Transportation

The Road Lobby's Influence

Adam Doster — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:05:48 -0800

With the Chicago Transit Authority and state officials reeling to plug a $300 million budget hole this week, there have been some questions raised about the systemic funding challenges facing the region's transit agencies. We've proposed some solutions in the past, as have other transit wonks. But one option that's too often overlooked is the need to rebalance the state's surface transit funding formula.

There are several reasons why transit projects don't draw the same interest as road projects, but money is first among them. Last year, the transportation industry spent $1.12 million lobbying state lawmakers, according to a new study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). Construction interests dished out $2.43 million. Their outsized influence, argues the study's authors, adversely effects how projects are prioritized:

“In our current campaign system elected officials must raise huge sums from major donors to win reelection,” said U.S. PIRG Democracy Advocate Lisa Gilbert, one of the authors of the report.

“In part because of this, we believe that transportation spending is skewed toward road-widening and new highway projects favored by developers, road builders and the other interests who make those contributions,” she added.

PIRG advocates for two federal fixes, both of which could (and should) be implemented concurrently at the state level. The first is the creation of a voluntary system of public financing for elections, which Sen. Dick Durbin has introduced in Washington. While Illinois is a long way away from experimenting on a broad scale with this approach, the campaign finance bill that was sent to Gov. Pat Quinn two weeks ago does establish a bipartisan task force to examine the feasibility of creating a voluntary public campaign finance system for all state offices.

PIRG also suggests that federal transportation money be spent "only on projects that produce real results over the long haul," including reducing oil use, curbing carbon emissions, easing congestion, and improving safety. Last year, transit reformers in the House wrote a bill (HB 2359) that would have done just that. By establishing a new advisory committee to the Illinois Department of Transportation, spending decisions would be prioritized based on performance measures and criteria for project evaluation under the measure. Like a lot of other promising ideas in Springfield, it got buried in the House Rules Committee. It now faces a shaky future, given that the primary sponsor, Rep. Kathy Ryg (D-Vernon Hills), and a slew of co-sponsors -- Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Wilmettte), Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), Rep. David Miller (D-Lynwood), and Rep. Arthur Turner (D-Chicago) -- are all vacating their seats in the Assembly. It would be wise for someone to pick up the fight next session.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user rebecca anne.

The State Of Play In Springfield: Veto Session, Week 2

Adam Doster — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:03:05 -0700

State legislators headed back to Springfield today to begin the second and final week of the fall veto session. Here's a quick rundown of the issues they are taking up:

Borrowing

In case you hadn't heard, Illinois' tax base might as well be quicksand. According to the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability's latest quarterly report, personal income taxes fell 18 percent, corporate income taxes dropped 29 percent, and sales taxes revenues shrunk by 15 percent since July. At the same time, the legislature has passed legislation requiring that the state fund the Monetary Award Program (which provides scholarships to low-income college students) without identifying a revenue source. As a result, Gov. Pat Quinn is looking for another lifeline, this time in the form of a $900 million loan. The Tribune has the specifics:

Lawmakers might put the borrowed money into a special pot that would be used to pay state health-care costs, generating potentially another $400 million in matching federal funds. That also would free up money elsewhere to pay for the scholarships in Illinois’ Monetary Award Program.

Borrowing is normal when revenues are smaller than expected. But Illinois has already taken out $2.25 billion in loans ($1 billion in May and $1.25 billion in August) and also delayed payment on $3.7 billion in backlogged bills to "shore up" its budget. That money, as well as this new short-term borrowing scheme, needs to be repaid by June 30, 2010. In other words, the plan just digs a deeper hole.

Interestingly enough, the plan does not require legislative approval, only the state treasurer and comptroller's signatures. Dan Hynes -- who during his own gubernatorial campaign has been critical of Quinn's handling of the budget -- could very well block the request. Although playing politics with scholarship money for needy students and Medicaid payments is a risky proposition. Quinn does not expect any problems.

Campaign Finance

The largest looming item on the legislative calendar is SB 1466, a rewrite of the campaign finance bill vetoed by Gov. Quinn in late August. After making measured progress last week, legislative leaders, rank-and-file lawmakers, and reform advocates still haven't reached an agreement on the crux of the issue: capping campaign contributions from state party and legislative leader political action committees (PAC).

