Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: On Vallas and recall
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* This excuse is understandable politics, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the long or short term…
House Republican leader Tom Cross of Oswego said transit funding should be addressed at the same time that a broad-based capital program is taken up to fund construction of schools, roads, bridges and other projects.
“For us to say we’re only going to take care of one component of a two-part problem is a mistake,” said Cross, who voted against the proposal. Suburban drivers, he said, expect the roads to be widened because they are “sick and tired of sitting in traffic.”
* Widening the expressways will probably just invite more cars onto the roads…
Widening and building new highways actually causes, not relieves, traffic congestion in Cincinnati and other major U.S. metropolitan areas, according to a new study presented [in 2000] to the 79th Annual Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC. The study estimated that up to 43% of traffic in Greater Cincinnati is caused just by expanding the area’s road network. The study also says that Tri-State traffic congestion would have grown less rapidly if no new or wider highways were built at all, contrary to what highway planners have predicted.
The study, “Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel,” used data from the Texas Transportation Institute’s most recent database for 70 urbanized areas from 1982-1996. Using three models with different variables, the study found that highway-induced traffic in the Cincinnati area (including Northern Kentucky) increased by 14%-43%. Highway-induced traffic estimates for nearby metropolitan areas were 12%-35% in Columbus; 13%-30% in Cleveland; 20%-50% in Indianapolis; and 34%-77% in Louisville. The national average was 15%-45%.
“Simply put, this study adds to the growing evidence that traffic congestion has been made worse, not alleviated as road builders claim, by more and bigger highways. It follows that to reduce traffic congestion, and therefore air pollution and suburban sprawl, we need to stop building and widening sprawl-causing highways,” said Glen Brand, director of the Cincinnati office of the National Sierra Club. “Instead it would be smarter to plan our communities better so that we aren’t forced to drive everywhere, and to provide greater transportation choices such as commuter light rail and expanded bus service.”
The study’s authors, Robert Noland, University of London Center for Transport Studies and William A. Cowart, ICF Consulting in Fairfax, VA., conclude that “induced travel effects strongly imply that pursuit of congestion reduction by building more capacity will have short-lived benefits. This may be evidence for a strong sprawl inducing impact of large increases in lane mile capacity relative to the existing infrastructure.
* More…
There is no shortage of hard data. A recent University of California at Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9 percent within four years’ time.3 For anecdotal evidence, one need only look at commuting patterns in those cities with expensive new highway systems. USA Today published the following report on Atlanta: “For years, Atlanta tried to ward off traffic problems by building more miles of highways per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City…As a result of the area’s sprawl, Atlantans now drive an average of 35 miles a day, more than residents of any other city.”· This phenomenon, which is now well known to those members of the transportation industry who wish to acknowledge it, has come to be called induced traffic.
The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: “Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.” Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through traffic on as few streets as possible.
The phenomenon of induced traffic works in reverse as well. When New York’s West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, an NYDOT study showed that 93 percent of the car trips lost did not reappear elsewhere; people simply stopped driving. A similar result accompanied the destruction of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway in the 1989 earthquake. Citizens voted to remove the freeway entirely despite the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers. Surprisingly, a recent British study found that downtown road removals tend to boost local economies, while new roads lead to higher urban unemployment. So much for road-building as a way to spur the economy.·
More here.
* Even so, people love their cars, likening them to “personal freedom,” and they don’t like to be told anything that might disrupt their views of life. A suburban politician has to be in favor of building more roads and widening current byways or s/he is dead political meat.
And then there’s the very real problem that people like those who live in Cross’ district face. They don’t have easily accessible mass transportation options, even if they work in the Loop.
Until those people have viable alternatives, it’s impossible to tell them that mass transit should be in the mix.
Then, of course, there’s the problem of Downstate, which resents any cash spent on Chicago-area transit, even though Downstate gets more than half of all road money, with less than half the population.
* But hiking fares too much can backfire…
Metra’s letter cited ridership losses resulting from fare increases during the 1980s to deal with worn-out equipment the agency acquired when it took over commuter rail operations from private freight carriers.
“We have brought this system back [from] the depths,” Pagano said. “The bottom line is if we don’t get the money … we will go back to where we were.”
Ridership is up right now because of high gas prices. It’s the same principle. Rising prices in one sector causes consumers to flee to alternatives. Solutions are not easy, which is why the leadership vacuum in this state right now is so frustrating.
