in most of the areas in the corridor--a fraction of the traffic volumes on the existing rural interstates--one wonder why IDOT is not using a series of passing lanes rather than a full-fledged four lane expressway configuration to serve this corridor.
I guess it is all too easy, however, for folks in northeastern Illinois to be snide and decry the perceived waste of pouring $1.5 billion into a road that serves a collection of small communities and meanders down the state like a riled up snake. Why is IDOT sinking money into concrete in rural Illinois but devoting years and years of wheel-spinning studies to projects in high-volume corridors like the O'Hare Western Bypass and the Elgin O'Hare Expressway?
Presumably, there must be decent economic and social development rationales for putting a four lane highway in stretches of road carrying 100 vehicles per hour in each direction on average. (I'm told the maximum capacity of a highway lanes is about 2,000 vehicles an hour, at least on interstates. I assume this figure is significantly less on two-lane roads, where passing is restricted.)
That is an issue for another day. In the meantime, IDOT's project corridor websites seem a step in the right direction.
The latest project to get its own website is the U.S. Route 67 project. The Route 67 project corridor goes 223 miles from Interstate 280 (I-280) at Rock Island to I-270 south of Alton. The communities along the way include Monmouth (pop. 9,900), Macomb (pop. 18,600), Beardstown (pop. 5,800) and Jerseyville (pop. 8,300). According to IDOT's traffic volume maps (here and here), daily traffic volumes on the corridor range from a low of 1900 to a high of 26,000.
Here's the project description from the website:
The existing US 67 Corridor extends nearly 220 miles from Rock Island south to Alton. The two and four lane corridor improvement costs awarded to date total more than $700 million and $142.6 million in projects are programmed during FY 2008-2013. Of this total, $11.4 million is programmed in FY 2008. The estimated unfunded cost to complete the four-lane sections in the US 67 corridor from Macomb southward to the Alton Bypass exceeds $1.5 billion.
More information here.
Given the traffic numbers in most of the areas in the corridor--a fraction of the traffic volumes on the existing rural interstates--one wonder why IDOT is not using a series of passing lanes rather than a full-fledged four lane expressway configuration to serve this corridor.
I guess it is all too easy, however, for folks in northeastern Illinois to be snide and decry the perceived waste of pouring $1.5 billion into a road that serves a collection of small communities and meanders down the state like a riled up snake. Why is IDOT sinking money into concrete in rural Illinois but devoting years and years of wheel-spinning studies to projects in high-volume corridors like the O'Hare Western Bypass and the Elgin O'Hare Expressway?
Presumably, there must be decent economic and social development rationales for putting a four lane highway in stretches of road carrying 100 vehicles per hour in each direction on average. (I'm told the maximum capacity of a highway lanes is about 2,000 vehicles an hour, at least on interstates. I assume this figure is significantly less on two-lane roads, where passing is restricted.)
That is an issue for another day. In the meantime, IDOT's project corridor websites seem a step in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
