Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* NRDC press release…

The infusion of $10 billion in federal funds presents an opportunity to either double down on a dirty, unfair status quo—or choose a new transportation future.

Illinois is set to receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for our transportation system from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

This historic influx of money presents both an opportunity and a threat: We can either make investments to lock in a dirty and unfair status quo for another generation, or we can design a cleaner, safer transportation system that takes everyone into account, including those who can’t get to the grocery store or doctor with a car, like those with disabilities and seniors.

The costs of our current transportation are intolerably high and affect many areas of our lives:

1. Our roads are not designed for safety. Fatalities from motor vehicle crashes are a national crisis, and Illinois is no exception, with the number of people dying on roads having risen more than a third from a decade ago. In Chicago, organizers have been calling for safety improvements to prevent future crashes like those that took the lives of pedestrians and cyclists, including 11-year-old Ja’lon James, two-year-old Raphael “Rafi” Cardenas, 41-year-old Gerardo Marciales, and three-year-old Elizabeth “Lily” Grace Shambrook.  

2. Air pollution from cars and trucks harms our health, contributing to asthma, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. Pollution from diesel vehicles alone will kill an estimated 416 people in Illinois this year, in addition to the health harms of pollution from passenger vehicles. These impacts are racially disparate, with Black, Latino, and Asian people in Illinois exposed to 20 to 30 percent more vehicle pollution than white people. Historically, roads—highways in particular—were constructed in ways that segregated and harmed communities of color, and those harms persist today in the form of increased pollution exposure and other injustices.  

3. Car ownership is a financial burden, especially for people with low incomes. The average annual cost of owning and operating an automobile was $10,729 in 2022, up 20 percent in the last decade. At this cost, the average household in Illinois would spend more than one in every seven dollars of its income on a car, and a low-income family would spend more than one-third of its income on a car. Households with incomes below $25,000 per year are nine times more likely not to own a car, meaning that people with low incomes suffer vastly disproportionate harm from our lack of transportation choices.  

4. Vital services are inaccessible to many Illinoisans. By improving transit and designing our streets in a smarter and safer way, we can ensure that everyone—including those who can’t get around without a car, like those with disabilities and seniors—can get to the vital places they need to be, like the doctor’s office or grocery store. 

5. The transportation sector is the largest driver of climate change in Illinois, generating one-third of our state’s carbon pollution. In sharp contrast to Illinois’s recent progress in reducing emissions from the power sector, vehicle miles traveled and emissions from the transportation sector have held steady or increased in recent years. Governor JB Pritzker issued an executive order to “fulfill, uphold, and exceed the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement,” rightly committing Illinois to doing its part to avoid catastrophic climate change. Electric vehicle adoption is key to meeting this goal, but it is not possible to meet our state’s climate goals with electric vehicles alone. It will require providing more and better options for transportation and reducing vehicle miles traveled by 20 percent by 2030, in addition to the ambitious adoption of electric vehicles.

Our transportation system as it exists today provides little choice beyond driving cars, leaving behind many of Illinois’s most vulnerable people and harming our climate and our health.

  The federal dollars now flowing into our state create a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernize Illinois’s transportation system so that every Illinoisan has the ability to safely, affordably, and conveniently take public transit, or to walk, bike, or roll wherever they want to go.

* The Question: Should Illinois invest more federal dollars to address those five points above or remain on its same path?

posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 12:22 pm

Comments

use the $10 billion to build/fix roads. Everyone drives, and road building has bipartisan support. These five points work only for residents of dense urban places. To the rest who live in Suburban/rural places, these are inapplicable. The biggest joke is this one

“Car ownership is a financial burden”

For the vast majority of IL residents, car ownership is a necessity.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 12:33 pm
Build the Illiana expressway between I-57 and I-65. Also require all cars to have a breathalyzer built in. That would help prevent some of these wrong way crashes.

Comment by DuPage Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 12:34 pm
Yes we should.

Our transportation system also encourages sprawl. The size of the Chicago metro area has grown much faster than the population. Where travel used to be in and out of the city, now it’s all over the metro area leading to congestion and less efficient mass transit.

Something has to change and it would be sad to see this once in a generation funding just prolonging the status quo.

Comment by Sir Reel Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 12:35 pm
The same path isn’t working. Study real hard and let’s try something new. That of course ie easier said than done. But if not now when

Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 12:46 pm
Yes, we should. I don’t think $10B would be nearly enough to make a dent though

Comment by Sox Fan Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 12:52 pm
Build the roads.