* More transit stories, compiled by Paul…
* House rejects CTA bailout as cuts near
* Illinois House blocks bill to aid mass transit
* Bethany Jaeger: Transit trouble
* Chicago Public Radio: RTA still needs cash
* Lawmakers reject measure to raise regional sales tax
* Fare hikes more likely as transit bill fails
* Lawmakers say bridge needs are great, but money still a question
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 9:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: On Vallas and recall
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As the House GOP leader, Tom Cross represents more than just the people in his district. Yes people like their cars, but that doesn’t mean public transit should be ignored.
Comment by Eki Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 9:09 am
So then if we reduce I-90, I-290, I-355, I-55 and I-57 to just 1 lane ea direction, 24′ wide that traffic congestion will be reduced?
Comment by North of I-80 Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 9:16 am
Another blog lists these Dems as voting ‘no’ on SB572 yesterday: Chapa LaVia, Crespo, Dunkin, Franks, Hoffman, McCarthy, Phelps, and Reitz.
Particularly interesting is the fact that Dunkin took other action on SB572 yesterday, too: he had himself added to the legislation as a co-sponsor.
Reportedly, five Republicans voted ‘yes’ on the bill. Its co-sponsors include Mathias, Bassi and Coulson. I’m hoping and trusting none of these three followed the lead of their esteemed yet confused colleague, Ken Dunkin. But - does anyone know for certain who the GOP ‘yes’ votes were?
And another question, this one specifically for Rich: Is Emil really ready to leave his constituents, and those of his caucus, totally in the lurch when the CTA/RTA cuts take effect? More snarkily, does he think that his and his members’ voters will somehow avoid the harm of service cuts and fare hikes, and/or avoid blaming their senators for abandoning them?
Finally, the irony is as rich as it could possibly be when the governor criticizes a regional sales tax as a “back-door fare hike” for RTA riders. Apparently, it’s far superior to embrace a front-door fare hike and just assume that it’s cheaper and fairer. Which is hooey, based on the math I’ve done for my own soon-to-be-altered commute.
How can the governor keep a straight face when he emits such nonsense? Is it because he’s had so much practice? Or because the nonsense is usually delivered via news release, leaving him in hiding to smirk all he wants?
This has been a Public Service Rant.
Comment by Linus Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 9:31 am
Two things have always irked me: 1) How many new road projects get built when we can’t even maintain the roads we’ve got; and 2) How much money gets spent so that people who want to live away from their jobs don’t have to drive as long. I have little or no sympathy for them. If you want a short commute, live closer to work. If you want to live in your nice out-lying suburb, expect to drive. It’s a choice, people. Don’t keep expecting the rest of us to pay for it.
Comment by What planet is he from again? Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 9:58 am
All mass-transit should be expanded instead of building new roads.
If I had a choice I would take the train to work. There is no train or bus anywhere near my work.
Driving to and from work everyday is the worst part of my day.
Sometimes I think about all the wasted hours out of my life just sitting in traffic.
Plus the fact that most people in Illinois can’t drive. No drivers education class is required to get an Illinois drivers license and it shows.
There are many more positives to expanding mass-transit verses building more roads.
The number one issue is dependence on foreign oil.
Comment by Lula May Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 10:00 am
North — that’s a straw man if i ever saw one. the argument is to stop expanding freeways and instead provide alternatives, since expanding the freeways is proven to accomplish nothing in the long run. the goal is to increase mobility, not to blindly remove freeways and leave people stranded. alternatives would come in the form of better connected streets, public transportation and development that doesn’t require as much driving. quoted from above: “This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through traffic on as few streets as possible.” freeways are designed as magnets for traffic, channeling cars and giving drivers very few options. well-connected networks of smaller streets function much better in more developed areas, because they provide more route options to reach the same destinations (another study: http://www.governing.com/articles/8trans.htm).
Comment by Lee Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 10:04 am
I think Cross is playing it smart politically. The Chicago democrats that run everything in this state could care less about the ‘burbs or the south. You have to do what you can to get the needs of the rest of the state taken care and the CTA jam is just such a vehicle.
Comment by Leigh Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 10:05 am
“And then there’s the very real problem that people like those who live in Cross’ district face. They don’t have easily accessible mass transportation options, even if they work in the Loop.”
