|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Urban Development |
|
Light Rail Vote this Monday in Urbana |
Current rating: 0 |
by Danielle Chynoweth, Urbana City Council
Email: chyn (nospam) ojctech.com (unverified!) |
05 Mar 2004
|
|
This Monday, Urbana's city council will have a resolution before it concerning the future light rail system proposed for the core area of Champaign-Urbana. It appears the vote will be close. The Mass Transit District is finishing its analysis of alternatives for the future of local public transportation and has asked the cities and University of Illinois to weigh in on the issue. This article offers background information and goes into detail about how the community could pay for the tram - the largest bone of contention in recent conflicts over the issue. It also responds to a host of arguments against the tram. |
This Monday, Urbana's city council will have a resolution before it concerning the future light rail system proposed for the core area of Champaign-Urbana. The Mass Transit District is finishing its analysis of alternatives for the future of local public transportation and has asked the cities and University of Illinois to weigh in on the issue.
The result of the alternatives analysis, conducted with an outside consultant, is the recommendation of a fixed guideway system serving campus, with spurs running into each of the downtowns of Urbana and Champaign.
At the request of the MTD, Champaign City Council recently discussed whether to bring forward a resolution in support of the "locally preferred alternative" of a fixed guideway system. In a straw poll, they voted 7-2 against considering a resolution. Some council members said they did not have enough information; others said that they thought this was a university issue and that the MTD and university should build without money from Champaign.
See: http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=15512
The local right-wing radio station, WDWS, which is owned by the News-Gazette, has been lambasting the concept of the light rail system. This may have contributed to the calls Champaign council members said they received in opposition to the plan.
MTD staff, Champaign staff, some Urbana council members, and community members were shocked with this outcome. Both Champaign and Urbana have passed resolutions in support of progress towards a local light rail system in the past.
Now attention has turned to Urbana, which will discuss this Monday whether to support the fixed guideway system as the locally preferred alternative. If passed, the resolution in support would be included in the MTD's application for federal government funding for preliminary engineering and design - the next step in a process for federal support that could take years.
Other local organizations which have recently signed letters of support include the University of Illinois, the Champaign County Chamber of Commerce, the league of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, a long list of owners of local technology companies, board members of the Urbana Business Association, and others.
As of now, it appears the vote in Urbana will be close.
It is estimated that the system could cost $178 million dollars with most of that - 80% or so - to come from the state and federal government. It has been suggested that the local match could be raised from all four entities - MTD, U of I, Urbana, and Champaign - over a timeframe of 10-20 years. The local match - about $35 million - has made many people nervous.
Those who support the tram maintain that the benefits outweigh the costs. Their arguments center around what would happen if C-U does not upgrade it's public transit using technologies such as light rail to move more people through the core of our community. Increased traffic congestion, the widening of roads, and pressure to develop sprawl on the outskirts of town are on the horizon.
The Federal transit Administration has designated CU as a small "transit intensive city" whose ridership exceeds those of much larger cities such as Memphis, Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Phoenix. As such, the current bus circulator system is at capacity on some of its most heavily travelled routes and cannot keep pace with projected growth and development, according to the MTD. Over 33,000 rides are taken daily in a six square mile community core.
I myself, city council member in Urbana, have spent the last two weeks carefully looking at the numbers. The numbers, which have made me tentative in supporting the tram, now seem more doable, although the question of local funding priorities remain.
If I find myself part of the future council who will make final funding decisions, how I will vote will depend on a number of factors. Right now, I support continued progress towards a significant local upgrade in transit technology - aka light rail or whatever else is coming down the technology line.
The biggest argument against the upcoming support resolution is cost. So I want to address this issue. I think it is possible for Urbana to contribute without breaking the bank or requiring an increase in taxes. I do not support a city tax increase for this project. Unlike some council members, I think it is reasonable for the city to contribute something.
