Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Lightfoot unveils congestion tax
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Lightfoot unveils congestion tax

Friday, Oct 18, 2019

* Tribune

Mayor Lori Lightfoot will seek to more than triple the tax charged on most solo ride-share patrons heading in and out of downtown Chicago as part of her plan to reduce congestion and raise much-needed money to shrink a massive estimated $838 million shortfall in the 2020 budget.

Lightfoot’s plan to bring in new revenue and curb traffic congestion would hike the tax on solo riders using services like Uber and Lyft elsewhere in the city by 74%. That’s despite the fact most outlying neighborhoods don’t face nearly the heavy traffic problems seen in the downtown area.

* From the mayor’s press release…

Based on peak congestion locations and times, the City is proposing a new variable Ground Transportation Tax (GTT) structure. Under the current GTT, a flat rate of $0.60 is assessed per trip citywide, and a $5.00 flat rate is assessed per trip in special zones (the airports, Navy Pier and McCormick Place). As part of an effort to incentivize shared rides to combat both congestion and rising vehicle emissions in Chicago as well as encourage use of higher efficiency modes of like transit downtown, the City proposes the following progressive structure:

    Decreasing the GTT on all citywide shared ride-hailing trips from $0.60 per trip to $0.53 per trip.
    Increasing the GTT on all citywide single ride-hailing trips from $0.60 per trip to $1.13 per trip.
    Assessing a downtown zone surcharge, placing an additional $1.75 per trip for single rides and $0.60 per trip for shared rides.

No changes are proposed to the current $5 special zone fee, the $0.10 per trip accessibility fee or the $0.02 per trip administrative fee. […]

Representing areas among the highest density of trips citywide, the proposed structure will target ride-hailing trips in the downtown zone, a map of which can be found attached, during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays, when congestion is most prevalent. To ensure continued, reliable access for customers citywide—particularly for the south and west sides—the city’s progressive structure will offer a discount on shared trips in the neighborhoods. Shared trip requests on south and west sides can range upwards of 50 percent of all requests, in comparison to less than 30 percent on the north side and downtown.

The mayor’s congestion study is here.

Thoughts?

…Adding… From comments…

“Lock Box” doesn’t interfere with putting the revenue into the general fund?

That’s a good question. Checking now.

…Adding… From a rideshare spokesperson, here are what $10 rides will look like after added fees…

Chicago Central Business District $13.00
Chicago Transit Deserts $11.25
Seattle Proposed $10.75
Rhode Island $10.70
Washington DC $10.60
Boston $10.20
Los Angeles $10.10

- Posted by Rich Miller        

38 Comments
  1. - Watching - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:24 am:

    I like coming up with creative solutions, but logistically this doesn’t seem feasible. Solo riders can hail the ride as having 2+ passengers, and drivers aren’t likely to make an issue of it because it risks a bad driver review.


  2. - illinoyed - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:27 am:

    Tax that traffic! Per capita auto emissions in the Chicago-metro area rose 43% since 1990, in the meantime we’re all stuck in gridlock while the kids get asthma and the troops get killed in oil wars. Good to see something being done about it.


  3. - Soccermom - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:34 am:

    It is Friday. I am going to make a tremendously stupid joke.

    The Mayor’s congestion tax is nothing to sneeze at.

    I’ll see myself out…


  4. - Donnie Elgin - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:35 am:

    Conde Nast named Chicago a “Best Big City” for tourists. The Mayor proposing a Ground Transportation Tax that exploits them makes sense in a perverse short-sighted sort of way.


  5. - Rich Hill - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:36 am:

    It appears the mayor’s office researched what worked well in London’s congestion pricing policy and how it needed to be updated to address the growing effects of rideshare services. (See the link for a good summary of the first 15 years of the London policy.)


  6. - Anon but Social Knows me - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:37 am:

    This will raise some funds, but it will do nothing for congestion. Since most rideshare cars have the goofy airplane sticker in the back window (to access the airports) they are easy to spot. They are a total nuisance. driving across four lanes of traffic to take a wrong turn to get a fare, waddling around while looking for fares and more. Taxi drivers have figured these things out a long time ago, but amateur drivers that now drive for lyft/uber et al, none of that knowledge or sense. Plus they typically run two smartphones - one for themselves and one for the rideshare app - so they are on two devices, regardless of the newer law about touching phones while in a car.


  7. - NoGifts - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:40 am:

    “Lock Box” doesn’t interfere with putting the revenue into the general fund?


