|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
Current rating: 0 |
by John Hilty
Email: jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified!) |
16 Oct 2005
|
|
Various reasons are presented why Savoy should be incorporated within the Mass Transit District (MTD).
Opponents to incorporation complain about the imposition
of higher taxes to fund MTD services β as though the residents of Savoy
will be shouldering an unfair burden of taxes for services that they don't
need. If anything, exactly the opposite is true β residents of Savoy are
already paying LESS than their fair share of local taxes. |
|
During the past year, several articles have appeared in the
News-Gazette regarding the opposition of residents in Savoy to incorporation in
the Mass Transit District (MTD) of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. The articles of
this mainstream newspaper have presented primarily the opinions of residents
who are hostile toward incorporation. The opinions of people who support
Savoy's incorporation into MTD have not been presented adequately in these
articles. This commentary is intended to rectify this shortcoming by presenting
various reasons why Savoy should be incorporated.
First of all, many
residents of the Champaign-Urbana area are dependent to some extent on MTD for
transportation services. This includes many senior citizens, persons with
disabilities, college students, children, adults with suspended driver's
licenses, and poor people who are unable to afford a car. This probably
describes one-third of the residents in the area and it's no use pretending
that these people don't exist β they DO exist in our community and they
require access to affordable and reliable transportation just like everyone
else. By not allowing MTD services in Savoy, people in these disadvantaged
groups are almost banned from entering Savoy. This could be considered a form
of discrimination against these groups in favor of car-driving affluent adults.
Too often in the past, many small towns and suburbs have undermined the ability
of minorities, the poor, and other disadvantaged groups to participate in their
communities by resorting to acts of overt discrimination (police harassment,
lynch mobs, burning down houses) or by resorting to acts of covert
discrimination (exclusionary zoning laws, blocking construction of subsidized
housing, failure to provide necessary social services). The attempt to ban MTD
services from Savoy can be viewed as an act of covert discrimination and a
continuation of this historical pattern.
Another argument against
incorporation is that it is undemocratic. This argument states that Savoy
residents have the ultimate right to decide whether or not they will be
incorporated into the Champaign-Urbana MTD, otherwise they are being subjected
to taxation without representation. This argument is faulty because the board
members of MTD are appointed to their positions by elected county officials.
Residents of Savoy have as much influence over these board members as anyone
else in the county. This is actually a dispute between different levels of
democracy. It is by no means clear that local residents should have the final
say on this matter. After all, if Savoy residents decide that they will secede
from the State of Illinois or the USA in order to avoid paying state and
federal income taxes, then they should be allowed to do this? This argument
must be rejected if it stands in conflict with the greater public interest of
democratic society at large. Surely it is in the interest of the greater society
to have coherent planning of transportation services across broad geographic
regions. This type of planning cannot be accomplished if it consists of
piecemeal local responses to local concerns.
Some opponents of
incorporation have stated that the need for MTD services in Savoy isn't there
and that incorporation would produce "more empty buses." However, the bus
ridership statistics during the past two decades reveal that the demand for
MTD services in the Champaign-Urbana area has skyrocketed, greatly outpacing
local population growth. Furthermore, the "empty buses" argument reveals a lack
of familiarity with the hour-to-hour operation of bus routes. In a typical bus
route, the bus fills up with people as it approaches the University of
Illinois, downtown Urbana, or downtown Champaign. As the bus leaves these
central areas and moves toward the periphery of Champaign-Urbana, it drops
people off (typically at their homes) and becomes emptied of people. Thus, some
suburban residents, living on the periphery of Champaign-Urbana or in Savoy,
incorrectly conclude that the buses going pass their homes are under-utilized
because they contain only "one or two people." However, that same bus, as it
approaches one of the three central destination areas, becomes full of people,
particularly during morning or evening rush hour. This is why the "empty buses"
argument is less valid than it appears to some suburban
residents.
