Big vote today on Illiana Expressway
Thursday, Oct 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Mayor Rahm Emanuel talks about his opposition to the privately financed Illiana Expressway…
Emanuel said he doesn’t consider the project a benefit. “I don’t see Illiana as in the self-interest of the city of Chicago, from a competitive standpoint,” he said last week. Emanuel did not elaborate, but experts point to the importance of the thriving and competitive freight industry in Chicago and the surrounding region.
Not to mention O’Hare and Midway because of the proposed expressway’s proximity to Peotone. Chicago mayors have always guarded O’Hare, but keep in mind that Emanuel is attempting to privatize Midway, and that’ll probably be more difficult if a third airport is a likely prospect.
* A key vote is expected later today…
The final decision will come this evening. That’s when a little-known but powerful panel, the Policy Committee of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, is scheduled to vote on whether to endorse the proposed Illiana Expressway, moving it to the top of the region’s transportation priorities, or to place the south suburban road in a lower category, something that would make it ineligible for federal funding and likely kill it.
At this point, neither side appears to have a win sewn up. As of last night, one well-placed observer had it eight votes in favor, eight against and three undecided. In other words, a dead heat, depending on who actually shows up.
* Sen. Mark Kirk recently penned an op-ed in favor of the expressway…
Public-private partnership procurements are complicated. They take time to put together, with significant input from private industry regarding their structure and terms. Halting the Illiana Expressway’s progress now eliminates this option.
It may be that the market determines that the highway is not a good investment. If that is the case and the project does not make financial sense, then it should not move forward. To be sure, managing financial risk to the taxpayer should be the No. 1 priority for any public-private partnership.
But expecting a ready-made deal before a project is allowed to pursue private investment is a recipe for failure and hamstrings the very innovation that public-private partnerships promise.
Our infrastructure in Illinois is aging, and we don’t have the resources to keep up with demand. The Illiana Expressway is an opportunity to explore a new way to address how we invest in transportation, and one that I am excited to see move forward.
* My buddy Greg Hinz is an ardent Illiana foe and had this to say to Kirk…
Mr. Kirk really does run the risk of badly tarnishing his green shield. Building roads to nowhere to suck jobs and people out of the central area is antithetical to everything good urban planning ought to be about.
And throwing around money we don’t have — hey, Senator, remember all those speeches you made about how Illinois is bankrupt? — won’t impress any true fiscal conservative.
I seriously doubt that if the investors take a pass that the road will be built. But investor interest is reportedly quite strong, so I’m not too worried about costs. And this is a toll road, remember.
* Greg and I have shared e-mails back and forth about the Illiana, and this was a main contention of his that he also wrote about in his blog…
Above and beyond that is the fact that not only CMAP’s integrity but also the core future of the Chicago area is at stake in this decision. For once, the area has an agency that is trying to prioritize spending decisions so that the most needed projects get the money. But if Mr. Quinn gets his way on this one, the message will go out loud and clear that the bad old days are back, that dividing up the government pie is a free-for-all without rules in which every side just leans on their favorite pol to get their way.
You gotta admit, Mark Kirk and Pat Quinn make an odd couple. Even in Illinois. Just what are you up to, Senator?
…Adding… An insider with some knowledge of the roll call says he believes the pro-Illiana forces have lined up 11 votes. Ten are needed to win. Stay tuned.
- Soccermom - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:03 pm:
Everybody likes reform and good government and prudent planning until one of their projects is turned down.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
–Building roads to nowhere to suck jobs and people out of the central area is antithetical to everything good urban planning ought to be about.–
Seems to me that a road to nowhere wouldn’t suck jobs and people out of the central area.
As far as the central area, it’s jammed up pretty badly running east to west.
- Bourbonrich - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
This project is part of the Chicagoland area and actually would serve the huge intermodal area southwest of Joliet. It does not help the City of Chicago but that does not mean it’s not needed. The lack of understanding about anything south of I 80 is amazing.
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:08 pm:
“Mr. Kirk really does run the risk of badly tarnishing his green shield. Building roads to nowhere to suck jobs and people out of the central area is antithetical to everything good urban planning ought to be about.”
So since we’re “green” we can never build roads. Instead its better that every piece of traffic be routed towards the lake, sit in traffic and cause huge delays.
Its almost (or is) protectionist. Lets not build roads or relieve traffic because we may loose jobs because its easier to get to Indiana…
Of course urban planning has led us to the mess that is the highway system we have right? so our trust should be in the folks that want to maintain the status quo.
- OneMan - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:08 pm:
So if it isn’t in the self interest of Chicago, it shouldn’t happen?
Good to know…
- Richard - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:11 pm:
The private investment and toll road aspects of this project really do seem like pretty good insurance policies.
Funny, I don’t remember seeing Greg Hinz, the greenies, and the planning goo-goos getting this fired up about 355 and the Elgin-O’Hare expansion. But when there’s a proposal for the part of the metropolitan area the spend no time in — the South Suburbs — they draw a line in the sand.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:14 pm:
Does Greg Hinz know that the Illiana project was rated 3rd of all projects in CMAP’s plan, just behind the 53 extension in Lake County and the Elgin OHare extension to Elk Grove? The more curious question about CMAP’s integrity would be, why would they want to soft-pedal a project so highly rated in their own system?
- Bill White - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:16 pm:
The greater Chicago metropolitan area (a/k/a Chicagoland) is much larger than the City of Chicago.
If this road would divert truck traffic from the Tri-State Tollway and from the I-80 & I-90/I-94 bottleneck near the Illinois Indiana border it could be a good thing for the entire region.
- OneMan - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:18 pm:
Six Degrees, the ‘greenies’ had a field day with the 355 extension, part of the reason it took like 10 years longer to be built than originally planned or something like that.
- Southwest Cook - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
Illiana should have been built decades ago. 80/94 is the bottleneck of the nation and any way to relieve congestion and divert through traffic should be welcomed. I don’t see how the highway would negatively impact Chicago. Trucks bound for the city would not use the Illiana. This opposition is probably all about the third airport, which would cut into Midway and O’Hare’s freight business. However, in the long term a third (mostly freight) airport could boost the entire region’s economy and increase efficiency at the two main (Chicago) airports.
- railrat - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
centerline ROW should have followed immediately after the 355 south extension, I believe it would have shown a consistent transportation plan for the region, similar in scope as Daniel Burnham so ingeniously displayed in his initial concept. I’m concerned there is just to much financial hand ringing over a project of this dimension now. Public Private Partnerships may be good in theory but what has been the track record ? ie. is it a 270 Denver? as far as the tollway option can projections be determined as concrete ? and just what effect will a commitment like this have on the bonding market up +/- ? $400mil-1.1bil
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
One Man, that was Richard’s comment, not mine. I am well aware in the delay of the I-355 project. That pier that sat there for 10 years, in the middle of 55 at Bolingbrook.
- Question - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:24 pm:
Do we know where the gubernatorial candidates stand on this?
- Judgment Day - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:26 pm:
“This project is part of the Chicagoland area and actually would serve the huge intermodal area southwest of Joliet.”
We really need the Illiana Expressway from a distribution standpoint. Moving goods coming into Northern IL from the West which are going further East is a growing bottleneck.
We already have the rail transportation issue out in the western suburbs that we’re now trying to fix, but for all the thru truck traffic, we need something like the Illiana Expressway.
—-
“You gotta admit, Mark Kirk and Pat Quinn make an odd couple. Even in Illinois. Just what are you up to, Senator?”
Sen. Kirk may be onto something. He tried to find a way to work (not necessarily well, mind you) with Rep. Bobbie Rush and that has seemed to go nowhere. So, move on and see if you can find some other congressional/political folks out there who are willing to work with you on projects that are potentially good for Illinois, and even our neighbors.
Isn’t politics all about a game of addition?