BINGO!!! Short term, suburbanites with no viable public transportation options are indeed entitled to road projects which relieve them of the burden of 2 hour+ daily commutes (and much more during winter, ‘natch). Long term, this state has to come up with a viable, state-wide public transportation system … perhaps something similar to the rail net in Western Europe and elsewhere. You can’t tell someone to take public transportation when it’s only realistically viable for those living in the City and select suburbs and outlying areas. Even many suburbs within 5-10 minutes of the City have no way of getting to public transportation without driving to it (and paying to park, assuming one can even FIND a parking space).
With population trends likely to continue, we are in for a severe transit crisis (at least in Northern Illinois). The Guv & legislature ought to be addressing it, rather than applying short-term bandaids that don’t do much to cure a sucking chest wound.
These guys need to work together and step up to the plate.
Comment by snidely whiplash Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 10:19 am
I don’t understand our Tax increasing Republican State Representative. She voted against our property tax freeze, against electric rate releif, and now for a transit tax. Don’t Republicans stand for less goverment and less Taxes?
Comment by Palatine 54th Rep District Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 11:08 am
Public transportation is the most important issue facing the Chicago Metro area. Skyrocketing fuel costs, green house gas emissions and traffic congestion brought on by urban sprawl will soon make it so problematic to get around that the only option for business and the general population will be to leave the area.
Who will remain? The people who couldn’t leave due to poverty, age and the lack of education.
What is the solution? Good affordable public transportation.
The potential to grow depends upon the ability to conduct business and find quality employees. If businesses don’t want to be here they take the good jobs and the large tax base which fund education, healthcare, parks and recreation and many other benefits somewhere else.
As remedial as this sounds it is the truth and if our politicians either don’t get it or want to play political games with it the area is seriously in jeopardy.
We have already suffered greatly. The expansion of O’Hare should have been finished 10 years ago. How many international companies have balked at setting up shop here because of air travel congestion problems?
Now is the time for our political leaders to step up and be counted. As business globalizes, our area is at a critical point. We can establish a vibrant and efficient metropolitan area that attracts companies from all over the world or we can create a dysfunctional urban sprawl that drives away the businesses we already have.
Comment by Garp Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 11:30 am
Wow Did Cross drop the ball or what. He had a chance to get about $2.2 billion for roads, bridges and transit improvements and blows it?
WHAT IS HE THINKING?
Maybe he thinks the Mayor will give away all the casino money.
Hope METRA riders don’t mind hoofing from the train stations, while the CTA buses pick up people in the neighborhoods.
Good work Tom. Not!
Comment by Mr. W.T. Rush Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 11:35 am
I see no reason why people who choose to live in Oswego should get new or widened roads to make their commutes easier. I chose to live on the west side, and am currently living in Berwyn with my Ma while she recovers. This is an area with affordable housing and plenty of transit options that have already been built and simply need to be maintained now. If you build bigger roads out in the far flung areas, you’ll simply encourage more people to live out there which will increase the traffic. By distributing the population of metro Chicago ever further out, you’re now having to maintain more miles of roads for the same population. Why encourage that?
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 12:33 pm
The media reports that the bill was “soundly defeated” and “rejected” don’t get it. It got 61 votes, enough to pass with an effective date of July 1, 2008; instead of immediately, which is what the sponsors wanted. GOP is fumbling badly here - Metra’s cuts and fare hikes will take effect in 2008 - an election year - and just wait until their suburban constituents scream bloody murder at them during the camapign!
Comment by Legaleagle Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 12:43 pm
I keep hearing how SB572 is “CTA” and how suburbs and downstate get nothing; this is categorically wrong. In fact, SB572 shifts the existing funding formula further in the suburbs’ favor, and makes the city responsible for more of CTA’s funding. We in the city will see two new taxes — while Metra will receive over $100M a year in money above what they asked for. Downstate transit systems get specific callouts of new state funding in 572. The suburbs will be lousy with new Metra service, while CTA will just make do.
Since SB572 retains the “wedding cake” sales tax formula, Cook County will continue to pay over 80% of the RTA sales tax.
Comment by pc Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 1:01 pm
Rich-
One item that is not discussed in your freeway expansion studies is how many cars are taken off the local streets when the freeway expands? Cars and trucks don’t simply drop from the sky to fill the roads. I do agree in Chicago, you can usually get more bang for your buck by expanding transit options than freeway widening, because of the immense cost and impacts in doing a freeway widening without cutting corners. But freight must move, too, and can’t always move by rail when local deliveries are factored in.
It’s easy to provide transportation options when you have 10,000 people per square mile, and dense clusters of transit destinations, as Chicago does. How do you provide “mass” transit for the person traveling from, say, Gilberts to, say, Plainfield? Some insiders say the STAR line, which is an innovative project to move people from suburb-to-suburb, is having serious difficulties in attracting enough projected riders to outweigh the costs of building and operating it. And again, these transit expansions way out (like into Cross’ district and beyond) don’t seem to take too many cars off the road; they might slow down the congestion rate of increase by a few percentage points. Unless the population shift is dramatically reversed, roads will be needed. Just look at what the Sierra Club and others are proposing as an alternative to Hastert’s pet project the Prairie Parkway. Does it contain transit? Not much; in fact, it contains a ton of rural and suburban road expansions. Even the Sierra Club knows transit won’t sell in those parts.
The Downstaters need their capital projects (mostly to maintain the existing road system with a few improvements here and there) just like Chicago needs to get transit fixed. They are starving for food in the desert, so to speak, and do not want to get thrown a block of salt by the Chicago area saying “this will help”. Unfortunately, they have little to no leverage in this state’s political climate.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 1:02 pm
What planet is he from again?
your argument has no basis. when you say that “if you want a short commute, live closer to work” you have to take into consideration something called AFFORDABLE HOUSING. you might want to look into it. why do you think everyone is moving out to places like plainfield? because people like to live in the middle of bf egypt? no, because that area is one of the few where you can build a new house for under/around three hundred grand. or take into consideration people who live on the south or west sides of chicago (where there aren’t any good paying jobs) and many have to commute two or three hours a day to jobs in suburbs where they can’t afford to live. do your homework, my friend.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 1:03 pm
I am an ex-IDOT engineer who spent many years working on roadway projects.
IDOT does not and has not had the money to expand the existing roadway network. The IDOT budgets that have been passed since blago got into office have been for maintenance only.
Now as far as how many lanes a roadway should have, that is determined by IDOT policies. Two of the first pieces of information that is obtained at the start of a new project is the existing and projected traffic data. The projected traffic is generally the construction year + 20. The traffic projections are a best guess as to what may occur 25 years or so in the future. As an aside, IDOT policies are derived from AASHTO policies such as the “Green Book”.
IDOT polices state that when the 2-way design hourly volume (DHV) is between 1250-2050 the roadway ought to have 4 lanes. When the DHV is between 2050 and 2900 the road ought to have 6 lanes. Putting it symplicitically, DHV is rush hour. Here is the link to the IDOT BDE Manual, see table 48-6A on page 44 of 58.
http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/BDE%20Manual/BDE/pdf/chap48.pdf
As far as funding is concerned, By and large the funding for any road or bridge construction in Illinois is paid for using motor fuel taxes. I believe that the MFT in Illinois is 37.4 cents which includes both the state and federal portions. The majority of the construction projects have some about of cost sharing with other governmental agencies. Ordinarily the cost share is 80-20 (Fed-State), on the interstates (NOT including the tollway) the share is 90-10. Depending on the project, a municipality/township/county may have to chip in for the improvement.
The last bit is information that I hope to impart is that roadway designs are not for passenger cars and other 4 wheel vehicles. The designs are based on the design vehicle & functional classification of the roadway. On state marked routes, the design vehicle is usually a WB-65 (a semi-truck with a 65′ wheel base).
I hope that this has provided some insight into how a roadway design is developed.
Comment by PE PTOE Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 1:21 pm
If suburban Republicans don’t want to sign on to this plan that benefits them, then fine — cut Metra back to their request, and you’ve just got the dollar amount down substantially.
Palatine 54 — I think your rep is actually acting like Republicans should and traditionally always did; fiscal conservatism, paying real attention to the value of a dollar, taxing only when you actually need to (i.e. now, when our pension system is broke and we manage to run deficits at the peak of an economic cycle), and letting the private sector operate freely; as opposed to the tooth fairyism the GOP now seems to adhere to. Today’s Republicans would apparently rather give their constituents all kinds of government freebies like some great celestial Santa Claus, while sticking everyone else — future generations, electric company shareholders and so on — with the bill. in other words, much like yesterday’s Democrats. Just how is voting against “rate relief” (i.e. government coercion of privately-owned utilities) a vote against less government? Seems to me like it’s a vote against more government.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 1:28 pm
Cross’s shortsighted horsetrading approach to addressing the Chicago metropolitan area mass transit problem will doom the Republican Party to minority status, as well as his statewide election prospects. It’s not going to be hard to identify the obstructionists and remind voters subsequently about who they were,if the RTA-PACE-CTA doomsday plans are implemented.
My understanding is that the metropolitan Chicago suburbs are getting a very good deal in the Hamos bill. The Chief Executives of Dupage and Will County and the Batavia Mayor, who is the Chair of the metropolitan mayors organization, all strongly support the Hamos bill.
I’m not opposed to downstate capital projects - the problem is there is no short-term executive-legislative consensus on how to pay for them. There is a bipartisan consensus, albeit not a supermajority, on how to resolve the metropolitan transit funding problem
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 1:33 pm
From 1970-1990, the greater Chicago area population grew by a small percentage, while the amount of developed land grew by 50%. This is called urban sprawl. Mass transit is feasible in densely-populated cities and close-in suburbs, but not so in less dense suburbs. Until land use, zoning, lot size, etc are taken seriously, discussing mass transit, road projects, etc is a losing battle. The metropolitan region keeps sprawling outward, while the interior rots. Smart growth, balanced growth, whatever you call it needs more than lip service. Funding mass transit should be coupled with better land use planning and, yes, regulation.
Comment by Doodles Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 1:44 pm
Here’s an interesting question-
If this is the crisis of the decade, and this site is frequented by the most knowledgeable people on state issues, I wonder why there are only 20 or so posts yet on this subject? This site has been titillated to a 100+ post frenzy by everything from power-washing scandals to health-care bombshells to picture-of-the-day.
Maybe people in the Chicago area are “conditioned to gridlock” and people downstate have learned not to expect anything.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 1:57 pm
Maybe Cross just doesnt trust the Gov to spend the money on what it is earmarked for. I wonder why someone would not trust the Gov.
Comment by fed up Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 2:00 pm
Six, I think there are at least two answers to your question.
It’s a slow day on the blog.
We had two big posts on this same issue yesterday, so people are pretty talked out.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 2:13 pm
A lighthearted #3 for “Six” :
Many of the people who’d normally post are stuck in traffic on the roads or underground on the “L,” unable to use their Treos.
Har.
Comment by Linus Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 2:26 pm
Doodles,
Let me say first off I am not a fond lover of suburbia, even though I grew up there in a “model” community.
Go to any board meeting or zoning meeting of almost any Chicago suburb or exurb. When residential projects are discussed, nearly everyone (mayor, trustees, school board, citizens) freaks when the developer proposes small lot sizes or low income housing. It’s the Third Rail of Suburbia, and as ingrained as Mom, the Flag and Apple Pie. And this is the land for which Cook County is being deserted, so it’s a choice that consumers are making. Do not underestimate the effort that will be required in changing this mind-set.
And convincing people to live in an inner city area, with real or perceived crime and school issues and “outdated” housing stock is at least as big a challenge. Short of a massive tear-down and makeover, there are some areas that are not as “charming” as others if an urban renaissance is desired.
This is a tough nut to crack, and I think natural economics (rather than forced economics) will be the deciding factor if it is to happen. And city and close-in suburb land prices are already sky-high in the “desirable” places.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 2:44 pm
Six Degrees,
The Chicago metropolitan electorate won’t explode in anger until the PACE and CTA fare increases and service cuts in the “Doomsday” plans actually occur. I would guess most people assume that reasonable leaders acting in good faith will be able to resolve this problem because from a common sense standpoint it’s a total “no brainer”.
I think ” all heck” will ensue if Doomsday is actually implemented. I assume that PACE and CTA will postpone “Doomsday” if it appears progress in being made and resolution appears likely.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 3:03 pm
There will be no postpoing of doomsday. Doomsday is when the CTA, at least, runs out of money if nothing changes. Illinois politicians will find out what the Bush administration has: you can’t negotiate with reality.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 3:20 pm
Cross is very uniformed about transit realities if he thinks enough roads can be built to hasten the commute from Oswego to anywhere in NE IL …I agree that the Hamos bill addressed the needs of suburban Chicago and the City…it’s a regional transit system folks…what happens in the collar counties effects Cook county and vice versa…alot of the gridlock in suburban chicagoland is suburb to suburb commuting not coming into the city…I guess a real crisis will educate people very quickly and negatively impact the quality of life for everyone…we can all win if we think globally, but people do not naturally think that way…bring on the gridlock!!
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 3:42 pm
Six,
I have no problem with people choosing to live whereever. I just don’t think I should be taxed to provide incentives (such as widened roads or new expressways) for them to live in far-flung burbtopia. If they want to live out there with a 2 hour commute, that’s up to them.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 3:46 pm
Why did the Speaker hang Hamos out to dry. He knew she did not have the votes?
Comment by anon Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 3:59 pm
What I love best about this transit infighting is that Daley (and his merry band of rubberstampers) get off scott free. It is the CHICAGO Transit Authority, you know.
But who am I to spoil a witch hunt? Blago’s fault!
Comment by Leroy Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 4:04 pm
Mass transit should be a statewide issue. Sure, in the short term the Chicago systems need an injection of funding, so be it. But then immediately move to establish a serious review and implementation of a statewide interlocking mass transit system. Metra, Cta, RTA, Amtrak, High Speed Rail, and a reestablishment of the downstate Interurban Systems, and Inner City Trolley Systems. If the mass transit systems were readily available and dependable usage levels would rise to a level of full support and self sustainance.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 4:04 pm
Loop Lady-
I know a little bit about Cross’ district and what he wants done. It’s mostly about widening the same 2-lane roads that have been in place since Kendall County had a population of 10,000 (it’s going to break 100k sometime this year). Which is supported by the Sierra Club and a host of other environmental organizations, BTW. The widening of I-55 to 6-lanes was a former priority, but it’s under construction now. I think that project will just move the bottleneck south to I-80, it needs to go to Arsenal Road to serve the massive Rail Port (yep, trucks and trains working together, just like they should!)
A Citizen - as a railfan, I am anxiously awaiting the return of the Roarin’ Elgin and the Illinois Terminal. I think my best chance is to visit these 2 places:
www.irm.org
www.foxtrolley.org
Cermak -
I’m with you in the fact that “Developers” should pay a greater share for capital improvements. And taxpayers, too if there’s enough of them that want to widen the roads, etc. Kendall County voters did that recently, approving a countywide half cent sales tax dedicated to new capital road projects. Lake County had a similar referendum that was narrowly defeated. Guess the voters in Lake are more content with the way things are than the voters in Kendall.
I’m only half-joking about my “conditioned to gridlock” comment. It’s been my experience that, the further out from Chicago, the less tolerance people will have for congestion. An intolerable 2 minute delay at an intersection in Macoupin County is an everyday cost of living in Du Page.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 4:37 pm
Six, don’t forget about the North Shore Line, which once served the now thoroughly congested I-94 corridor between Chicago and Milwaukee. The Illinois Railway Museum has a lot of their cars, including an Electroliner: www.irm.org.
Comment by Nort'sider Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 5:42 pm
Yep, one of the 3 Sam Insull lines along with the Roarin’ Elgin and the South Shore. Went belly up in 1963 after a five year abandonment battle between the owners and the ICC. At least a little bit of the old Skokie Valley line was saved as the CTA’s Yellow Line (Skokie Swift). And as every interurban fan knows, we have the last surviving one in the US in the South Shore line. Love that street running on 11th Street in Michigan City.
http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/images/Chicago/SouthShore/11thStreet.jpg
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 6:39 pm
@Leroy: but Daley does have skin in this game. It’s dependent on him and city council to raise the real estate transfer tax (basically a backdoor property tax that incurs the full wrath of the Realtors lobby) on all property sales within Chicago.
@Six: the collars’ inability to get similar funds for new transportation improvements is exactly why SB572 includes the Opportunity Fund, a chance for the collars to tax themselves for whatever investment needs they find most important. Unfortunately, we all know that they’ll spend it on useless road widenings which will beget more sprawl and more traffic, thereby further undermining transit service, but, well, to each their own fates.
Comment by pc Wednesday, Sep 5, 07 @ 7:43 pm
Thanks for plugging the Illinois Railway Museum, folks! My brother has been a volunteer there for many years. Excellent daytrip destination.
Comment by Lainer Thursday, Sep 6, 07 @ 9:12 am