First off, these numbers are all contingent on too many factors to be anywhere close to precise, but I think it is useful to play with numbers to assess if something like this is even feasible. Of course it is dangerous to assume anything for another taxing body. I risk pissing people off for even crunching numbers, but here goes:
The local contribution over 10 years is about 3.5 million a year, over 20 years it is about 1.75 million per year. Even though I think the split should be based on track footage in which case the U of I would pay MUCH more that anyone else, I will just split the numbers evenly four ways - dividing between MTD, U of I, Urbana, and Champaign. Urbana's split would be roughly $440,000 per year for 20 years twice that over 10 years. I use the 10 year number because that is not much longer than what it would take to complete this project. I use the 20 year project because that is a normal length of a bond.
[ Side note: I find it interesting that right now Urbana is being asked to contribute $500,000 a year for 20 years to pay for an ice arena and convention center that would be built in Champaign and belong to the University at the end of the 20 years. To my surprise I have not heard a peep in opposition to this from Champaign or those who oppose the tram on the basis of costs. Why is this? Can anyone please tell me? ]
So where could the money come from? Well city contributions *could* come from:
1) our Capital Improvement Fund (CIP)
This fund pays for infrastructure improvements to the tune of roughly 2.5 - 3 million a year. Light rail track and street repair along the light rail path reasonably fall within the purview of this fund. Right now our CIP designates $850,000 to rebuild Green Street between Lincoln and Race. We could use that money to help build rail and resurface Green at the same time, thus paying for 2 years of our share.
Also we must consider that if we don't build a tram, we will have to undertake other Capital Improvements such as street widenings and resurfacing to accomodate increased traffic from new developments into campus where 70% of the area workforce goes 5 days a week. Street reconstruction is incredibly expensive at about $350 per foot.
CUUATS, a regional study of transportation, just came out with figures showing that $94 million dollars will be saved in public infrastructure costs to the entire community over 25 years if light rail is implemented on campus and between the downtowns. It is unclear how much of this is Urbana, but I assume the number is in the millions.
In Champaign they have planned that 80% of the funds to rebuild Wright street will use federal and state money through the tram project. If they don't get the tram, they have to come up with that money themselves. This proves that some of the improvements that go along with the tram are really CIP projects that belong in the domain of the city's budget.
2) our Economic Development Fund
Light rail will boost economic development around it. That is a given. The increase will probably not pay the city in full of its contribution any time soon, but it will help.
Richard Florida, author of the now famous _Rise of the Creative Class_, stated in his talk on the U of I campus today that transportation is key in attracting and retaining high skilled workers. Economic development should not just be thought of in terms of the structures along the rail line, but in terms of the amenities offered in the community. He also claims that sprawling cities are less economically viable than compact ones.
Florida suggested that incentive funds should be used to attract workers not just businesses. He says incentive funds should be used to promote the arts and modern transportation in addition to helping businesses build new buildings.
3) Bonds
Urbana has a habit of paying things for cash. Our library was done with cash on hand. This is a highly unusual way to pay for large improvements, albeit it is completely safe. Bonding to pay for *some* of this project is not unreasonable given that the city has zero debt.
4) Creative financing options
We could also pay for tram improvements by creating transit districts around the rail that could capture and reinvest funds in paying off the costs of the tram. There are oodles of other creative financing options we still need to explore ...
Some people have said that the MTD is in charge of providing public transportation. That's not the city's job. Therefore the MTD should pay the full costs.
I say: Au contraire - the city builds the streets the buses run on. Why shouldn't the city build the rail-lined streets the tram runs on? If you look at our budget you might think the city is a taxing body for cars given how much we spend to support them. Nowhere is it written that the city should only support cars and pedestrians, not public transit.
One suggestion I've made to the MTD is that the city limit its contribution to street modifications, laying rail, and perhaps some amenities in city right-of-way. Those are activities that are completely within our jurisdiction.
Some say: "Why don't we put the tram vote up for public referendum to allow the MTD to raise taxes to pay for it?"
