New Urbanism’s continued success is marked by the remarkably wide turnout of young professionals at CNU 20.  New Urbanism has made its way out of the obscure corners of urban planning and into academia, where the newest generation of design experts is learning the value of incorporating sustainable development practices into their own careers.

Although New Urbanism has the support of many planners and design professionals, actual change in the built environment is impeded by a misconception that big-box developments, which concentrate goods and services under one roof and have ample parking for cars, are more financially viable than mixed-use developments that adapt themselves to an existing neighborhood fabric.

Of all the sessions I attended at CNU 20, I was most compelled by the research discussed during the Friday morning breakout session, “The Economic Benefit of Good Urbanism.” The panelists used data from extensive financial and policy analysis to demonstrate that the economic benefits to municipalities from big-box stores are significantly less than those provided by mixed-use developments.

Panelists at the CNU conference used data from extensive financial and policy analysis to demonstrate that the economic benefits to municipalities from big-box stores are significantly less than those provided by mixed-use developments. Photo by Tim Boyle, Getty Images

Panelist Joseph Minicozzi of Urban3, LLC gave examples from his research in Asheville, North Carolina, where his firm compared the property tax generated by a Super Walmart on the edge of the city with a typical acre of mixed-use development in Asheville’s downtown district. The Walmart consumed 34.0 acres and generated property taxes of $47,500 per acre, while the mixed-use development consumed only 0.2 acres and generated $634,000 in property taxes per acre. A sample set of 15 cities from Montana to Florida provided similar results, underlining the economic potential of creating mixed-use developments on Main Streets, vibrant neighborhood hubs, or central business districts in communities across the nation.  I was happy to see real numbers (and large ones at that!) to make the case for sustainable, mixed-use planning.

Joseph Minicozzi of Urban3, LLC gave examples from his research in Asheville, North Carolina, where his firm compared the property tax generated by a Super Walmart on the edge of the city with a typical acre of mixed-use development in Asheville’s downtown district. Credit - Urban3

You can read more about the analysis in the author’s own words in this Planetizen essay.

My own breakout session on Friday afternoon, “Preserving Affordability: Gentrification without Displacement,” was equally satisfying.  More than 100 people gathered to hear Alexander Gorlin, Rosanne Haggarty, Jaimie Ross, Alexander von Hoffman, and myself consider strategies for spurring economic development while maintaining affordability.  Employment-oriented transit, an idea explored in CNT’s publication Prospering in Place, is an important way to increase employment options for households at all income levels while decreasing transportation costs and maintaining neighborhood affordability.

The 48,100 square foot former Morris B. Sachs Building in Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood has been converted into retail space, a community arts center and 28 loft-style market rate and affordable lofts. Photo from - YoChicago

More and more planners and design professionals have recognized the benefits of implementing sustainable New Urbanism principals. That’s wonderful progress. I’d like to see us New Urbanists doing even more to explain the benefits of these principals to our friends, neighbors, and family members to ensure we see more of these principals shaping the DNA of our communities.

María Choca Urban, transportation and community development director at CNT, set the stage with an overview of the Prospering in Place report. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and Oak Park Village President David Pope followed her with their stories of policies and planning initiatives that bring CNT’s report to life. The three talks resulted in a layered perspective of the economic benefits that are possible when numerous municipalities come together to pull off significant investments in transportation infrastructure.

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, along with Oak Park Village President John Pope, brought stories of policies and planning initiatives that bring CNT’s report to life

In her remarks, Pres. Preckwinckle voiced support for the report recommendation that urges decision makers to prioritize transportation and real estate investments in places that are primed for growth. The president endorsed the creation of transit- and cargo-oriented developments (TODs and CODs, respectively), especially in southern suburbs like Harvey and western suburbs like Cicero, which have existing transit and freight infrastructure and a high potential for immediate COD success that would benefit the entire region.

Pres. Preckwinkle also said her staff has been investigating the feasibility of developing a land bank in Cook County, such as the Cook County Land Bank Proposal circulated by Cook County Commissioner Bridget Gainer, which would give the county authority to consolidate small plots of land into bigger parcels, eliminating costly assembly legwork for potential industrial developers. By maintaining a regional perspective on new transit and freight developments, Preckwinkle argued, Chicago has the opportunity to create an integrated system of sustainable transportation that can be used as a model worldwide.

Oak Park Village President David Pope echoed Preckwinkle’s call for regional integration of transportation development. The proliferation of sprawl and the reduction of public transportation options is a regional problem and its solutions, therefore, must be addressed regionally, he stated. He said trying to make Oak Park succeed without considering the health of nearby communities like Forest Park or Berwyn ignores the interconnected nature of neighborhood economies, to everyone’s detriment. Reliable public transportation increases employment opportunities for residents, and helps create vibrant places where people want to spend their time and money. Collaboration between municipalities to create a robust, people-oriented transportation network can only yield positive economic results.

With the support of Pres. Preckwinkle, Village President Pope, and others in the room, I left the event hopeful that the region’s decision-makers are thinking about ways to work together in implementing the ideas outlined in Prospering in Place to the benefit of the regional community. Stay tuned to Going Places for updates on more exciting transportation developments as they occur.

One resource is the Transportation for Communities site. Full disclosure: I sit on a federal committee that directs research on transportation issues and funded development of this site as a way to disseminate information to stakeholders, from the long-range transportation planner to the woman worried about service expansions for the commute route that gets her to work each day.

Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) is a decision support tool, built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders, which provides how-to information when it is most needed.

A little overwhelming at first for the transportation neophyte, spend some time with the site and you’ll find guidance on how to insert yourself in a planning process. You’ll also get information about what the different types of transportation planning entail. Transportation for Communities is especially useful for people who work in transportation, since it shares best practices and case studies from across the country that may be of use in other communities.

Here in Chicago, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning has done a great job involving the public in GO TO 2040, which is the region’s long-term transportation plan. Now in the implementation phase, CMAP staff engage local businesses, officials, and citizens in every step of their projects. Involving stakeholders builds the political will to fund the programs which will enhance millions of lives.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning has done a great job involving the public in GO TO 2040, the region’s long-term transportation plan.

As a CTA board member and a member of many federal committees, I deal with large transportation projects on a daily basis, so I know first-hand of the extensive operation, building, maintenance, and extension costs that go into these developments. Big projects require a lot of time and a lot of coordination among agencies and officials. It’s easy to leave out the customers in the interest of time and efficiency.

It’s a partnership: transportation professionals can’t make an end run around the public, and the public can’t shirk their responsibility to pay attention and get involved.

The goals outlined in the 2010 accord will never come to fruition without consistent funding, however, and even Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s new Infrastructure Trust may be able to finance new projects, like transit, but we’ll still need a dedicated way to maintain and upgrade them down the road. So, this past Monday, April 23, I attended the Earth Day Transportation Summit to discuss financing options for regional transportation.

During breakout sessions, all attendees were asked to discuss a set of funding options and rate each according to soundness of public policy, ease of implementation, feasibility of enactment, and potential for growth. Based on those criteria, here are the ideas that were most popular:

- Indexing taxes to inflation was the revenue option that most people supported. Currently, the state motor fuel tax (MFT) is 19 cents per gallon for gasoline, a price that has remained unchanged since 1991. Raising the MFT to reflect inflation would result in a tax of 32 cents per gallon, almost double the current rate.  Even a small raise in the MFT would generate a significant sum: according to CMAP’s GO TO 2040 plan, an increase by eight cents, with a subsequently applied inflation index, would generate $19.4-billion dollars in revenue by 2040.

- Congestion pricing received the second highest ranking among summit attendees. Under congestion pricing, drivers would be required to pay a toll when entering or leaving the city or designated zone (cordon pricing); to pay an increased toll during preset rush hours regardless of traffic (fixed pricing); or to pay fluctuating tolls based on real-time congestion.  Commuters would have to then choose to spend more on transportation, find an alternate (non-toll) route, or (the optimum goal) utilize public transit.  GO TO 2040 estimates that revenue from congestion pricing could generate up to $12 billion dollars by 2040.

Is congestion pricing the best way to fund transit? Photo by Joe Bergantine

- A surprise winner, in third place, was increasing parking fees. If parking fees are higher, drivers can weigh the costs of parking when they decide on travel options.  If driving is the chosen mode, they are less likely to stay in one spot for extended periods of time, thus reducing street congestion caused by drivers looking endlessly for a parking spot.   But, since street parking in Chicago is currently leased to Chicago Parking Meter LLC, this measure would primarily affect parking lots and suburbs where the RTA has the authority to raise fees in parking lots associated with malls, movie theaters, and private garages.  Parking fees are easily implemented, however, and the idea garnered widespread support.