  8. - Honeybear - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:41 am:

    So if I understand correctly this doesn’t effect the cab drivers, just lyft and uber folks? I hope this is the case since I always support the cab drivers when there. They are my AFSCME union sisters and brothers.


  9. - Merica - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:41 am:

    i think it’s a bad idea. It’s just taxing tourists. Chicago is already expensive enough. tourism is a major industry for the city. Many tourists are coming in on day trips from more rural areas in the Midwest, parking and traveling by a mix of uber’s and public transit. You don’t want to hurt tourism by surprising people with a random $5.00 surcharge. Prices are for a family of 4:
    Willis Tower - $84.00 + tax
    Architectural boat tour - $170.00 + tax
    Shedd Aquarium - $140.00 + tax
    Contemporary Art Museum - $30.00 + tax


  10. - Good - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:42 am:

    Anything to prevent/limit another property tax hike.


  11. - City Zen - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 9:45 am:

    Do ride-share taxes go to CDOT to cover the additional wear and tear ride-share services cause to our infrastructure? Or CTA?


  12. - ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:02 am:

    Pro- captures revenue from out of towners who tax the city’s resources without paying anything.

    Con- A city of immense wealth continues to nibble around the edges with largely regressive taxes. That ain’t reform, Mayor.


  13. - SpfdNewb - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:07 am:

    I personally wish cities take the Barcelona approach; ban personal vehicles in city centers and create “super blocks” allowing mass transit and pedestrian travel. But that’s 100% my take and I know everyone is not going to agree with it.


  14. - Benjamin - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:13 am:

    @ City Zen: I would suggest to the mayor that she tie the increased revenue to a particular project, one that would alleviate congestion. That could be bike lanes, bus lanes, revamping Loop CTA stations, or even pothole repair. Sure, money is fungible, but tying the fee increase to a broadly popular issue would reduce any resistance.

    As for this being a “regressive tax”: my guess is that downtown-bound Uber/Lyft trips are catering to people with more disposable income than blue-collar workers. But I’m ready to be proven wrong.


  15. - NoGifts - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:14 am:

    “Lock Box” doesn’t prevent revenue being used for non-transportation purposes?


  16. - @misterjayem - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:34 am:

    The Mayor’s congestion tax is nothing to sneeze at.

    My god.

    Where was Rich’s ban hammer when we really needed it??

    – MrJM


  17. - JS Mill - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:39 am:

    = The Mayor proposing a Ground Transportation Tax that exploits them makes sense in a perverse short-sighted sort of way.=

    Yeah because nobody goes to LA, SanFrancisco, or New York anymore.


  18. - Steve - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:46 am:

    Raising the cost of doing business downtown.


  19. - Billy Shears - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:51 am:

    Wow, a 7 cent decrease. That should really get people to do more shared rides.


  20. - Fav Human - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:52 am:

    Seems not at all bad to me, in fact. As Big Jim once pointed out, better to tax those who don’t vote…..

    And, it just might drive more commuters back to the CTA.

    “Super blocks”

    I actually like this idea. Bus travel downtown is WAY faster in the “bus lanes”.

    The way to get people into transit is to make it faster. Bus lanes do ust that.


  21. - City Zen - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 10:58 am:

    ==And, it just might drive more commuters back to the CTA.==

    The problem is the last few blocks. I know many women who will not take CTA after dark or after work hours. Not so much because of the service itself, rather, the lonely few blocks walk from the stop to their home. It’s about feeling safe. And now they’ll pay more for that safety.


  22. - Shytown - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 11:12 am:

    For a mayor who ran on equity for communities that have been disproportionately impacted by city fees, this sure flies in the face of it that promise.


  23. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 11:15 am:

    === in addition to the safety issue.===

    What safety issue?

    To the post,

    I’ve been one to ding the Mayor and her Crew to both what do they want from Springfield, and what are they prepared to do on their own.

    Governing includes tough choices. Agree with the policy or not, that’s a separate issue for me in this instance, the idea that the Mayor and her Crew ate putting out a plan, in October, that’s a start.


  24. - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 11:21 am:

    I don’t find Chicago’s downtown to be particularly congested, at least as compared to a 3rd-world city level. The price of parking keeps my car out of the loop on most occasions where I have a choice. Cabs are more convenient when your trip needs “immediate” attention. I don’t see a big issue with what’s being proposed.