Opponents to incorporation also complain about the imposition
of higher taxes to fund MTD services β as though the residents of Savoy
will be shouldering an unfair burden of taxes for services that they don't
need. If anything, exactly the opposite is true β residents of Savoy are
already paying LESS than their fair share of local taxes. For example, the
Champaign-Urbana Sanitary District recently increased fees for sewage treatment
in Champaign and Urbana in order to build a new $50 million sewage treatment
facility for Savoy and SW Champaign. The city councils in Urbana and Champaign
did not oppose this fee increase, nor was there any attempt to leave the
Champaign-Urbana Sanitary District. Imagine how much money residents in Savoy
and SW Champaign would have to pay if they did not receive financial subsidies
from the rest of the Champaign-Urbana community β their tax bills would be
astronomical! And yet, when it becomes Savoy's turn to help subsidize MTD
services for the entire Champaign-Urbana community, the opponents of
incorporation in Savoy have the nerve to complain that this imposes an "unfair
burden" on them β never mind the substantial burden that they've imposed
on the rest of us! Apparently, some Savoy residents and their city council have
the odd expectation that tax money should always flow into their community, but
never out of it. In other words, they think it is their God-given right to
mooch off of everyone else! Perhaps they should change the name of their
community to Moochville?
Another argument against incorporation by MTD
is that city buses produce too much noise and air pollution. But what's the
alternative? Currently, it consists of this: People driving everywhere in their
personal motor vehicles. And don't those SUV's, pick-up trucks, and luxury
sedans produce any noise or air pollution? Of course they do. Residents of
Champaign-Urbana are subjected to the noise and air pollution of motor vehicles
from Savoy all of the time. The motor vehicles of residents from Savoy also
create traffic congestion in Champaign-Urbana and increase the risk of
accidental death and injury. As Champaign, Urbana, and Savoy continue to expand
their populations, these traffic-related problems will become worse in the
future, increasing the need for MTD services. The problem of noise and
pollution by city buses has been addressed to some extent already β many
city buses already use biodiesel fuel, which burns more cleanly than
conventional diesel fuel and produces less particulate matter. There has been
some discussion of implementing a light rail system in Champaign-Urbana. If
this type of transportation system is adopted, it will run on electricity and
eliminate the emission of air pollution from within the city altogether.
Furthermore, light rail systems can be designed that are more quiet than motor
vehicles using the internal combustion engine. The reduction in noise, air
pollution, and traffic congestion has the potential to make cities more livable
and accessible to all residents, while decreasing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels.
|
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Oct 2005
|
Your assertions with regard to the Urbana & Champaign Sanitary District; specifically that the District raised fees "in order to build a $50 million sewage treatment facility for Savoy and SW Champaign" and therefore that "residents in Savoy and SW Champaign [...] receive financial subsidies from the rest of the Champaign-Urbana community" are incorrect.
The fee increases to which you refer are a component of the UCSD's 2001 Long Range Facilities Plan and reflect the needs of the district as a whole. This plan recommends $68 million in treatment plant expansion and improvements over a 20-year planning horizon: $41 million for the Northeast Treatment Plant (serving Urbana, eastern Champaign and most of the University of Illinois) and $27 million for the Southwest plant (serving south and west Champaign, Savoy, and the remainder of the UI).
The location of the plants and their service areas are a factor of geography rather than politics. The current model reflects the District's idea of what provides the best overall service at the lowest overall cost. Although rehabilitation and expansion needs vary from time to time based on growth patterns and facility age and capacity,
over the long term the cost of serving a District customer is essentially the same regardless of where in the District they are located.
For more information or to obtain a copy of the UCSD Long Range Facility Plan, please feel free to contact the UCSD offices at (217) 367-3409. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Oct 2005
|
Thank-you for bringing this issue to my attention. There were several articles about this in the News-Gazette that I had read several years ago. I have re-examined some of these articles to refresh my memory. Some of these articles can be accessed at the website of the News-Gazette by typing "sanitary district" for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
It is my impression from these articles that the fee increases were implemented primarily to pay for the expansion of the SW treatment plant, which was operating near its maximum capacity. Because of this, the EPA was unwilling to issue permits for further development of the area unless the Sanitary District devised and implemented a plan to expand the capacity of the SW treatment plant.
This aspect of the long range plan has been implemented, which is the reason why new construction for another subdivision is anticipated in Savoy, as well as other development projects. However, much of the spending in the "20-year planning horizon" that has not been realized, particularly for the NE plant that serves Urbana and the older areas of Champaign.