Comment by James Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 12:56 pm
“so that every Illinoisan has the ability to safely, affordably, and conveniently take public transit, or to walk, bike, or roll wherever they want to go” While I certainly support this sentiment, this seems geared toward more dense urban and inner suburban communities. I think we need to also think about how to best serve rural and exurban communities where that grocery store might be a 10-15 minute drive away and that doctor may be a 30-45 minute drive away. It is simply not economical to have public transit systems in many of these regions. Fully support the sentiment, but we need to make sure we meet the needs of the people where they are at. As they state “Electric vehicle adoption is key to meeting this goal, but it is not possible to meet our state’s climate goals with electric vehicles alone”. But unless someone has a new idea on how to serve more rural communities, EV adoption is going to be the only practical solution in many parts of the state

Comment by no use for a (nick)name Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 1:06 pm
== For the vast majority of IL residents, car ownership is a necessity.==

Because of the way we have built car-centric infrastructure. If we use $10 billion to change the infrastructure, car ownership can become less of a necessity.

Comment by Supplied_demand Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 1:09 pm
These federal dollars have specific requirements. For example, the new federal program created a special fund dedicated for bridges. In addition, feds require system condition to be maintained at a certain level. These added dollars may allow Illinois to keep up with inflationary costs - likely will not result in more projects.

Transit is not preferred mode of travel even in Chicago. Just look at RTA ridership numbers.

Buses need roads and bridges as well.

More money needs to be dedicated to roads.

Comment by Highway Engineer Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 1:19 pm
IDOT already does everything in the above list.

Regarding transit, over 50 years ago, there was a suburban transit company named “West Town Bus Lines” the ran a bus system that extended from Oak Park out into the western suburbs, as far as Wheaton. For each route, they had a published schedule that they met. I knew that if I ran out my front door at 8:02am, I could catch the 8:05 bus to high school. The Lake Street route ran about every 10 minutes or so.

When the RTA was enacted, West Town Bus lines was folded into the RTA. Service deteriorated, routes were cut, and the bus line eventually went bust.

My point is this, unless transit is accessible and convenient, it is a failure waiting to happen. Users want to go when they are ready to go.

Transit is an option for large municipalities, not small rural towns.

Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 1:21 pm
If they want to put a couple billion into public transit in the city, fine, but public transit is a waste of time and money in rural Illinois. No one rides it, and the money would be better spent improving connectivity with roads.

Comment by James Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 1:42 pm
Highway Engineer says more money needs to be spent on roads. Imagine that. /s

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 1:42 pm
I agree 100%. All these facts are well documented, as is the fact that people are happier when they have a choice about driving; that is, where walking, biking and transit are safe and accessible alternatives.

Comment by KBS Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 1:43 pm
There are pieces that can be done in this release.
Reducing carbon output through EV’s or other opportunities such as more remote work can be partially achieved.
They say traffic fatalities have risen exponentially in the last decade. Maybe not connected at all but Illinois increased it’s highway speed up to 70mph and 65mph in the outer burbs in the last 10 years.
Not sure what the deal is with the car ownership point? I get it lots of people can’t afford cars. It’s why they live near job centers or public transportation. Also if it’s promoting car ownership and carbon reduction in the same document maybe make it so an EV doesn’t cost a lot more than a gas powered car?
Smarter transit I don’t think anyone is against.
However I don’t think widening I-55 is smarter transit.

Comment by Frida's boss Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 2:10 pm
Spend a minimum of 75% of that money on transit and bike/pedestrian improvements. Spend most of the money on systems that serve most of the people. No new roads, spend 25% on repairing bridges and existing roads. Our car centric, road building transportation system does not work for the majority of people. The pollution it generates is literally killing us. Living in a rural or outlying area means lack of access to nearby stores. Isn’t having fewer people around the point?

Comment by froganon Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 2:21 pm
This is typical of some do gooders, in that I can agree with all of it in the abstract without seeing what the actual impact will be. Thanks to the other commenters for getting real.

If they’re saying build and repair infrastructure I stand with them. But if they’re saying let car-focused infrastructure decay and put all the money into bike paths and high speed rail, then they’re just spinning their wheels

Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 2:24 pm
@1:21 ===as far as Wheaton===
Speaking of Wheaton, there was an electric line I think it was called Aurora-Elgin that went into Chicago, ran on the CTA elevated loop downtown and back. In Wheaton there was a switchyard and station and the track split with one to Aurora, and one to Elgin. An old-timer told me years ago that another electric line went from Elgin to Rockford, and another went from Rockford to Madison, Wisconsin. These were 100 years or more ahead of their time.