One potential compromise emerged late last week: limiting contributions from these PACs during the primary season (to $100,000 for House races and $200,000 for Senate and statewide races) while lifting the restriction during the general election. Those are pretty high limits. The average 2008 race (both primary and general) cost House candidates just $191,370 and Senate candidates $349,413, meaning the legislative leaders would still play an extremely influential role in determining who emerges from primary fields. But if reformers are ready to swallow any potential improvement so that the substantive reforms housed in SB 1466 can be implemented quickly, this could be their best option.

Gov. Quinn, who vetoed the former campaign finance bill he deemed "historic" just three months prior, has remained mum on the issue thus far. Reformers and the press, including the Sun-Times Carol Marin, are continuing to hammer the Democratic leadership for their position on the legislative limits. If a deal can't be reached, it might stall until January, when a simple majority (rather than the three-fifths, super-majority required during the veto session) could pass it. And since the provisions would not be implemented before the 2012 election, the delay would not have a serious effect this cycle. We will know what route they take by Friday.

CTA

Facing an estimated $300 million deficit and the specter of service cuts and fare hikes, officials from the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) are bypassing City Hall and asking state lawmakers to bail them out.

Specifically, the CTA wants the General Assembly to approve measures that would allow the agency to shift more funds (roughly $360 million over two years) from capital maintenance to operations and pare down the free-rides-for-seniors program. Senate President John Cullerton says his chamber will this week take up a measure (that he has endorsed) to limit the free trips only to seniors earning less than $22,200 annually. It's a reasonable proposal, but will only save between $30 million and $37 million annually, some of which would have to be diverted to Metra and Pace.

As it stands, no major changes to the CTA's funding structure or revenue stream are even on the table. Until serious changes are implemented, these types of deficits will continue to be an annual problem.

The CTA's Newest Budget Woes

Adam Doster — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:25:13 -0700

Another year, another Chicago Transit Authority "doomsday" scenario. Newly appointed CTA chief Terry Peterson is scheduled to unveil his agency's FY 2010 budget today and the details don't look promising. Facing an estimated $300 million deficit, a legal ad placed in the Tribune this morning says that the basic fare for trains and Lake Shore Drive express bus routes will jump $.75 while bus riders will be required to fork over an additional $.25 per ride. Nine bus routes will also be eliminated while 41 others will experience reduced hours.

Keep in mind that these fare changes will be implemented solely to close the 2010 operating shortfall. (The CTA has already filled $122 million of their deficit by requiring non-union workers to take unpaid furlough days and by diverting money appropriated for capital expansion into the operating fund.) Even though ridership is ballooning, the city isn't raising additional revenue to expand or enhance services. And those capital improvements are desperately needed; more than one-third of the existing trains, equipment, and facilities are outdated. Illinois PIRG estimates that it would take $60 billion over 30 years to expand its stressed fleets, extend routes to underserved communities, and perform routine maintenance on the existing infrastructure.

While it's true that the recession has hit the agency especially hard --the CTA gets half of its funding from retail and real estate sales taxes, receipts of which have plummeted -- the city's funding problems are largely systemic. Generating adequate revenue would require reforming the CTA's rigid funding restrictions (most notably the hefty state-mandated "recovery ratio"), rebalancing the state's surface transportation priorities, and devoting existing city resources to projects from which the public benefits. Securing those changes will take a lot of political will, which is tough to come by these days in both Springfield and at Chicago City Hall. Until then, transit commuters across the region will bear the burden.

With Transit Ridership Up, Will Investment Follow?

Angela Caputo — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:06:59 -0700

It's no secret that the biggest barrier to creating a state-of-the-art public transportation system here in Illinois is funding. No one has made that more clear than the state's regional transit agencies, who've threatened to cut even basic services under recent doomsday scenarios. As we've pointed out repeatedly, one of the root causes of those financial problems is the way the federal and state governments divvy up transportation money. Surface projects -- namely road construction -- continue to be prioritized over mass transit. In a report (PDF) released yesterday, Environment Illinois (EI) explains how that's playing out in Illinois and across the nation:

In 2002, total revenues for public transportation provided $4.71 per transit trip from all sources—federal, state and local funding, along with passenger fares—which has fallen to $4.48 per trip in 2008 (adjusting for inflation) ... If the disparity between resources and demand continues to grow, our national transit network will become increasingly less and less able to meet the daily transportation needs of millions of citizens, as well as limit the tremendous potential energy savings and environmental benefits from public transportation.