All of the methods we discussed for creating a dedicated transportation revenue stream are feasible.  The biggest roadblock is a lack of political will from our leaders.  My hope is that the new focus on how we pay for infrastructure—brought about by discussion of Chicago’s new Infrastructure Trust—will keep these issues on the table and embolden our political leaders to start making difficult but important decisions about funding our transportation system for the long run.

About halfway through the interview, Hobson asked kind of an offbeat question about where Mayor Emanuel gets his inspiration. The mayor cited Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles but didn’t say exactly why.

Chicago or L.A.? Photo credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

I think what Mayor Emanuel was referring to was Villaraigosa’s very innovative plan to build out his city’s public transportation system much faster than what’s typical for infrastructure projects of that scale. The plan is certainly inspiring and something we here in Chicago should be discussing as a model for funding our own transit needs. Here’s the back story:

It all started with Move LA, a project of community partners that set a goal and vision for expanding transit options for Angelenos. After a year of building support, Move LA got a measure on the ballot in 2008 to create a dedicated funding stream for new transit projects. With 68 percent of the vote, Angelenos approved Measure R, a half cent sales tax increase that went into effect in 2009 to raise $40 billion over 30 years to revamp the transit system and double the amount of existing rail in the city.

.

Mayor Villaraigosa took the plan to another level. Instead of accepting the anticipated 30 years it would take to fix LA’s transit system, he pushed to shorten construction time to 10 years by using the future Measure R sales tax revenue as collateral to get more money through a low-interest federal loan and long-term bonds.

Currently the Crenshaw Line, which would connect the Metro Green Line and Expo Line, has been authorized by the Federal Transportation Administration to proceed with project implementation. When all is said and done, Los Angeles will have a Westside subway extension, a regional connector to link downtown rail lines, a light rail extension to LAX airport, and bus-only lanes along some corridors. These projects will add 78 miles to the current transit system. On top of that, it is estimated that 160,000 jobs will be created, annual vehicle miles traveled will drop by at least 191 million miles, annual gasoline usage will decrease for 10.3 million people, and annual mobile source pollution emissions will decrease by 521,000 pounds.

Guess how much it’ll cost each LA resident? $25 a year. Would Chicagoans be willing to invest $25 per year for similar benefits? It’s something to think about as you wait for the next bus to show up or fill up your car with gas.

What is the extension? Why is it a priority for Mayor Emanuel?

The Red Line is the workhorse of the CTA system, accounting for 245,402 riders per weekday, which is nearly a third of total train ridership. It is 22 miles long, running from Howard Street on the North Side to 95^th Street to the south. In recent years there have been a number of proposed improvements. CMAP has identified the most feasible extension and included it in the GO TO 2040 plan.

The South Extension project would add 5.5 miles to the Red Line, taking it from its current terminus along I-57 and following the Union Pacific corridor down to 130th St. It would operate on an elevated structure for its entire length. Stations are planned at 103rd, 111th, and 115th. Estimates for completion of the project range from 2016 into the unknown, as the project has been on the table since the late 1960s, when the Red Line was expanded to 95th Street.

Map showing how the Red Line would extend to 130th street. Map by John Paul Jones/Developing Communities Project

The Red Line expansion represents a ticket out of poverty for many people on the far South Side. The lack of rail connections in this part of Chicago means people have no rapid, inexpensive way to get into the city for work. A map from one of our recent publications, Prospering in Place, shows that the end of the Red Line to the south has “low” or “very low” access to jobs.

This map from CNT's recent report, "Prospering in Place" shows that the end of the Red Line to the south has “low” or “very low” access to jobs (in light blue). Copyright 2012 Center for Neighborhood Technology

Many of the un-served neighborhoods are disadvantaged already, and the lack of access to jobs keeps unemployment and poverty rates high. The map below, also from “Prospering in Place”, shows high poverty concentrations on the South Side of Chicago.