I have concerns that paying for the local match *in its entirety* with an increase in MTD taxes is not fair to voters who would be *double-taxed* for road repairs.
In our CIP, Green Street is scheduled for reconstruction from Licoln to Race at the cost of $850,000. If voters hold a referendum and support an increase in MTD taxes to pay for the entire local match they are effectively paying through the MTD for city projects - the MTD will resurface Green when they lay rail. Will we lower their taxes to offset the difference? No. Hence the double tax.
Some say: This is a university and MTD project, let them pay for it!
I say: Yes, the university is the entity with the most to directly gain from this project. If the two cities are not ready to invest in this project, I hope the U of I and MTD go ahead and build on campus.
My crystal ball says that once one section is built, the tram's benefits will be tangible and clear and both cities will want a piece of it. If my crystal ball is right, perhaps we should plan for the whole project (to get federal funding commitments for the whole hog) and then set up the project in phases. We could decide after Phase I: campus whether to build Phase II: downtown to downtown.
(On that note: I keep wondering why we can't find a way to use the *existing* rail between the downtowns to move a tram.)
Some say: The tram is proposed to go down Green Street in Urbana stimulating increased density right next to a nice residential single family neighborhood. I don't want more density!
I say: I agree with the density concern - especially on the South side of Green which abuts single family zoning. I have told the MTD that they should look closely at Elm or Springfield as alternative corridors into downtown. We have a better chance to increase density on these streets. Elm street could use redevelopment and goes right past the library, parking deck, Lincoln Square, court house, and the post office without having to walk more than a few hundred yards. Elm is also in bad need of redevelopment in some areas.
To those who say they think the U of I and MTD should build this on campus and keep the towns and their budgets out of it I say:
For those who use sightings of empty buses as an argument that we are not at capacity, I remind them that they are seeing buses at the end of the line. They are supposed to be empty then.
--
So in summary, I think the success of this project is going to require Champaign to come back to the table and there is nothing about their recent vote that prevents this. They may return to the table once the have more information on the costs and benefits, or once our community is slated for federal funding, or after a campus ring proves successful.
Just because Champaign voted no doesn't mean the problem goes away. As Bruce Knight , Champaign's Plan Director said to the News Gazette: "As subdivisions and commercial developments sprawl in all directions, even more cars will put pressure on the street system and parking needs. People need workable, convenient transit alternatives and desirable central city residential alternatives that reduce dependence on cars." MTD and the cities will have to find transportation solutions as we grow.
Success is also going to require a positive vote a committee Monday, March 8 and council March 15. Meetings are at 7:30 PM at 400 S. Vine Street at Illinois Street. Public input is requested at the beginning of the meeting.
I welcome constructive dialogue on this issue: chyn (at) ojctech.com. |
See also:
http://www.cutransitalternatives.com/
|
Comments
|
Re: Light Rail Vote this Monday in Urbana |
by grosser
grosser (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Mar 2004
|
Thanks for the nice article.
I remain concerned that UIUC won't share an equitable amount of the burden. The overtaxed bus system is stretched thin primarily by students who don't want to walk across campus (and who, incidentally, got along fine for about 130 years w/o free bus service like they have now). From what I've
seen, the most light rail traffic will be on campus. I understand the point that everybody is also traveling into campus to work there, but how many people will the spurs into the downtowns help get to work? I'm 1.6 miles from downtown, and 2.5 miles from work. I presume I'd be about 1.6 miles from a spur--or at best, about 1.2 miles or so to PAR/FAR. Would it go anywhere in Urbana besides downtown (i.e. Orchard Downs)?
I know, some of these destination questions are too early. I support alternative transportation, and realize we can't just all drive cars forever if we want any growth.
But UIUC does continue to reap enormous financial benefits from Urbana by taking its land, building its tax-exempt property there for university needs, then building new buildings in Champaign for Urbana companies to
move to. They build high-density developments on north campus w/o adequate parking when they could be building parking into developments like they do on the south side. And they want to pay 1/4th the cost of the infrastructure to shuttle their students around the quad all day and
night?