While policymakers have been slow to catch on, it's encouraging to see that Illinoisans are increasingly taking advantage of mass transit. Ridership increased by more than 6 percent last year and is continuing to grow. At the same time, drivers cut back on their time behind the wheel by a whopping 3.7 billion miles in 2008, according to the report. Will this trend finally force policymakers to rethink the way transportation resources are distributed? In a press release, EI's Brian Spranger described it is a start, noting that “people are voting with their feet."

It's also important to realize that new federal stimulus and state capital dollars will only plug the dysfunctional transit funding system for so long. On that note, EI offers up a series of policy recommendations that could ultimately put the state on track to reach its full mass transit potential:

-Set goals for reducing transportation-related pollution and oil dependence to inform better policy;
-Level the playing field to fund transit and road projects equitably;
-Loosen regulations so federal, state and local funds can be used for equipment
-Incorporate the Clean, Low Emissions, Affordable New Transportation Equity Act provision (S. 575) into federal climate legislation to fund clean transportation efforts.

“Every additional dollar we spend on public transit makes us less dependent on oil," Spranger added in the release, noting that Illinoisans used 259 million fewer gallons of gas last year -- equal to taking 450,000 cars off the road. “Instead of wasting money to build new highways that only increase our dependence on oil, our leaders here in Illinois and in Congress should drive more money to transit, rail, and better biking and walking options.”

You can read the whole report here (PDF).

Number Of The Day: $550 Million

Adam Doster — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:15:54 -0700

After years of preparation by rail advocates and months of lobbying from Illinois pols, the Illinois Department of Transportation formally submitted its application for federal high speed rail funds on Monday, as the Pantagraph reports. Officials requested $550 million from the initial $8 billion stimulus pot, money that would be used in part to upgrade railroad sidings to allow slower freights trains to pull over for faster passenger lines.

The state also wants to spend $140 million to reduce congestion around freight lines in the Chicago region and $10 million to initiate a feasibility study showing that travel times between Chicago and St. Louis could be cut to less than two hours if trains ran at speeds reaching 220 m.p.h. The Midwest High Speed Rail Association has already looked into the latter possibility on its own (PDF).

Because of the diligent work of rail advocates in the region, Illinois is in prime shape to take home the resources IDOT requested. And more money is likely to funnel down to states in the future. That's because the House already passed a $123 billion transportation and housing appropriations bill, which included $4 billion in new funding for President Obama's high speed rail initiative. "People need to understand this isn't about winners and losers," Federal Railroad Administration Administrator Joseph Szabo told the Wall Street Journal," this is simply the beginning."

Grants will be awarded beginning in late September or early October. Work could begin shortly thereafter.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user Strychnine.

Transit Advocates Call For Rainy Day Fund

Adam Doster — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:03:34 -0700

It's no secret that the region's mass transit agencies are seriously underfunded. In 2008, regional sales taxes were increased and local real estate transfer taxes were boosted by 40 percent just to avoid massive service downgrades. And while such cuts were again avoided in 2009, a recession-induced drop in sales tax revenue and discretionary funding forced the agency to close a $180 million gap through layoffs and other gimmicks (such as diverting millions in capital funds towards the operating budget). "There is no margin for error going forward,” warned Chairman Carole Brown in July.

Much of the problem is structural. The federal government has failed to make the infrastructure investments (PDF) necessary to move the U.S. into the 21st century. Furthermore, federal officials have yet to modify the ratio at which they fund all surface transit projects, which dramatically favors road construction. Locally, the CTA labors under various rigid funding restrictions, including a heavy state-mandated "recovery ratio," which stipulates that the agency has to recover 50 percent of its operating costs from riders. The state government finally passed a capital construction bill, but still transit will not receive its fair share of state resources.

