REGIONAL INVESTMENT
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:
·
Reduction in regional commitment to existing infrastructure, from 80% to 77%, a $1.8 billion drain of resources from existing communities.
·
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.
·
The use of project "readiness" as a criteria to determine which infrastructure to fund, rather than the benefits of a project or the regional priorities addressed by a project.
* 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
9
First draft had a table showing traditional 60/40 split in revenues
between highways and transit. Removal of the table obscures
actual apportionment. Plan fails to mention that highway funds can
be "flexed" for transit and other purposes.
9
Footnote to page 9: Shared Path 2030 assumes that
construction of some new facilities (both highway and
transit) will be financed with user-generated revenues.
The might include, but is by no means limited to,
traditional tax, toll and fare arrangements.
The amount needed from new, unspecified sources is $7 billion
(page 198).
17
Regional transportation policy should consider the
opportunities presented both by capital and long-term
management and operations planning.
The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) enacted
Statement No. 34 (GASB-34) in 1999. These new standards will
require that state and local governments develop, maintain and
present capital accounts in their balance sheets. These financial
statements must also accurately reflect spending, the conditions
and value of existing infrastructure and outline goals for
improvement. This document does not set a framework for
beginning that process.
46
. . . significant new segments to the region's major
highway and passenger rail system were introduced with
the intent of accommodating or managing forecast growth.
There is no commitment to redirecting growth to disinvested
communities; instead taxpayers in existing communities finance the
drain of investment from their own communities.
REGIONAL INVESTMENT
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
75
While the RTP has historically endorsed (strategies like)
community planning, environmental protection, and sound
transportation management, it does not typically allocated
a specific amount of the projected transportation revenues
to these strategies. The RTP's role in this area has been
to provide a statement of regional intent and to provide
general guidance, delegating their exact specification to
the project design and programming process.
This is the crux of the deficiencies in the document. The goals of
the plan, and the common themes identified by the public (page
74) would be better served by committing resources to these
strategies. Instead the emphasis is on expensive new projects,
many of which will serve few travelers but open up development
opportunities on the fringes of the region.
98
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. The amount
was small, less tha n ½ of 1%, but the public could ascertain what
the region's commitment to ped/bike travel was.
98
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.
99
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.
99
Multimodal transportation design, implementation,
management and operation has been one of the most
enduring topics during Shared Path 2030 discussions. In
addition, the emergence of "context-sensitive"
transportation solutions indicates a priority for sharpening
and expanding the considerations given to improving
existing "shared-use" transportation facilities.
The loud and clear message from the public is reported in this
document, but the investment strategy offered in this plan is not
responsive to the taxpayers' message.
REGIONAL INVESTMENT
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
105
Expressway and tollway interchanges in order to improve
accessibility and support efficient economic development.
This bullet point is in the Strategic Regional Systems section. Use
of dollars that are supposed to be dedicated to shared use systems
to enhance expressways and tollways is a misuse of those funds.
105
Strategic Regional Arterials
This is the only remaining "strategic" system within the S trategic
Regional Systems section. All other subheadings have been
downgraded.
108
Regional Transit
This section heading was originally "Strategic Regional Transit
System."
108
Potential SRA additions proposed during Shared Path
2030 include: (see comments)
The new SRA segments are in sparsely populated parts of the
region, primarily in Will County.
110
Pedestrian and Bicycle
This section heading was originally "Strategic Pedestrian and
Bicycle System."
111
The RTP acknowledges federal guidance to give due
consideration to bicycle and pedestrian facilities
improvements when improving or constructing
transportation facilities.
There are two problems with this statement: 1) acknowledgement
that pedestrian and bicycle are considered not for their own merits,
but because of a federal mandate and 2) there is no commitment to
freestanding pedestrian or bicycle improvements. Only when a
road is being built or improved can pedestrians or cyclists hope for
some relief.
111
Regional Freight
The section heading was originally "Strategic Regional Freight
System."
119
This plan devotes a large proportion of new investment (over 50%)
to the portions of the region that are sparsely populated, therefore
the projects have little benefit to existing communities and may
deplete resources needed for existing communities.
195
Implementing the Major Capital recommendations
The financial section is extremely difficult to read, and has become
more difficult rather than less, in successive edits.
195
Moving toward capital project implementation requires
elaborating the proposal in sufficient detail to demonstrate
that its purpose and need is being met. This will permit
detailed project engineering and allow necessary funding
to be secured. Only once there is consensus that a
proposal is "ready" can a proposal be implemented.
"Project readiness" is a poor substitute for regional priorities in
selecting projects or determining in what order they should
proceed.
REGIONAL INVESTMENT
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
195
$1.3Billion are already programmed for these
recommendations in the current Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
The list of projects that follows does not match the list of funded
projects in the "conformity" list or the list in the newsletter.
197
Upon reviewing these alternatives, Shared Path 2030
made an initial set of plan recommendations combining
the strongest and most viable elements of each
alternative.
It isn't possible for the public to determine the components of each
alternative; we are being asked to take this plan "on faith" as the
best for the region.
198
Shared Path 2030 felt it reasonable to assume that about
$7 Billion from new sources could be sought based on a
practical desire to construct at least a portion of the
proposed major capital recommendations.
Some of the funding needed to implement the plan is speculative at
this point in time.
199
Table 15: Financial allocation of recommended major
capital projects
The figures in this table add up to $62.3 billion rather than the $61
billion referred to at the front of the document (remarkably, the $61
billion figure is not restated anywhere in the financial information at
the end of the document. Subcategories of expenditure are
allocated without a reminder of the size of the overall investment).