Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

Pothole season has bloomed again in beautiful Chicago. It was hard to escape that the other morning when, instead of trying to cram into a train that runs too slowly and infrequently, I decided to take my chances with a bicycle on a street that, like the el, doesn’t get replaced or upgraded nearly often enough.

People all over the metropolitan area can tell tales like that. If it’s not the crumbling and backed-up roads, it’s inadequate public transit that pales next to what big cities in Europe and Asia offer. Our infrastructure stock is deteriorating in a city that considers itself to be America’s transportation capital, and we all know it.

Now someone is proposing to do something about it. The cost would be huge, but then so is the need.

In a presentation to the City Club today, the Metropolitan Planning Council will unveil a 10-year, $43 billion plan to provide more money for state and local roads, public transportation, the Create freight-rail decongestion plan and as yet unspecified “new and large-scale projects of all types.” In other words, funds for mostly deferred maintenance that are not available from current revenue sources.

To pay for it, the council would impose a 30-cents-a-gallon hike in motor fuel taxes, more than double today’s state tax of 19 cents a gallon on gasoline, and a 50 percent hike in the state’s vehicle registration fees, which now cost $101 for a car or truck. Both would be indexed to inflation in the future.

* From the MPC…

Since it was last raised in 1991, the purchasing power of the state’s fixed per-gallon gas tax has declined by more than 40 percent—reducing the average Illinoisan’s contribution from the equivalent of $160 to under $100 per year (in 2013 dollars). In turn, transportation spending has fallen by 40 percent, from 13 percent of state spending in 1991 to eight percent in 2014. Meanwhile, the portion of our roads in good condition has fallen from the standard of 90 percent to only 79 percent in 2015. Without action, this will decline to 62 percent by 2021. Transit systems in Northeastern Illinois have also fallen behind dramatically. RTA estimates that only about 67 percent of the region’s transit network is in a state of good repair. At existing levels of funding, less than half of the system’s buses, trains and infrastructure will be in a state of good repair by 2030.

In the past we’ve relied on large but infrequent capital bills to patch together funding. The resulting boom-and-bust cycle was unpredictable and ultimately inefficient. To allow us to return our infrastructure to good condition and accommodate growth, we need a substantial, regular, reliable source of additional revenue.

To start catching up on our maintenance backlog and adequately plan for the future, Illinois needs a sustainable, reliable revenue source that can raise an additional $2.7 billion in revenue each year (on top of existing federal and state sources). Of this $2.7 billion, about half can be used for pay-as-you-go spending, with the other half to support $25 billion in bonds over the 10 years, meeting the $43 billion need. (After the first ten years, the continued revenue will fully support the repayment of the bonds over their 25 year life. We assume a five percent rate.)

This is equivalent to a $0.30/gal increase in state motor fuel taxes and a 50 percent increase in vehicle registration fees. The tax and fees should be indexed to the consumer price index to keep pace with inflation. MPC recommends the state constitution be amended to create a transportation trust fund to protect this revenue. To acknowledge the effect of these increases on lower- and middle-income Illinoisans, the state earned income tax credit should double to 20 percent of the federal amount.

* More…

The additional gas tax and the increase in vehicle registration fees would cost the average person $12.25 each month, or $147 each year. To put this in context, the average Illinois household spends more than $10,000 a year on transportation.

* The Question: Do you mostly support this idea? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

survey solutions

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:46 pm

Comments

Yes, but only if the money was ring-fenced from being taken for other projects.

Comment by 32nd Ward Roscoe Village Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:51 pm
Gotta get the dollars from somewhere, and this is basically a user fee.

BUT: have to do something to prevent the $$ from being swept into some other use. Gas tax = road, bridge, transportation funding only.

Comment by Chris Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:52 pm
The two best investments state and local government can make are in education and infrastructure. This type of investment generates strong returns.

