Changing Direction

Center for Neighborhood Technology

Changing Direction: Transportation Choices for 2030

Center for Neighborhood Technology

The general public has been excluded for too

long from transportation decisions in North-

eastern Illinois. Given the opportunity, the citi-

zenry would fundamentally reform transporta-

tion planning to accomplish broader regional

goals. The overall vision the public prefers

would provide more transportation choice; in-

clude the public in transportation decision-mak-

ing; re-invest in existing communities; invest

to enhance land use and quality of life goals;

provide a safe travel environment with im-

proved accessibility for all; create a cleaner

environment and preserve open space; and

equalize the distribution of resources.

Summary of the Publi

Summary of the Public'

c'c'

c'

c's Plan

s Plan

How the Plan Was Developed

Connecting Communities Summits were held in eleven local areas of the

Northeastern Illinois region between April of 2001 and August of 2002 to

facilitate public involvement in transportation planning. Before each sum-

mit, local and regional partners assisted Center for Neighborhood Technol-

ogy staff to invite a broad spectrum of the general public. "Mini-summits"

were held to supplement the data collected at the geographic summits. Mini-

summits were aimed at targeted groups that were not strongly represented

in the summit process, or groups that have special needs and concerns.

A summit report was written for each area, based on the priorities expressed

by the public. Summit participants met a second time to review, amend

and approve their report. Summit and mini-summit reports can be obtained

at www.cnt.org/2030 or by calling 773 278-4800, ext. 2030.

Changing Direction: Transportation Choices for 2030 is the synthesis of

summit and mini-summit reports. This plan reaffirms and expands on the

goals and principles of the Citizen Transportation Plan (1995).

Acknowledgments

The Center for Neighborhood Technology wishes to acknowledge and thank the many local and regional partners who

helped to make this process successful. Partner organizations are listed on the back cover. Acknowledgement and thanks

are also offered to the individuals from throughout the region who commented on and helped refine this report: Alba

Alexander, Eraina Dunn, Amanda Eichelkraut, Sue Harney, Ben Helphand, Richard Martin, Steve Perkins, and Sheila

Schultz. Photos on pages 2, 5, 7 and 11 were provided by Sustain. Maps were produced by CNT.

Maps and budgets were used to help people

set realistic priorities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RRRRReallocate spending priorities to provide choice.

eallocate spending priorities to provide choice.

Improve transit options for all users and potential users.

Create safe walk

Create safe walkable and bik

able and bik

able and bikeable streets.

eable streets.

Ensure the efficient movement of freight through the region.

Encourage sustainable land uses.

Integrate regional transportation plans with High Speed R

Integrate regional transportation plans with High Speed Rail initiatives.

ail initiatives.

Design communities that promote physical activity

Design communities that promote physical activity.....

RRRRReallocate funds to better serve the safety needs of non-motorized users.

eallocate funds to better serve the safety needs of non-motorized users.

Minimize transportation impacts on the natural environment.

Ensure that transportation planning agencies respond to the public.

Improve accommodations for travelers with different abilities.

1

Changing Direction: Transportation Choices for 2030

New Choices for a New Century

A quiet revolution is taking place in Chicagoland.

*

This revolution opposes destructive state and regional

policies that have reduced the public's choices and

degraded communities for the last half-century.

Many of the most successful suburban communities

have begun to revitalize their town centers, or have

even built town centers where none existed before.

Whole communities have risen up to reject "big box"

stores, usually for fear of traffic nightmares or to

preserve a cherished downtown. Citizens in various

parts of the region have challenged plans from the

state department of transportation that would turn their

local roads into speedways.

In the City of Chicago another sign of revolution is

apparent in changing demographic trends. The city's

population rose in 2000 for the first time since 1950,

fueled primarily by an increase in the Hispanic

population. White flight still occurred between 1990

and 2000 but a countermovement was evident with

former suburbanites moving into city neighborhoods,

seeking the convenience and energy of walkable

communities served by multiple transit routes. There

is a growing awareness in urban and suburban

communities of the efficiency and dynamism of "old

fashioned" places.

Generational change is progressing as steadily as

ethnic change. The baby boom generation will reach

retirement age in the first quarter of the 21

st

century.

The ranks of non-drivers, and of people using

wheelchairs and other auxiliary devices, is about to

rise dramatically. The region has not been configured

to meet a growing senior population's needs.

Northeastern Illinois residents are acutely aware that

their tax money fuels the restriction of their choices

and the encroachment of traffic on their

neighborhoods. The public is dissatisfied with the

emphasis on roadway expansion over transit options.

The most basic, inexpensive and healthful mode of

travel walking is effectively prohibited in some

places and dangerous in most.

*

Chicagoland, or the Northeastern Illinois region, includes the six counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will.

Some people want to work and play in the same place.