This map, also from "Prospering in Place", shows high poverty concentrations on the South Side of Chicago (in dark orange). Copyright 2012 Center for Neighborhood Technology

The same lack of access to jobs also hinders residents from having easy and safe routes to essential services, including hospitals and schools. New rail stations provide a chance to revitalize blighted neighborhoods through creation of transit-oriented developments that would include affordable housing, shops, and other mixed-use retail outlets within walking distance of the new stations.

At the CTA, where I sit on the Board of Directors, we are in the midst of completing the required Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion, which is expected to be finished in 2014. The CTA is moving forward with the process on our end to ensure the project can proceed as soon as funding is secured. We’re encouraged the extension remains a priority for Mayor Emanuel.

It’s difficult to know where to begin with such huge problems like that. The Chicago region’s Riders for Better Transit has proposed legislation that would tie the gas tax to inflation. We like that idea. We also think our elected officials need to get serious about dealing with our antiquated sales tax and pension systems.

It’s been nearly four months since Chicagoans received a quarter-cent sales tax cut. Have you noticed? Probably not. That’s largely because even with the cut, Chicago residents still pay among the highest sales tax in the country—a dubious distinction, one that we would rather not own.

The combined state, county, and city of Chicago sales tax is 9.5 percent on a narrow range of goods and a few services. Given Illinois’ manufacturing and industrial past, taxing goods made sense back then.  But our taxing structure hasn’t kept up with the evolution of our economy. Our heavy industrial past has been replaced by a knowledge and service economy.  The tax base needs to evolve as well.

A shift from a narrow range of taxable goods to a broader range of goods and services could result in a lower overall tax rate. We’d lose the unsavory distinction of having the highest sales tax while gaining more public funding from more sources.

And what could we do with additional tax receipts from a broader base?  We could create a dedicated revenue stream to invest in capital projects that would fill existing transit gaps.  We’d replace a dubious distinction with one we’d be proud to tout: the most extensive transit system in the country.

And then pensions. It is no secret that a reformed pension system is long overdue. Our pensions are funded at only 38 percent, with liabilities exceeding assets. No wonder the rating agencies lowered the state’s bond rating in December 2011. To make matters worse, Moody’s Investors Service lowered the rating again in January, making Illinois’ credit rating the lowest in the country. Standard and Poor’s strongly warned the state of another possible downgrade and put Illinois on negative watch.

Having the worst-funded state pension system in the country is another dubious distinction we don’t need.

Pension reform is a vexing public policy issue that our state’s political leadership must tackle if we are to live up to the contract we made to thousands of Illinois employees over several generations.  I’m encouraged to see that Gov. Pat Quinn has committed to reform Illinois’ pension system, starting with funding teacher pensions.  He has a myriad of solutions, including raising Illinois higher education spending by 12 percent to help fund the pensions of state university employees and shifting at least some of the responsibility of funding teacher pensions to the schools, universities, and school districts.

I am hopeful that we’ll make headway on this in 2012.

Pension reform, like sales tax changes, requires our elected representatives to make difficult choices.  Choices that taxpayers will support them for if only they make it clear how taxpayers will benefit.

Bond ratings and sales tax rates help determine how expensive it is to borrow funds for needed capital projects and to assure bond purchasers that there is enough dedicated revenue to pay back those bonds.

Unmet transit capital needs in northeastern Illinois exceed $15 billion. A Triple A+ bond rating and a dedicated revenue stream would go a long way towards closing the transit funding gap and giving our world class city the world class transit system it deserves.

Sales tax and pensions—it’s time for our elected representatives to take action.

Riders who live at the edge of the Red Line may be unfairly required to pay higher fares the further they travel. Photo by Flickr User, SoStark

Mayor Emanuel and President Clinton’s announcement of an “Infrastructure Trust” has gotten many people thinking about innovative ways to revamp our aging transportation infrastructure.

I’m all for exciting new transportation ideas and ways to fund them. Having toured some innovative transit systems around the world, including Mexico City’s bus rapid transit line, I know we have some catching up to do.

But some ideas that work in other places may not be right for Chicago. I was surprised to read this in the Sun-Times article that covered the infrastructure trust press conference:

“CTA riders could be asked to pay higher fares for buses with front and rear boarding that operate in dedicated lanes with traffic lights that turn green automatically… Riders using a Red Line extension to 130th could pay higher fares the further they travel.”