Nobody likes higher taxes, but this is a smart plan and would be a wise investment. Which probably means it won’t see the light of day in Springfield.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:53 pm
How about using the motor fuel tax fund for its intended purpose instead of robbing it to pay other bills?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:53 pm
no, because as soon as there was money in the program it would be gone for underwater Basket weaving or some other such nonsense other than what it was designated for in the first place, and good luck repealing the tax any time in the future…

Comment by Allen D Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:54 pm
Voted No. I doubt much if any of that money will be spent south of I-80 where I spend 99% of my time.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 1:56 pm
No- Might be more palatable if they did away with the state sales tax on gas that is in addition to the motor fuel tax.

Comment by Reme Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:00 pm
Absolutely No! Unless the tax and increased fees are collected only on those affected - which did not appear to be the case from what I just read. I can’t recall the last time I was in Chicago. Why should someone in Marion, say, pay increased fees to repair the mis-management by a succession of Chicago Democratic bosses. Fund sweeps indeed!

Comment by Behind the Scenes Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:01 pm
I said no because the existing funds have been consistently redirected /expanded to other uses or just plain taken away. Before any additional monies are collected, we need a better reckoning of what we really need for transportation dollars.

Comment by Gobblers Knob Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:06 pm
Decatur is already acting locally-

http://herald-review.com/business/local/fuel-up-now-decatur-gas-tax-starts-friday/article_5162f895-b54b-5e2f-8f2e-651caa227cdf.html

Comment by Anon221 Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:08 pm
Yes, the State should pass a real capital plan (not a fake one like last time) at the same time they raise revenues to fund the state budget and the state pension obligation. Get it all over with in one big vote. Send the money by formula to local counties and municipalities to ensure that the money isn’t spent all in Chicagoland.

Comment by Just Me Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:09 pm
Voted “yes”. I have no problem paying taxes when the public benefit is real and substantial. The reason too many people in Illinois feel overtaxed and bitter about it is that they see very little benefit. Nobody knows where the money is going or what the public is getting in return. If these funds could be appropriately ring-fenced, as proposed here, I imagine there would be plenty of public support (assuming also the usual sound-and-fury, anti-tax propaganda from the right is competently answered and defeated).

Comment by The Man on 6 Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:14 pm
It’s a use-based tax, it makes sense and it will help improve infrastructure. I voted yes.

Comment by siriusly Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:14 pm
Mostly support under a couple caveats:

1. at least 80% of funding from gas tax and vehicle registration goes to roads, transit should be primarily funded from another source of funds. I am all for funding transit, but gas taxes and vehicle registration fees are not the way to do it.

2. Sweeps of the road fund would have to stop.

3. As with everything else in this state, let’s start being smart about how we spend money.

Comment by Ahoy! Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:19 pm
Voted Yes, glad to see indexing included: “Both would be indexed to inflation in the future.”

Comment by AC Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:20 pm
I voted “yes”. I have no problem paying taxes when the benefit is both real and substantial. The reason far too many Illinois residents feel overtaxed and bitter about it is that there is too often very little to show for a whole lot paid in. Nobody will agree to higher taxes where there seems to be nothing to show for it, or where the value seems tiny by comparison.

This proposal, however, seems measured and likely to produce a substantial public benefit. I think most people would support it, with the proposed ring-fencing in place. Although of course, one would still need to be sure to oppose the usual right-wing, anti-tax propaganda machine with clear, competent information presented directly and forcefully.

Comment by The Man on 6 Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:21 pm
=== Why should someone in Marion, say, pay increased fees to repair the mis-management by a succession of Chicago Democratic bosses===

Um, you do realize that southern Illinois is a net tax eater, right? So, if you want all gas taxes to remain local, you’re gonna be in a world of hurt down ‘yonder.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:23 pm
Voted No. All the increased funding seems to be coming from drivers of privately owned vehicles, while much of the money would be spent on public transportation, i.e., Chicago area. What are the public transportation consumers going to contribute toward the upkeep/repair of those systems?

Comment by Slightly Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:30 pm
My apologies for the near-double post. My original 2:14 post disappeared when I hit “say it”, then I retyped my thoughts and submitted again (2:21). Now I refreshed once more and both comments are there. Ah, technology!

Comment by The Man on 6 Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:32 pm
===Um, you do realize that southern Illinois is a net tax eater, right? ===

Just posted this one again because saying it once just ain’t enough.

Comment by A guy Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:44 pm
Unless those funds are put in an account that can NOT be swept and do not require appropriation through the governor’s budget, I have to answer no.

Comment by BBG Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 2:53 pm
Of course this is a great idea! …nothing can’t be made better by higher taxes and more spending—it’s worked so far hasn’t it?

Comment by tberry Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:00 pm
I support the gas tax hike, but I do not support the “average person” lying way to describe it. If you’ve got 5 people in your household, it’s 5 times that much. I don’t support raising the cost of vehicle registration, because you can’t reduce your use. You can drive less, but not register your vehicle less.

Comment by NoGifts Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:01 pm
The ultimate tax on the working poor and middle class. How about motor fuel tax on farm fuel.

Comment by blue doggie dem Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:01 pm
Voted ‘yes’ with a caveat. They need to come up with another method than a per gallon tax. Vehicles are getting more fuel efficient - in 5 years we will see a decline in the overall revenue will construction prices will continue to climb.

Comment by Bogey Golfer Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:01 pm
NOPE! Haven’t proven to be good stewards of the money in the past.
Fool me once shame on you….

Comment by BIG R. Ph. Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:03 pm
Yes. They make a lot of good points, but in particular, the amount collected in real dollars has declined precipitously. Just because 1990s dollars are less than those from today doesn’t mean that construction costs are any less - it only makes sense to increase it and adjust it for inflation going forward.

Comment by Deep Blue Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:04 pm
===Voted No. All the increased funding seems to be coming from drivers of privately owned vehicles, while much of the money would be spent on public transportation, i.e., Chicago area. What are the public transportation consumers going to contribute toward the upkeep/repair of those systems?===

The million or so other users of public transit and I in Illinois will continue to keep their cars off the road which probably saves as much in upkeep of roads than these taxes will impose on you.

Comment by I. Ron Butterfly Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:25 pm
- tberry - Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:00 pm:

Of course this is a great idea! …nothing can’t be made better by higher taxes and more spending—it’s worked so far hasn’t it?

Lol, awesome!

Comment by Tone Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:39 pm
Support. Good for infrastructure, the environment, budget and public transportation. Reduces driving, and incentivizes other forms of transport that don’t pollute; raises money for roads; creates jobs.

Comment by Molly Maguire Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:44 pm
Who is on the “Metropolitan Planning Council?” Anyone elected to public office on that board? So where is the accountability? “MPC recommends the state constitution be amended..” Right, let’s give up elected constitutional government for regional government by committee.

Weren’t the tollways supposed to be freeways in the early 1980s? My grandfather paid tolls, my father paid tolls, now I have paid tolls my whole adult life. How many acres of farmland has the toll authority paved over?

Comment by Payback Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:46 pm
===The million or so other users of public transit and I in Illinois will continue to keep their cars off the road which probably saves as much in upkeep of roads than these taxes will impose on you.===

Most people outside the Chicago area have no choice but to use their own vehicles as there is no public transportation. Your point is not valid as public transportation users, under this proposal, are not contributing anything toward the repair/upkeep of the systems they use, but they “contribute” by saving wear and tear on the roads. Your last sentence, “. . .that these taxes impose on you” says it all - You want other people, who have no choice but to use their vehicles to pay for the repair/upkeep of the transportation systems you use.

Comment by Slightly Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:51 pm
The devil is in the details.

Jim Reilly is the devil in the details.

You also have to question the mind set of yet another regressive tax placed on the working class, while it will be businesses that will benefit from these infrastructure improvements.

In the end we won’t get what we should and Jim Reilly will construct firewalls or other instruments of non-disclosure and Jim Reilly won’t be accountable for anything, again.

Comment by Chicago 20 Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:55 pm
Voted no I doubt the state can/will fairly distribute to all districts statewide. And what’s next vehicle wheel tax ? Sheesh how much blood do turnips really have !!!!

Comment by Railrat Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:55 pm
No.The roads benefit residents in general in a variety of ways (how do you think things get to market, for instance?) so that a so called user tax is inappropriate. It should come out of general revenue funds.