During a recession, when ridership often jumps but tax revenue declines, the problem is only amplified. As a result, the system's drastic capital needs -- which Illinois PIRG pegs at $2 billion a year for the next 30 years -- are rarely met. That includes routine maintenance, fleet expansions, and route extensions to undeserved communities.

Transit advocates throughout the state are tired of the status quo. On a conference call yesterday, the Center for Neighborhood Technology and several of their allies unveiled a policy proposal that could stop some of the bleeding. With revenue ultimately generated from an income tax hike, the organizations want the General Assembly to establish a transit "rainy day fund" that would have stringent criteria for fund withdrawals so as to protect against resource diversions during the next recession.

The plan is still in its early stages; advocates are in early talks with lawmakers and the ideal size of the fund has not yet been worked out. With Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) vacating her seat, someone in Springfield will need to pick up the mantle. (That CNT's Jacky Grimshaw will be working on the Chicago Transit Board is a good sign that the Quinn administration has its head in the right place.) But it's a proposal that seems worthy of support, despite a massive budget deficit. As the Metropolitan Planning Council's Peter Skosey pointed out on the call, "Transit is a tremendous economic tool."

Stay tuned ...

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user sierraromeo [sarah-ji].

Illinois' Good News, Bad News Stimulus Take

Angela Caputo — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:04:48 -0700

Even during the most contentious moments of the stalemate over the state budget this spring, one point that many lawmakers agreed on was that the federal stimulus package had provided state government with a lifeline. Without the $6.5 billion cash infusion, school budgets, roadway projects, and human services would have all but collapsed this year. And it turns out that Illinois was luckier than most. In the latest installment of the Recovery Tracker initiative, ProPublica reports that as of July 20, the Prairie State has snagged an average of $504 per person, making it the 13th-largest recipient of stimulus money nationwide. (The national average is $397 per person.)

As we've noted previously, an imbalanced formula for divvying up that transportation money put Illinois' most densely-populated areas at a disadvantage in netting the stimulus funds. Some figures that can be gleaned from ProPublica's analysis of county by county spending only confirms that unfortunate point; Cook County, for example, landed $112 per person for transportation projects, compared with downstate Stark County's $723. But while the process needs to be reformed, it's unquestionably good that any money is flowing into Illinois during the recession.

Of course, it's important to remember why Illinois is netting a large amount of subsidies. As Crain's pointed out yesterday, it's not because of luck or financial need. Ironically, it's because of poor governance:

Ironically, the state’s success stems largely from the legislative gridlock that has gripped the Capitol in recent years. Illinois got a bevy of transportation projects approved quickly because lawmakers’ prolonged failure to agree on a multibillion borrowing plan for infrastructure improvements had left the state with a large backlog of highway projects waiting for funding.

Illinois agencies fighting homelessness, who received a stimulus boost this year as well, are dealing with their own ironic problem. Because the legislature decided to play more shell games with the state budget -- gutting line items for homelessness prevention only to plug them with the stimulus resources -- some providers aren't sure if they will have any state aid when the federal dollars dry up. Chi-Town Daily News reporter Adrian G. Uribarri explains:

In early July federal officials promised more than $67 million in stimulus funds to prevent homelessness in Illinois. They saw it as a way to help families struggling with an unprecedented foreclosure crisis.

State officials, fresh from a battle to balance a $9 billion budget deficit, saw it as a golden opportunity to cut back. They slashed funding for similar programs by 78 percent, from $11 million last year to $2.4 million, relying on the feds to provide the rest. [...]

But advocates for struggling families face a worrisome question: What will happen when the stimulus funds run dry?

Since lawmakers are inexplicably dodging this question, anxiety among these organizations is understandably mounting. They deserve better.

Daily Herald: Late To The High-Speed Rail Party

Adam Doster — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:37:16 -0700

It's only been four months since the Daily Herald editorial board trashed the use of stimulus funds on high-speed rail (HSR) as "excessive, meaningless government spending." But this week, after Gov. Pat Quinn and governors of seven other Midwestern states announced a combined effort to build a regional network of high-speed rail lines, the paper is changed its tune:

This is how to demonstrate a visionary approach to the securing and use of federal monies. Yes, the Chicago-to-St. Louis line remains at play for hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements, but now we're talking about speeding up not just one isolated connection but every major link between Chicago and its metropolitan neighbors. [...]