Summit Attendees

The 500-plus Chicagoland residents who gath-

ered at Connecting Communities Summits and

mini-summits in the first two years of this new

century believe that their tax dollars are not be-

ing invested wisely to meet the challenges of

the new century. They expressed their dissatis-

faction in ways as diverse and unique as their

local communities, but their concerns can be

captured collectively by one word choice.

The summit attendees were representative of the

region in their travel habits. As a group, they

reported in surveys that their primary way of

moving around their communities and the re-

gion was by car. Yet by an eight-to-one margin

they preferred expanded transit options over con-

struction of new roads.

2

Center for Neighborhood Technology

Who Pays? We Pay!

Taxpayers Shoulder the Burdens

The costs taxpayers incur to facilitate individual

movement at the expense of collective access are

much too high. The public pays three times for the

transportation choices made available by state and

regional planning agencies. First, taxes fund

construction and maintenance of various

transportation projects. Individuals and families pay

a second time to make household transportation

purchases, based on the infrastructure choices

available to them. Taxpayers pay a third time to

mitigate air and water quality impacts of the

transportation system and for

health care costs caused by air

pollution and a lack of routine

physical activity.

Because of a lack of travel options

in some areas, transportation costs

consume an increased portion of

household budgets. People use a

variety of terms to describe

dissatisfaction with consequences

of "auto-dependence," "the

automobile mono-culture" or

"auto-centric culture." They have

good reason to be dissatisfied.

The Impact of Sprawl

According to research published in

Driven To Spend,

1

there is a

correlation between sprawl and

increased transportation costs.

With sprawl development the only

viable travel option is the most

expensive; choice is limited.

Although regional growth is

inevitable, the current investment

in new roads can be channeled into

other transportation options to

improve community access,

environmental quality and

household investment options.

Transportation and the Household Budget

Transportation, the second highest expenditure in the

household budget, consumes a national average of

18 cents out of every household dollar or $6,312

annually.* Only housing consumes more of the

average household budget. Income devoted to home

ownership creates household wealth. Auto ownership

creates debt. The weight of household transportation

spending is especially burdensome for lower income

people who are forced to spend up to 36 cents out of

every dollar on transportation.

Auto Costs in the Six-County Region Are Much Higher For

Households Distant From Town Centers

*

Census figures for 2000 indicate that nationally the transportation portion of the average household budget is now 19%.

3

Changing Direction: Transportation Choices for 2030

Household transportation expenditures in the six

counties of Northeastern Illinois consume about 15%

of the average family's budget. This region has the

second largest transit system in the nation. The

availability of public transit reduces the regional

average for household transportation spending by

$876 per year, when compared to the national average.

Local variations in household transportation expense

correlate directly with the amount of transit available

in a particular community (see figure above) and to a

lesser extent with the safety and convenience of

pedestrian and bicycle options.

The Regional Budget for Transportation

The official 2020 Regional Transportation Plan

2

calls

for spending $40 billion on transportation

infrastructure between 2000 and

2020. When the Chicago Area

Transportation Study (CATS)

expands the plan by an additional 10

years, to 2030, that number is likely

to rise to at least $60 billion. Sixty

billion dollars seems like a huge sum

of money, but spread over 30 years

and eight to ten million residents, it

is just above $200 per year per

person. This is very little compared to

the household expenditures driven by the

availability or lack of travel choice.

If current spending patterns are carried

forward over the next 30 years, almost

60% of all transportation investment will

be directed to road maintenance and

construction. About 40% of the region's

investment will go to maintain and build

transit. Less than one half of one percent

will be dedicated to walking and

bicycling.

This investment pattern causes

individuals to pay increased household

transportation costs to compensate for the

region's lack of transportation choice.

Federal transportation law was changed

a decade ago to allow more flexible spending with

what had previously been designated "highway

funds." Both the public and federal government

support transportation "choice" but transportation

planning agencies in this region have not seized the

opportunity to retarget highway dollars.

Federal transportation

law was changed a

decade ago to allow

more flexible

spending with funds

designated for

highways.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RRRRReallocate spending priorities to provide

eallocate spending priorities to provide

choice.

Move funds from highway construction into

transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Integrate transportation infrastructure

decisions with strategies that reduce incentives

to drive, like Location Efficient Mortgages

SM

,

car sharing, "live-near-work" policies, transit-

oriented development and "green insurance."

Lowest A

Lowest Average Auto Costs

verage Auto Costs

Oak Park

5,232

Evanston

5,407

Cicero

5,444

Berwyn

5,501

Harwood Heights

5,573

Elmwood Park

5,618

Highwood

5,693

Blue Island

5,739

Maywood

5,740

Forest Park

5,727

Highest A

Highest Average Auto Costs

verage Auto Costs

verage