Comment by DuPage Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 2:32 pm
Stop the war on cars. Invest in both but don’t treat roads and cars like the enemy.

Comment by New Day Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 2:32 pm
$10 billion — sounds like a lot, but a drop in the bucket based on the level of need. So the first decisions is whether to concentrate its impact on a limited range of problems or disperse its impact by spreading it out across many. I prefer the concentrated approach to address two issues identified by the NRDC.

Roads — Most people drive and most businesses depend on vehicles for shipping and receiving. Safe and well-maintained roads are essential to the economy of this state. I agree wholeheartedly that dependence on petroleum-fueled vehicles causes urban sprawl and environmental damage, and that these must be addressed. But good roads will be essential even in a non-petroleum future, no matter what. Passenger and commercial vehicle of some sort will exist in any foreseeable future, and they cannot operate without roads.

Public transportation — The present sorry state of public transportation in this country is a primary contributor to many of the ills identified by the NRDC. Certainly in urban and suburban areas, an emphasis on safe, convenient public transportation can make an immediate impact on traffic congestion, individual mobility, and air quality. Extending public transportation to smaller towns and rural areas is a major puzzle, on the other hand, and one must ask what the holistic return on such investments will be.

So, roads and public transportation. The two are intertwined and reinforce each other. That’s bigger and more immediate bangs for what are, measured by the scope of the problems, limited dollars.

Comment by Flapdoodle Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 2:39 pm
One thing to consider is that the national economy is dependent on the highway system. Everything in our homes was delivered to the store by a truck.

Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 2:44 pm
I like the idea of spending infrastructure dollars on improving pedestrian safety, expanding bike lanes, and developing housing within walking distance to mass transit. But despite their best efforts, I don’t think the greens are ever going to break the American love affair with the automobile. The middle ground would be to direct a big chunk of those dollars to promote electrification.

Comment by Telly Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 2:45 pm
More money definitely needs to be spent on public transit. It’s a particular issue if you are trying to get from one suburb to another, rather than a suburb to the city.

When I was practicing, I had clients who lived in Lake County. To get to DuPage, they needed to take a Metra train into Chicago and then another one out to Wheaton, and then to the courthouse. God forbid one of the trains was late. Completely insane.

Comment by JoanP Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 3:11 pm
Just thinking. $10,729 buys a lot of Ubers and Instacarts.

Comment by very old soil Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 3:34 pm
“Everyone drives”

This is self-evidently false.

“For the vast majority of IL residents, car ownership is a necessity.”

I don’t think you’re not making the argument against finding public transit that you think you’re making.

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 3:39 pm
Clearly, yes. These ideas are all well vetted by scientists, economists, and transportation experts, and these investments will pay long-term dividends in human health and welfare. Most people will still own and use cars, yes, but the less people are forced to drive to do their daily errands the better off all of us are.

Comment by Benjamin Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 3:48 pm
I am for rail based transit and cars as the priority. more L in Chicago, more rail across the state, and better roads. bikes, whatever, they don’t really move enough people. Chicago needs a connection between the end of the brown line and the blue line to get people to O’Hare faster.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 4:22 pm
Can do a mix but when it comes to roads, just repair and maintain what we have. No new roads unless there is a well justified need.

Comment by Original Rambler Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 5:51 pm
+1 Supplied_demand - Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 1:09 pm
+1 Sox Fan - Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 12:52 pm

We made bad choices in the past to avoid mass transit, we need to make better choices in the future.
And yes, 10B is not nearly enough.

Comment by Odysseus Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 9:52 pm
@HUh: “Everything in our homes was delivered to the store by a truck.”

And that is a staggeringly terrible decision. Pound for pound rail is a far more efficient way to move freight. So how do we build a better system with more rail?

Comment by Odysseus Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 9:57 pm
===Pound for pound rail is a far more efficient way to move freight. So how do we build a better system with more rail?===
The freight rail network in the US has shrunk to about half its peak mileage, and it isn’t coming back…except maybe as a “rail trail”. Railroads are very good at carrying items in bulk or containerized, but I guarantee you that no freight railroad wants to be in the less-than-carload parcel business like FedEx or UPS even though those companies use rail where it is effective for their needs. People want stuff delivered yesterday, and rail and barge are more suited for the stuff that can wait a while to be delivered, and in large quantities. And there is always the last mile (or last 500 miles in some cases) where the tracks don’t go directly from the source or the origin. Rail will always be an important freight carrier, but its days of 1920’s dominance in the sector are forever in the rear view mirror.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 11:55 pm