All things considered, this is the kind of comprehensive thinking that makes good use of stimulus money immediately and in the long-term.

It's good to see the suburban paper get behind the idea. That being said, the justification they offer for the shift in opinion is a bit odd. After all, it's not as if "comprehensive thinking" about high-speed rail was missing back in March, when the paper wrote that the investment "smells an awful lot like the pork."

In 1996, a group of rail advocates and planners -- including representatives from the Federal Railroad Administration and nine Midwest states -- formed the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. Over the next eight years, that group formulated a comprehensive plan to make incremental improvements to 3,000 miles of existing rail lines as well as construct multi-modal connections and introduce modern trains operating at speeds up to 110 miles per hour. That plan was largely overlooked by federal lawmakers until the Obama administration decided to improve America's rail infrastructure.

Now it seems that Congress is putting its money where its mouth is -- a good sign for the Land of Lincoln, which is constantly improving its chances of taking home a large chunk of the federal dollars tagged for HSR. Aside from the $8 billion earmarked in the stimulus package, the House just approved an additional $4 billion dollar investment in the Transportation Department FY 2010 appropriations bill passed last week. And when Congress takes up its next multi-year federal surface transit bill (likely in 18 months), House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Rep. Jim Oberstar has hinted that the bill will include up to $50 billion in HSR funds.

Biggert Takes Credit For Transit Bill She Voted Against

Adam Doster — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:46:43 -0700

Last Thursday, the House passed a $123.1 billion transportation and housing appropriations bill that included an 8 percent boost for the Section 8 housing voucher program and $4 billion for President Obama's high-speed rail initiative. It also included $1.5 million in funding for two projects requested by Rep. Judy Biggert -- a Metra Station in Tinley Park and freight-related traffic relief along Ogden Avenue in Aurora. “These important investments will create local jobs and help keep our area’s road and transit systems working for commuters,” Biggert said in a statement Friday. “I’m very grateful to my House colleagues for recognizing the rapidly growing transportation needs of communities and centers of commerce in our suburban area.”

The Naperville Sun covered the story as well, quoting Biggert saying that the freight relief "will help to mitigate that impact and keep traffic flowing along one of our most important regional arteries." But the paper forgot one tiny detail -- along with the rest of Illinois' Republican delegation, Biggert voted against the bill. The Sun staff report also falsely asserted that she "sponsored" the measure (in fact, she did no such thing).

Biggert's effort to have it both ways is unfortunately par for the course with House Republicans this year. That's the story the Sun should be writing about.

Kirk Joins Roskam, Votes Against High Speed Rail Funding

Adam Doster — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:24:12 -0700

Throughout the negotiations over President Obama's recovery package, Rep. Mark Kirk insisted that some form of stimulus was “necessary" to create jobs and get the nation's economy back on track. But the Republican congressman ultimately voted against the Democratic proposal because it relied too heavily on "social spending" and not enough on infrastructure projects like "highways, roads, [and] airports."

While most economists disagreed with Kirk on what constituted the most effective short-term stimulus, Kirk's point was a fair one. The nation's infrastructure is in horrible shape and well-targeted construction projects can put people back to work immediately while protecting the safety of American commuters and the environment.

But when the rubber meets the road, so to speak, there is reason to question Kirk's commitment to mass transit investments. Yesterday, we highlighted comments from Pace officials calling out Kirk for ignoring their repeated requests for federal assistance. And late last night, the North Shore Republican -- along with his colleague Rep. Peter Roskam -- voted in favor of an unsuccessful amendment to strip $4 billion in new funding for Obama's high-speed rail initiative from a broader transportation and housing bill.

Why is this money important?

Matt Yglesias explains:

HSR is a good idea for the United States, but the nature of the beast is that money is going to tend to get spread around the country rather than concentrated in one place. But it’s a big country, which means that if we’re going to achieve any kind of meaningful HSR liftoff, you need to start out with some big appropriations.

We've written ad nauseum about how high speed rail could benefit the Midwest. It's worth asking why Kirk and Roskam don't think the project is valuable.