  25. - notsosure - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 11:24 am:

    My guess on the “lock box” question: The sponsors of that lunacy were really targeting just the gas tax but wrote the thing so sloppily that it arguably includes not only this but sales tax when you buy a car, new tires, etc. Having said that, the $ doesn’t have to go into a special fund; it just has to be spent on “transportation-related” things, which could be CTA subsidies, filling potholes, road signs, etc.


  26. - R A T - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 11:33 am:

    To misquote Yogi Berra –

    No one goes to Chicago anymore. Too many tourists.


  27. - {Sigh} - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 11:36 am:

    =. It’s about feeling safe. And now they’ll pay more for that safety.=
    @City Zen- I agree with you. And now under this proposal you either pay more or share a ride with a stranger. At least the ride share ap allows a rider to identify the driver and plates of the care they are getting into. But I know nothing about the rider I might be forced to ride with in order to save money.

    The last time I was in Chicago, there were no available taxis were I was staying and I had to use Uber to get a ride to Union Station.


  28. - Steve Polite - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 11:39 am:

    Soccermom scores a goal.


  29. - Huh? - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 11:58 am:

    11:56 twas I.


  30. - Dan Vock - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 12:00 pm:

    Curious that the rideshare folks didn’t mention the cost after fees in New York.

    From the NYT: “An extra $2.50 fee will be tacked onto any yellow taxi rides in Manhattan that begin, end or pass through south of 96th street, and an extra $2.75 fee will be added for other for-hire vehicles, including Ubers and Lyfts — all before the car even starts.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/nyregion/uber-taxi-lyft-fee.html


  31. - NoGifts - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 12:18 pm:

    If it’s a congestion tax, it should not be applied during night time and early mornings when there isn’t any congestion. So people who are anxious about walking the blocks in the dark should not be affected.


  32. - Peters Piece - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 12:25 pm:

    My daughter takes Public Transit to work and Ride Share home. She works at the airport and gets off work at Midnight or 3:00 am. Public Transit is not feasible and the walk is not safe for her trip home and there is no congestion to speak of at that hour. Still a good idea for peak congestion hours. Possibly tweaked so that minimum wage workers can travel home or to work during non-congestion hours using ride share without extra cost.


  33. - Soccermom - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 12:36 pm:

    Steve Polite –

    An own goal, but still a goal…


  34. - Just Me - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 12:41 pm:

    Fully support. The few times I have an emergency and need to taxi/uber downtown it is a nightmare. Anything to reduce cars downtown is a good thing. I’ll gladly pay an extra few bucks the few times a year I need to take a personal vehicle downtown to get there ASAP.


  35. - Blue Dog Dem - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 1:05 pm:

    Soccermama. Excellent.


  36. - Responsa - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 1:10 pm:

    Thanks to the commenters today who point out that any congestion tax should be reserved for and applied for hours when there is actual congestion. Otherwise it only serves to punish commuters who need to travel safely and within their budgets (most often late at night).


  37. - DuPage - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 1:15 pm:

    The old Chicago-Aurora-Elgin electric line was about 100 years ahead of it’s time. It was unique, it was a suburban line that would switch onto the CTA tracks when the train reached Chicago. The train would then go around the loop, dropping off and picking up at each stop around the loop. It then headed back out to the suburbs. A similar thing would be useful today to relieve congestion.

    Speaking of congestion, that I-57 to I-65 link should be re-considered. It would help reduce congestion as well.


  38. - Benjamin - Friday, Oct 18, 19 @ 3:24 pm:

    ===that I-57 to I-65 link should be re-considered.===

    Last I heard, the Illiana Tollway would put the state on the hook for half a billion dollars and serve fewer cars than Chicago’s Irving Park Road. Maybe things have changed since the last feasibility study, but I don’t think that would be the best place to spend money on fighting congestion.


TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Just something to think about
* Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
* *** UPDATED x1 *** CPD: Your home is not your castle
* "Illegal, unconstitutional, outrageous and stupid"
* Tom Cullerton's trial set for July
* What the critics are missing, intentionally or otherwise
* Reform roundup
* Senate Democratic leadership roundup
* Fundraising, better loan terms help Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation stave off disaster
* Drea, Devaney new IL AFL-CIO leaders
* *** UPDATED x2 - Radogno appointed to replace Andersson *** Oops!
* *** UPDATED x1 - Women and indies now needed *** If you're a Republican or an independent, please help this kid with her school project
* "These were the people they were most focused on"
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller