highway

HIGHWAYS

The Center for Neighborhood Technology

www.cnt.org

August 2003

This review will be more easily understood as annotated comments on problem areas in the 2030 RTP.* The 2030 RTP was considered from the point of view of public comment

during 2001 and 2002, particularly the comment found in Changing Direction: Transportation Choices for 2030.**

Thematic issues that impact this section include:

Refusal to "flex" funds; persistent use of the old 60/40 highway/transit split, in spite of overwhelming public support for more transit and almost universal controversy on

major highway projects.

No discussion of the great degree of controversy surrounding some of the expressway and arterial projects proposed.

Casts doubt on the commitment to Context Sensitive Design and multi-modal use because increased speed, freer traffic flow and reduction in the number of traffic

signals are explicit priorities.

* Available at

http://www.sp2030.com/CommentSite/index.html

**Available at

http://www.cnt.org/tsp/trans/ctaqc/cc/theplan.htm

The chart below offers specific page references and quotes from the Regional Transportation Plan and commentary on why each quote is relevant or problematic.

Page Quote

Comment

The table showing traditional 60/40 split in revenues between

highways and transit was removed from draft, obscuring the actual

apportionment. The plan fails to mention that highway funds can

be "flexed" for transit and other purposes.

Other strategies will include capital, management and

operations techniques that improve the availability of

highway as well as transit choices.

Text in the first draft was "Other strategies will include capital,

management and operations techniques that improve the

availability of transit choices."

The RTP recommends a single amount of forecast

revenue for use among the strategic regional systems; the

fundamental guidance being that the strategies being

designed and implemented will improve the performance

of a unified multi-modal transportation system.

Without dedicated funding all modes competing with highways for

this funding will be at a disadvantage. The 2020 update allocated

$225 million to pedestrian and bicycle improvements. $225 million

was one half of o ne percent of total expenditures, but it was a

specific commitment.

Strategic Regional Systems"

This heading was "Strategic Shared Use Systems" in an earlier

draft. In the final draft, the only strategic mode is highway -- the

Strategic Regional Arterials. Traditionally designation as

"strategic" has created priority status and greater likelihood of

funding.

HIGHWAYS

The Center for Neighborhood Technology

www.cnt.org

August 2003

Shared Path 2030 avoided making modal distinctions up

to a point in consideration of a unified multi-modal

approach. The RTP's major capital project

recommendations, while mode-specific, include specific

strategy discussions intended to provide implementation

guidance to promote choice between and among travel

modes.

The refusal to prioritize transit and walkability heightens concern

that continued heavy roadway investment is the intention.

Planning, design and construction of major transportation

projects is subject to rigorous environmental regulation.

But public and private organizations can also, through

their planning efforts, promote preservation of high-quality

natural areas in the region that remain unprotected by

legislation or regulation.

This plan includes projects that are in opposition to land

preservation policies; for instance, the Prairie Parkway is in

opposition to the Kane County land use management plan.

. . . "techniques that improve the availability of transit choices" in

the first draft became "techniques that improve the availability of

highway as well as transit choices" in the final draft.

Nonetheless, nearly all of the decisions regarding the

transportation system's use are privately made. Thus,

while decisions regarding transportation supply occur in

the public domain, their success is dependent to a

significant extent on the personal travel choices of

individuals.

Individual travel choices and household travel costs are heavily

influenced by the infrastructure choices available. When auto

travel is the only convenient or realistic option, cars must be

purchased. Once purchased, autos create substantial, continuous

expenses as well as environmental impacts and road

maintenance costs over time. See the "The American Dream" at

http://www.transact.org/report.asp?id=224

for more information on

household travel costs.