Gov. Pat Quinn is intent on passing his capital infrastructure plan (dubbed "Illinois Jobs Now!") in order to boost the Illinois economy. He also suggested early in his tenure that he wants any such initiative to focus on "renewable energy." But does the proposal (PDF) he introduced last week shortchange mass transit, one of the most environmentally and economically logical investments any government can make? Transit advocates sure seem to think so.
Quinn's plan sets aside about $19 billion for transportation projects over the next five years: $14 billion for road and bridge maintenance and $4.6 billion for mass transit agencies to "purchase buses and rail cars, build train stations, bus garages and rail yards, and reconstruct, commuter rail bridges and elevated rail structures." Of that money, only $1.5 billion comes in the form of state improvements; the federal government throws in the rest via short-term stimulus funds and regular appropriations.
In an email yesterday, House Mass Transit Committee chairwoman Rep. Julie Hamos pointed out that the 3:1 roads-to-transit funding ratio is much worse for transit than the 2:1 ratios in past capital programs. Indeed, when we talked to Illinois Sierra Club director Jack Darin last month, he identified mass transit expansion as one of the top priorities for a "green" capital plan, saying that "a 2:1 transit-to-highway ratio in Illinois would be a good start."
We should note that, while it's not included in his current budget, Quinn and Sen. Dick Durbin are currently pursuing an estimated $500 million in high-speed rail funding set aside as part of the stimulus bill. So it's clear that the governor understands the urgent need for serious transit upgrades. It's just unfortunate that his underlying plan doesn't better reflect this reality.
As a point of comparison, Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Executive Director Steve Schlickman told WGIL radio in Galesburg that, under Gov. George Ryan's Illinois FIRST program, the RTA received about $2 billion from the state in 1999. Therefore, Quinn's expenditure for the agency is about half of what it received 10 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Bethany Jaeger has more:
Under Quinn’s proposed budget, the Chicago-area Regional Transportation Authority would lose $32 million in grants for operating assistance. Public transportation also would lose about $42 million, but that’s based on decreased sales tax revenues. Downstate transportation districts, on the other hand, would see an increase of about $24 million.
Hamos and Senate Transportation Committee chair Sen. Martin Sandoval are already pushing for more transit funding. We'll be watching to see if other lawmakers follow suit.
Comments
Randy Neufeld (not verified) on Wed, 03/25/2009 - 20:51
While it is clear that transit has much greater needs, let's be fair to the governor's proposal. The ratio is 2:1. There is 3 billion of new state funding for highways and 1.5 billion of new state money for transit. Currently there is no statewide funding for public transit capital so this proposal is a step in the right direction. We need to move the discussion away from ratios and get specific about transit's capital needs. What does 1.5 billion buy? What would an additional billion or two buy? I know there are good answers to these questions, but what is at stake is not being presented. New revenue is extremely difficult and we're not going to get anywhere by just begging for more.
Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 10:11
I don't see the numbers that get you to 2:1. And I think there's been plenty of specificity about transit's capital needs. Witness the lists (some disclosed, others not) that the RTA-area transit agencies have submitted as shovel-ready. I have a hard time believing there's anyone in Gov. Quinn's office or in Springfield who isn't aware of RTA-service area capital needs (at least among the responsible minds). There are volumes of paper now on which projects should/could be funded. CTA has talked about 7 billion in needs, and broken those needs out. Who can be their public advocate for those needs, both in Springfield and among the general public? Perhaps Mayor Daley. But all joking aside, I agree that "new revenue is extremely difficult and we're not going to get anywhere by begging for more." Until we as a state identify and implement progressive funding reform for transit capital and operating, this is all just dancing around a growing sinkhole. Let's say the ration was 1:1, and transit got tons of capital improvements, including rail line extensions. Under our state's arcane operating funding system--see the "recovery ratio"--CTA wouldn't be able to run service on all of that improved infrastructure. Despite Rep. Hamos' work, we're still dealing with a very screwed up, regressive operating funding system here where we rely on sales taxes and real estate transfer taxes to fund transit. Messed up. How about identifying a sustainable, progressive source for transit investment? Same for capital. And I think one "creative" revenue source might be, unfortunately, a public-private partnership ala Midway/parking meters/Skyway. That would be a disaster for regional transit, and for the region. Amen to the no more begging--let's give transit it's rightful place in the budget as the most effective and efficient people mover, economic driver and quality of life enhancer (pardon my language). I think that demands more than 3:1.
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 03/25/2009 - 21:49
I think we need to flip the reverse and improve air quality. Metra needs electric high-speed trains, CTA needs newer public transit that is faster and quieter to reduce noise pollution and Daley ought to resign. Chicago is deteriorating and Daley along with his cronies have allowed this to occurr. This way government money will be spent appropriately instead of cushioning the pockets of the elected idiots.
Jenniferwhatnot (not verified) on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 09:08
I think it's a shame that transit is always left begging while road expansion and improvements are funded, funded, funded. There is plenty of capital money for transit in the stimulus funding but transit agencies all over the nation are screaming for operating costs. If the governor is committed to better air quality and true energy independence, he ought to start by increasing operating funds to all the state transit agenices.
On the payroll for transit (not verified) on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 22:52
Everyone here has a sound, informed opinion but transit does not receive the fair share it deserves. Full disclosure - I work to promote transit capital funding. But there is little debate that the Governor's proposal does not meet the independently verified needs of the transit system. More importantly, the ratio of road to transit funding is out of whack. But the ratio is not the issue - the whole plan needs to be increased for both roads and transit. Many programs may be able to imply a rate of return on investment but infrastructure investments - at least road and transit investments - are proven to be gainers for taxpayers. Economic activity, job creation and time savings are all well documented. Environmental and "quality of life benefits" are harder to quantify, but significant nonetheless. The Governor has a tough nut to crack, but putting money into our infrastructure is a no-brainer. And putting more money into transit just makes sense.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.