- OneMan - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
six degrees…
My bad… sorry
- Mason born - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 2:55 pm:
–You gotta admit, Mark Kirk and Pat Quinn make an odd couple. Even in Illinois. Just what are you up to, Senator?–
Mr. Hinz seems to forget that Kirk and Quinn are supposed to represent the ENTIRE state. Making it easier to move goods east and west sure seems to benefit the rest of the state. Even if Chicago loses some Truck traffic.
That said i give Rahm some credit he is standing for what he thinks is his constituents best interest.
- Because I said so... - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:05 pm:
How likely will south suburban legislators be to help Rahm the next time he calls on Springfield, for what Chicago needs, if he keeps dumping on their districts and constituents?
- Chris - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:15 pm:
Rich:
” investor interest is reportedly quite strong, so I’m not too worried about costs”
Investor interest in the Chicago Parking Meters was quite strong, too.
Is the reason that the interest in Illiana strong bc the State is, essentially, guaranteeing the investors outsized returns?
Haven’t seen anyone discuss that aspect.
- Todd - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:21 pm:
if anyone has tried getting around I80 and 53 they know the problem. I guess Rahm would rather have all those trains blocking roadfs on the south side, than move some of that rail and truck traffic south a bit.
not to mention all the trucks that can bypass chicago going north to madision/rockford or just east / west.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:28 pm:
===Investor interest in the Chicago Parking Meters was quite strong, too. ===
Oh, please. This isn’t an existing, historical asset used by millions every year. It’s a yet to be constructed, 40-mile toll road.
- OurMagician - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:28 pm:
=Do we know where the gubernatorial candidates stand on this? =
Bruce Rauner said he heard many negative things about this while on vacation…..
- Anyone Remember? - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:30 pm:
Question to Illiana opponents.
What is your alternative? I-80 is choked with semi-traffic (as our host has pointed out). The Frank Borman (I-80 in Indiana) has no more room for lane expansion, so adding extra lanes in Illinois only eliminates the west bound congestion, as the east bound congestion will still exist. Bueller? Bueller?
- A guy... - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:31 pm:
Just build the darn thing and just watch how busy it gets in very little time. 75% of our Interstate system is “nowhere”. It’s how you actually get to “somewhere”. Build it!!!
- Archiesmom - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:36 pm:
I live just south of I-80, and see every day why we need the Illiana. I’m with Southwest Cook on this one! Transportation needs to look south of Chicago. Once the focus of the third airport effort shifted to hauling cargo and not people, an integrated plan started to appear that has been backed by a lot of local and state legislators, governments and community groups. I hope this squeaks through.
- Fed up - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 3:42 pm:
Iliana is a needed toll road that should be built. Rahm is downstate in Springfield saying give me give me yet he is willing to try and stop a project that helps other parts of the state just because nothing is in it for him.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 4:12 pm:
The one time someone tries to plan ahead and be progressive and the entire establishment freaks out and pulls out all the stops to kills this project and protect their own fiefdoms. And that Route 53 in Lake was put on the backburner for years because the progressive thinkers in control of Lake once throught they could curtail the population boom if they stopped expanding roads. Didn’t work and they’ve been playing catch up ever since.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 4:17 pm:
–And that Route 53 in Lake was put on the backburner for years because the progressive thinkers in control of Lake once throught they could curtail the population boom if they stopped expanding roads–
That’s true.
- DuPage - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 4:41 pm:
Opponents of 355 said it wouldn’t get enough use to be worth building. It has been packed with traffic and they have been adding additional lanes for it ever since.
- railrat - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 4:53 pm:
I do enjoy the “we need it build it they will come” sentiment but at what cost to all of us taxpayers/statewide ? how many financial burdens are we being asked to withstand? for temp labor that gives hundreds of thousands to Quinn, jobs are great but at what cost per household and as we just watched on the national level what is the long term gain?
- Joe Schmoe - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 5:22 pm:
So let me get this straight, this will be a public private partnership and a toll road. Little public funding.
