Transit Funding News
Wednesday, April 11th, 2012
Did you catch Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on NPR’s Marketplace last week? Jeremy Hobson had questions about the mayor’s proposed Infrastructure Trust, how it would work and what kind of projects it would fund. It’s a quick read or listen here. (The audio begins at the 10:15 mark.) You can also catch tonight’s segment on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight, where some aldermen will weigh in on the mayor’s infrastructure trust.
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.
Posted in Chicago, Economic Development, Going Places, Regional, Staff Blog, Transit Expansion, Transit Funding | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012
As a candidate for mayor, Rahm Emanuel vowed to make CTA’s Red Line Extension his top priority in improving transportation in Chicago. Just a few weeks ago, as Mayor Emanuel, he announced the creation of a $1.7 billion “Infrastructure Trust” that would support “transformational” projects, including the Red Line extension. Then just a few days ago, Emanuel re-announced his plan with a slight twist—it now includes $7 billion worth of infrastructure projects.
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 95th 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.
Posted in Chicago, Going Places, Staff Blog, Transit Expansion, Transit Funding, Transit Ridership | 1 Comment »
Thursday, March 29th, 2012
Chicago is a world class city that needs a world class transit system. Unfortunately, we don’t have funds that even come close to covering the $15 billion in work needed to keep our transit system working properly and expanding service. That will remain the case for the foreseeable future unless the state gets its fiscal issues straightened out.
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.
Posted in Chicago, Going Places, Staff Blog, Transit Funding, Transit Policy | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 20th, 2012
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.
Posted in Advocacy, Chicago, Going Places, Staff Blog, Transit Funding, Transit Ridership | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 14th, 2012
By now everyone knows about the US House of Representatives proposing legislation that would jeopardize funding of mass transit. Outrage from the public forced members to reconsider putting transit funding in peril.
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.
Posted in Going Places, National, Staff Blog, Transit Funding, Transit Policy | No Comments »