Comment by JackD Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:57 pm
I voted ‘no.’ We need a comprehensive spending and revenue plan, not piecemeal. We need more revenue, I’d be fine with this, but there’s no point in dedicating a particular revenue stream to a particular area unless we have some semblance of budget stability.

Comment by Earnest Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 3:58 pm
I voted no. I would support the concept if the money was channeled into a fund that was IMMUNE from being swept, and that could ONLY be spent on its intended purpose. Set up the safeguards for that and I would swallow hard and vote yes (I drive a lot to get to work, so this is not going to do me any favors.

Comment by Mr. Smith Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 4:03 pm
NO. I travel a lot in both Illinois and Missouri. Have seen for 50 years roads asphalted and used heavily in both states and the Illinois roads wear out more quickly, in about 5 years. Why? I different mix is specified. That means an automatic repair job for contractors and workers and in 5 or 6 years, compared to the 7, 8, or 9 years those Missouri two lane roads are lasting because they have a different asphalt mix. This is a plan. No tax increase needed.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 4:31 pm
Nope.

Increase the gas tax, but not the vehicle fees. Transportation costs should be based roughly on the wear-and-tear you put on the roads, not how many cars are parked in your driveway.

Some folks are driving 50 miles a day, others less than 50 miles a week.

Comment by Juvenal Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 4:49 pm
Yesterday i paid 12.25 percent tax on food in Skokie Sorry but im taxed out

Comment by Regular democrat Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 5:02 pm
No if Transit gets any… Let them raise the rider fees. We need to Fix our roads, streets and bridges. Guarantees need to be in place to ensure the money is used for transportation only. We need use it to match Fed dollars, who knows how much has been left on the table for the past 12 years.

Comment by NothsideNoMore Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 5:21 pm
I would happily pay double the current registration fee for a no front plate option.

Comment by former southerner Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 6:20 pm
No, not after the way we’ve seen legislators mismanage & redirect funds for years. We’re ‘taxed out’ having lived here our whole lives, we’re just about ready to take what money we have left & leave the state. Enough is enough.

Comment by greenie Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 6:24 pm
Nobody wants to pay more in taxes, but the alternative is a city and state nobody wants to live in either.

Illinois roads are horrendous. Chicago is terrible too. The amount of jobs local construction produces can offset the costs. Peace of mind from easier traveling is worth it.

Please more real projects like this one. Less wars, more bridges.

Comment by Jerry Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 6:28 pm
This is a concrete plan to improve our deteriorating infrastructure. Only such a comprehensive plan will allow Illinois to reverse its dwindling investment in infrastructure to provide the kind of quality Americans used to expect.

Comment by anon Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 6:30 pm
My only caveat is that the funding sources are highly regressive. That in a state that already has one of the most regressive state-and-local tax systems in the nation. How about a vehicle registration fee that rises with the value of the vehicle?

Comment by anon Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 6:32 pm
voted no…seen millions go to waste at idot over the years they don’t need anymore money

Comment by foster brooks Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 7:48 pm
An increase in the gas tax and vehicle registration fees will be just another regressive tax that greatly impacts poor people who must drive to work.

Comment by Enviro Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 8:40 pm
I voted no, although I favor the idea of improving mass transit. The City of Chicago and Cook County started taxing private car sales recently adding a minimum of $90 to the cost of buying a car. Adding another $50 and increasing the cost of gas will be too much of a burden on lower income. The door seems to have been opened for all municipalities and counties to add a future vehicle tax as well. I believe we should implement a progressive tax to pay for well needed mass transportation.

Comment by DuPage Great Grandma Monday, Apr 4, 16 @ 11:38 pm
I voted no. I live in the city and have made an effort to buy gas in Indiana where it is anywhere from .40 - .80 cheaper per gallon since ai began driving 16 years ago. Anywhere from $6-14 cheaper a fill up is a significant discount when such purchase practices become routine. There are far too many taxes on gas in Chicago at-current; road construction never ends, yet the roads are always in crappy condition. Combine that with the proloferation of bike lanes that are infrequently used in certain parts of the city, and it’s clear that we have more $$$ than we know what to do with.

Comment by RoscoeRatMatt Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 7:11 am