Rahmbo doesn’t want it because he says it will drain reources for his pet mass transit projets in the city. But it’s private funding!
So if we don’t build it, all the more traffic ends up on 80 and it gets even worse. The solution? Spend public money to fix that mess.
Somehow, the logic of the opponents doesn’t work here…..
- Rollo Tomasi - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 5:57 pm:
If Quinn is for it I’m against it? But If Rahm is against it I’m for it? So confusing.
- DuPage - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 6:21 pm:
They better hurry, I just read the Federal Highway Trust Fund will run out in 2015.
- DuPage - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 6:24 pm:
Just read Illiana passed.
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 7:14 pm:
I’ve always supported Illiana. Let’s do it. Good for Illinois’ transportation needs, economy, creation of a ton of JOBS. Glad to see that it/the plan reportedly just passed/was endorsed. Woo hoo–WIN WIN for BOTH Illinois and Indiana (ironically, a “Blue” and “Red” State–just goes to show there IS hope for Bi-Partisan Action in the Best Interest of the People–woo hoo)!!
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 7:27 pm:
Is there a reason why they didn’t extend the planned route all the way past I-55 to I-80 at Morris? Seems to me that would be a benefit for trucks that are by-passing Chicago and it looks like it’s only another 10 miles or so.
- vibes - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 7:50 pm:
Pretty sure Rahm would trade Illiana for muni pension relief. Just sayin’
- DuPage - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 7:52 pm:
Straight shot to I-80? Good idea. Get it all done at once. Otherwise it will be a “missing link” for the next 50 years.
- DuPage - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 8:24 pm:
Other missing links, I-57 and I-294 cross over without any way from one to the other, connecting ramps just now being built.
IL-31 and Sterns Road in South Elgin. Crosses over with no access.
One road that doesn’t actually exist at all, the
Chicago-Kansas City interstate. Approved by the Federal Govt. in the 1950s. Was supposed to be built in the 1960s. The state matching funds were diverted to other things. (similar to pension fund diversion) At the time, the GA promised to fund the road later. They never came up with the money, causing the road to never be built. A couple years ago the GA told supporters of the road “we did not forget about you”. They then proceeded to approve money for signs for a zigzag route along existing highways. They say IL-110 CKC. A far cry from a direct interstate. The signs are along I-88.
Anyone know of other missing links on our Illinois highways?
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Oct 17, 13 @ 8:55 pm:
Anyone know of other missing links on our Illinois highways?
I dunno, we’re pretty well cris-crossed with highways the way it is now. A few could use extra lanes, like I-55 from Bolingbrook in. There are a bunch of highways that are being slowly expanded downstate, like the two-lane sections of US 67 and US 51, and the section of I-57 in southern IL between I-64 and I-24 that is pretty crowded now. US 20 could use something extra between Freeport and Galena. None of the above are likely to make economic sense as a toll road, like the marginal Illiana or the more lucrative Elgin to O’Hare or the Route 53 extension. When OK built their toll roads in the early 60’s, (and IL built the old Route 5 toll road, now I-88, between the Quad Cities and Aurora) land and construction were so cheap that it made sense.
- Chris - Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:52 pm:
Rich: “Oh, please. This isn’t an existing, historical asset used by millions every year. It’s a yet to be constructed, 40-mile toll road.”
And if the State is going to *guarantee* that the investors get a 10% annual return, *even if NO ONE pays $1 in tolls* then it’ll end up being the same thing.
I don’t care much either way about building it, but I DO care about claiming Public-Private “partnership” if the Public accepts all the risk and the Private gets 100% of the upside.
Have you seen an offering memo for the investment, Rich? Are you willing to be on-board for it *regardless* of what the terms are? Because that’s what it sounds like when you give the “oh please, it is nothing like CPM”–it sure as heck *could be* just like it.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:58 pm:
=== Are you willing to be on-board for it *regardless* of what the terms are?===
Of course not. Don’t argue like a child.
Also, I made my position clear in my Sun-Times column last Sunday.