At the same time, they can't even pay for raises, so I don't really expect any different I guess.
Perhaps if they were at the table with 50%, the MTD paid 25% (which is also a burden on CU as taxpayers in the MTD taxing district), and Urbana and Champaign split the remaining 25 (or even a 60/40 champaign/urbana split would make sense given the commercial density along the route, and distance to downtown from the quad) then I would find it easier to swallow.
Your arguments about double taxation and the need to upgrade Green st. anyway is strong and compelling.
On your side note, I had no idea UIUC is asking Urbana to contribute to idiotic and uninspiring idea of a hockey rink. I hope Urbana is not planning to give up any money for a hockey rink to be built in Champaign and to be owned by the university. I even think i read somewhere (DI?) that someone
asked Richard Florida what he thought of the ice rink and he said it was exactly the wrong thing to do. Nobody moves anywhere because they have some lame second-rate sports team. |
|
Text of Resolution |
by ben grosser
grosser (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
06 Mar 2004
|
I've included the text of the proposed resolution below as it was a question of mine.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-03-004R
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
OF THE CHAMPAIGN-URBANA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT’S
CONTINUED EXPLORATION OF THE BENEFITS OF A FIXED-GUIDEWAY
OR TRAM SYSTEM FOR THE COMMUNITY
WHEREAS, the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District has completed an
Alternatives Analysis Study to consider the feasibility of a fixed-guideway
or tram system to enhance the current transit system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Urbana is currently participating on the Mass
Transit District Fixed Guideway Technical Committee regarding the study and
has participated in the exploration of fixed-guideway systems in other
communities; and
WHEREAS, the MTD has identified three primary goals of the Alternative
Analysis Study which are improving the cost efficiency of the transit system,
increasing transit usage, and meeting the redevelopment goals of the
community; and
WHEREAS, the Alternative Analysis Study has identified a locally
preferred alternative for the community which could include trams, bus rapid
transit, or an enhanced conventional bus system; and
WHEREAS, a fixed-guideway system could have significant benefits for
the residents of the City of Urbana by offering increased mobility and
fostering redevelopment of the downtown; and
WHEREAS, the consideration of an alternative transit system connecting
downtown to campus was a component of the Downtown Strategic Plan adopted in
February 2002; and
WHEREAS, public transportation is a vital contributing factor for the
health of the community because it provides mobility for all segments of the
population and reduces dependency on the automobile; and
WHEREAS, an improved public transit system is a benefit to all
community members including transit riders, motorists, cyclists and walkers
by diversifying transit options, easing congestion on city roadways, and
making streets safer for cyclists and pedestrians;
WHEREAS, public transportation, and fixed-guideway systems, can be a
vital economic development tool by fostering urban revitalization which can
provide numerous benefits such as the establishment of new businesses,
industry and housing, job creation and improved access to employment centers;
and
WHEREAS, public transportation, and fixed-guideway systems, offer
mobility for disadvantaged residents and support self-sufficiency especially
trams that feature “zero step” access; and
WHEREAS, public transit, specifically electric powered trams, offers
substantial environmental benefits such as cleaner air and a reduced
dependence on fossil fuels.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the members of the City Council
of the City of Urbana support the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District’s
selection of locally preferred alternatives and efforts to apply for federal
funding for continued study of engineering, design, and information gathering
as well as the costs and benefits of a fixed guideway system in our
community. We encourage the MTD and the committee to investigate every
possible financing option to ensure project costs will not create an undue
financial burden on our community and to maximize partnerships between local,
state, and federal government agencies, the University of Illinois, and other
potential local private partners; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution, duly adopted,
shall be sent to the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District, the City of
Champaign and the University of Illinois. |
|
Re: Light Rail Vote this Monday in Urbana |
by Todd Boyle
tboyle (nospam) rosehill.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Mar 2004
|
Respectfully, I would like to submit an alternative vision to fixed-routed light rail, which preserves the point-to-point character of automobiles while addressing their demerits.
http://refusenik.org/trackways.htm
http://refusenik.org/wirelessTransit.htm
Thank you for your patience,
TOdd Boyle, Kirkland WA |
|
Re: Light Rail Vote this Monday in Urbana |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
08 Mar 2004
|
Question: Will the light rail system go out to the new Walmart?