As a member of the CTA Board, that last bit about the Red Line was news to me. The Board has not made any decisions or even had a discussion about distance-based fares.

I don’t think distance-based fares are the right way to help pay for transit improvements. It strikes me as unfair to make the poorest residents pay more to travel than wealthier people who live closer to downtown. We should not punish those who have been forced farther out of the city’s central core by rising real estate prices with increased transportation costs, especially when they have been denied the good transit access that many of us have enjoyed for so long.

We will find innovative ways to finance transit—I have some thoughts that I’ll share with you through this blog—but charging those who can least afford to pay more is not one of them.

It’s a perfect demonstration that when the public speaks up, Congress listens.

The House leadership couldn’t muster enough votes to pass the bill before they left town for a recess.  While members are back in their home districts, attention has turned to the Senate’s transportation bill, known as MAP 21, which was voted on today.

While I wouldn’t have written this bill, MAP 21, as amended in recent votes, has a number of good provisions. For instance, the bill:

• Keeps guaranteed federal transit funding intact.
• Allows transit operators to use grant funds for operations and maintenance (O&M) during economic downturns for up to three years. Operators with less than 100 buses can use these funds for O&M permanently.
• Establishes a $20 million transit-oriented development planning program for the next two years.
• Extends for one year the $240 pre-tax transit benefit at the same level as parking benefits.
• Provides states the option of spending a small amount (4 percent) of highway funding for freight rail projects—a first.
• Expands the popular transportation loan program, known as TIFIA, from $122 million to $1 billion.
• Includes funding eligibility for Complete Streets projects.
• Requires performance criteria for key highway and transit programs.
• Continues direct allocation of funds to metropolitan areas with populations over 200,000. Percentage share has been reduced, but total dollars increased by a bigger pot and by providing Metros with funds from two other programs.
• Increases funds dedicated to road repair from 15.6 percent to 27 percent, and it allows states to spend more on repairs rather than expanding or building new roads.
• Requires asset management—making better use of limited resources—for the first time.

As this bill moves to the House, we will have to work hard to keep funding for the National Highway System, which tends to support large road systems, from getting any bigger. Under the Senate bill, the funding grew from 32 percent to 52 percent of the total highway program. We will also have to fight for transit on every front and for our urban communities to receive their fair share of funding.

We are quickly approaching a March 31 end to the current transportation bill, which could grind transportation construction to a halt and curtail transit services if we don’t pass something in its place. It is imperative that we pass a strong, transportation bill that benefits all modes of transportation.

I urge you to do two things:

1—Send your senators an email thanking them for supporting the key provisions listed above and urging them to maintain that support as it moves forward.

2—Send House Speaker John Boehner an email urging him to stop the partisanship when he gets back to DC and get serious about working with Republicans and Democrats alike to bring forward the newly passed bipartisan Senate bill.

I certainly can’t.

It’s what holds the region together. It gives us wheels without owning a car. It connects us to the wonderful diverse world we call Chicago.

But we need to do better. Not everyone in the region has equal access to transit, and not everyone pays the same.

Compare my two interns at the Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Joanne lives in Lansing, IL near the Indiana border. To get to CNT (in Wicker Park), she has to take a car and three trains. Her 30-mile trip takes 90 minutes, not including waiting times for trains, and costs $14 round trip each day (not including gas and parking).

Joanne's commute

Bill, in contrast, lives in west suburban Naperville, about as far away. His transit trip takes one commuter train and a transfer to a CTA train or bus. The two train rides take about 50 minutes and cost $16. The bus option adds one minute to the trip and saves 50 cents. Walking and waiting times are not included.

Bill's commute

Why should Joanne and Bill have such different opportunities to use transit?

Public transportation needs to work for everyone, not just those who happen to live in the right place. And that’s the commitment of this blog.

Every week, I will share with you a story about how transit and the transportation system can work better. You’ll hear about innovations in Denver and Los Angeles and track legislation in Springfield and in Washington. As a board member of the CTA, I’ll keep you current on happenings there. We’ll see the economic development potential of transit. And we’ll explore the possibility for a much better transportation system.

And, be assured, I will be calling on you to act.

For public transportation to reach its potential, the whole region needs to be engaged, both those who use it and those who don’t… yet.

Join me in Going Places! Subscribe via RSS feed or check back here for weekly updates!