Jack |
|
Re: Light Rail Vote this Monday in Urbana |
by Danielle Chynoweth
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2004
|
|
News Gazette follow up story on the vote is at http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=15590 |
|
Re: Light Rail Vote this Monday in Urbana |
by Seth
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2004
|
from what i understand about the system... the light rail will replace the exhisting campus routes, such as the 22 illini, the 26 pack, and the 23 Shuttle...
with the outside possibility of an east west route connecting the downtowns, i wouldn't expect to see the system develop much past it... the main reasoning is to alleviate pressure on the already overcrowded campus routes, and provide trasportation for employees and guests and commuters from parking lots on the south of campus to North and Central campus and the ever-growing research park...
if you go to www.CUMTD.com there should be a link that will take you to rather detailed explanation of plans... i fully agree that the university should have most of the finacial burden, although i think the City of Champaign needs to, at a minimum, give the project its blessing, since most routes will be on Champaign Streets (Wright St, down to E-14 nect to Assebly Hall, and the research park) |
|
Re: Light Rail Vote this Monday in Urbana |
by Cliff Singer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
15 Mar 2004
|
I have some comments below on how to approach convincing people of why
they should support a light rail system. However, this looks like it will
be a long uphill struggle, and in the meantime I hope it will focus
attention on possible improvements in the buses that now exist and will
continue to run on much of the system even if light rail is eventually
installed. These comments are based in part on my experience here and in
part on travelling and living for longer periods in European cities with
extensive mixed bus and rail systems.
These are of course just casual observations and do not deal in any
detail with the many practical difficulties bound to be encountered in
following through with any of them, but perhaps one or more of them may
still be useful.
A) Buses
1) Route and Schedule Transparency: Posting durable and readable
schedules and route plans at bus stops, at least in the central part of
the system, can make it much more user friendly. Now that our recent
intensive phase of street construction and rerouting in the campus area
is winding down, this might be a particularly opportune time to visit
this issue.
2) Ride Smoothness: In the longer term, one of the major attractions of
fixed rail is the smoother ride it gives. Sometimes rail builds this in
because newer systems have a smooth support bed and electric motors and
breaking systems that make for more even acceleration and deceleration. I
don't know what suspension systems they use, but our current bus designs
seem to pay almost no attention to this, with rigid seats bolted directly
to floors and apparently very little attention given to insulating the
bus body frames from jolts and sways transmitted from pavement contact.
Perhaps we are currently largely at the mercy of prevailing industrial
practice in this country for public transport system bus design and
construction, but perhaps the globalizing market will provide some
possibilities for relief over the coming decades.
3) Sizing Carrier Capacity to Ridership: Buses aren't just empty at near
just at the ends of their routes, but also sometimes in off-peak hours.
Perhaps more attention could be paid to the mix of sizes in carriers,
especially since smaller vehicles seem easier to acquire with smoother
rides. Of course capital cost and the complexity of warehousing and
maintaining a mixed fleet are considerations, but considering fuel
efficiency and quality of service maybe it would be possible to be more
inventive about this.
4) Vehicle Emissions: Many other systems have buses that are worse in
this regard and work in less meteorologically favorable environments, but
ours could be better. Biodiesel is an interesting experiment but neither
has emissions advantages that are obvious to me nor necessarily much
advantage with respect either to overall energy or economic efficiency.
Overall natural gas supplies should be adequate to let prices settle down
to an equilibrium of under about $3 per million BTU (i.e. less than half
of recent peak prices). If the regulatory and market environment allows
this, then natural gas busses have advantages over diesel both locally
and globally in terms of emissions.
5) Punctuality: Especially if route schedules are made more transparent,
punctuality can be important for attracting ridership. Given how tight
the schedules are, our systems seems remarkably good at this, but people
tell me there are some places where 5-10 minute delays aren't uncommon,
and this is a fairly long wait for routes as short as most of ours. I
expect MTD pays attention to this and considers adjusting its route
schedule targets where there are problems, but there may be some room for
improvement here.
B) Light rail
1) On the cautionary side, I suggest being very cautious about the claim
that the current system is anywhere at or approaching saturation at high
density points. I occasionally use the system on Wright Street where it
is probably at its most congested. The main problem there was the auto
traffic, and that has now been cleared out. Any occasional delays due to
busses being close to each other seem quite short, and to the extent that
this is a problem I wonder to what extent the full force of systems
optimization technology has been applied to it, mostly in the form of
detailed work on feedback between scheduling plans and operator training
and systematic observations of system performance. Even if you do
convince yourself that there is are unavoidable and significant
congestion problems, its not obvious that two-to-three car light rail
systems inevitably mixed with buses from outlying areas would really make
much of an impact compared to the recent introduction of flex-buses.Â
Setting aside the details and going back to my general observations, it
is my experience that consultant studies are no substitute for taking a
careful look yourself at the problems their studies say they identify.
For example, when consultant studies (at some expense) once claimed that
downtown Urbana parking was undersupplied, actually counting the empty
spaces in all the core area lots at peak times on peak utilization days
showed that there was in fact no problem. This the consultants had
missed because they evidently hadn't done this themselves, or at least
not sufficiently systematically.
2) Also on the cautionary side, there are potential pitfalls in adapting
fixed rail systems to our environment. For example, I have no particular
reason to believe this is a special problem, but our mechanical engineers
tell me that central Illinois is globally in the top rank in terms of the
number of freeze/thaw cycles per year. This can be very hard on certain
types of construction and may not be found in any of the other modern
light rail systems that have been examined.
3) On the positive side, personally I love fixed rail systems compared to
buses, even in modernized European systems like Vienna and especially
Berlin where some attention is paid to some of the above-mentioned
difficulties with bus systems. One reason is the smooth ride. The other
is just the psychological impact of having a mental map of where you are
going on the smaller fixed-rail part of the system because you have seen
where the tracks lie on the street. This may be peculiar to absent-minded
professor types who have trouble with practical matters like keeping bus
routes clear in their heads and irrelevant for regular users of a system
who don't need this kind of crutch because they routinely go along the
same familiar route. Both of these advantages are basically a luxury, as
it isn't clear that either of them are of much practical help in getting
most people where they want to go when they want to get there.
In summary, I think it may be dangerous to try to promote the idea of
fixed rail on the basis of supposed technical advantages that may
evaporate on closer examination. In essence fixed rail may be a luxury,
and the argument may need to be that it is one that an up-market
community can afford with the costs coming well in the future, heavily
externally subsidized, and spread out over a 20 year bond retirement.
C) Magnets in streets??
Nothing I have seen on this explains why the goals of doing this
couldn't be met using GPS and/or wireless without digging hardware into
streets. Am I missing something?
D) Bottom line
Given a choice between the capital and maintenance expenditure for light
rail and a new small middle school (charter or not) in our underutilized
retail space or elsewhere and more grades 3-6 help for disadvantaged
students to learn reading, I would chose the latter in a heartbeat. Not
given that choice or given the possibility of doing both, I think that
light rail is more worthwhile than some of the other things we spend our
money on. So I my long-winded answer concerning whether your constituents
support proceeding with light rail in my case is a "highly qualified
yes."
Regards,
Cliff
--
Clifford E. Singer, Director
Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and
  International Security |
|