As a result, the bulk of the recent fee increases have been used to expand the sewage treatment capacity of Savoy and adjacent areas, even though these fee increases have been implemented uniformly throughout the Sanitary District. Thus, contrary to your assertion, it is quite correct to say that the expansion of Savoy is being subsidized by both Champaign and Urbana at the present time. If Savoy had to pay the entire cost of its sewage treatment facilities in order to accomodate its rapid growth, then their sewage treatment and hook-up fees would be much higher than they are now.
This is another example of how older and poorer areas of cities often subsidize the growth of affluent suburban areas and their businesses. |
|
CUMTD |
by a bit skeptical
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2005
|
|
Mr. Hilty, I think you finally got to it when you got to the end - Light rail. CUMTD will need as big a tax base as possible to bring in this white elephant. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2005
|
|
What's wrong with white elephants? A city without a few white elephants isn't even worth visiting . . . . |
|
The Blind Man and His Elephant |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2005
|
I'll bet that "skeptical's" SUV is far more of a white elephant in ten years, in a year, hell, even right now, than the tram will ever be. Does "skeptical" really think that gas will ever get cheaper? Yeah, right after Bush finally finds those missing WMDs in Iraq.
In fact, in ten years, Savoy may need the tram in order to still be an economically viable community. |
|
White elephants |
by a bit skeptical
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2005
|
Hey, Dose, gas prices have gone down - at least $.60 per gallon. And SUV's might become white elephants, but they do make small cars for people also (which can go anywhere you want them to go at anytime, unlike a bus or train). If, Mr. Hilty, we are considering building a tram system as a tourist attaction, I can think of a lot of better ways to spend the $100,000,000.
Savoy may want to join the mass transit district so their residents can get to CU on a bus- that is quite possible. And the district can decide if they want to let them in.
But there is no way a tram line is running down there. The enlightened people on the MTD board want a dense population center - the idea is to get the people to come towards the line, not vice versa. They would also get rid of cheap downtown parking so people will be forced to ride mass transit. |
|
Remembering 18.9-Cent Gas |
by Neal Peirce
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2005
|
Washington β Somehow, for more than a half-century, the image has stuck in my mind: a gas station on Route 1 in New Jersey, a metal sign out front, swinging on hinges. Its message: Gas, 18.9 cents a gallon.
With gasoline prices recently spiking past $3 a gallon, it's obvious our blissful long ride on cheap fuel, so ingrained it morphed into the American psyche and assumed birthright, is finally sputtering to an end.
Combine high-price gas with the grinding roadway congestion around our major metro regions, and you have to ask: What will our future be?
There's an interesting but very partial solution in the oncoming wave of toll roads around major metro areas. They may enable us to stay mobile β but at significant per-mile cost even before the fuel.
Yet the crisis, some voices are now telling us, goes dramatically deeper. The very resources that made America's 20th-century way of life possible β cheap fuel and cheap land at the forefront β have vanished.
Instead, the 21st century is delivering massive environmental, economic and political threats. The magnitude of Hurricane Katrina is an example: Its arc of destruction encompasses an area as large as Italy. And its impact was made much worse because of the land and energy and transportation choices of the past half-century.
A good chunk of the Deep South's explosive population growth, for example, has occurred along environmentally fragile Gulf and Atlantic coasts, on land too difficult to access in earlier times. The result, suggests Keith Schneider, former New York Times reporter now with the Michigan Land Use Institute: "The vehicle-dependent, highway-loving, subdivision-craving, big-box, fry-pit, sprawling communities that resulted were built precisely in zones that potent hurricanes would hit hardest."
So if we look to a transportation future, should we just think about more miles of roadway, bypasses, toll roads that assure speed of "throughput" β and a chimerical search for "affordable" gas?
Hardly, says Schneider. He argues for a new, less-energy-intensive course. It means bringing homes, schools and recreation and shopping closer to each other. It's called "smart growth." Switching to more compact development will also, Schneider argues, "relieve families of the need to operate fleets of vehicles fueled by foreign oil."
It's not just a matter of lifestyle preferences, he maintains; it's a matter of national security β forging less costly, more efficient, environmentally sensitive policies that will give us a far better chance to withstand the energy emergencies and the Katrinas of the new century.
And it's a direction that Americans are increasingly prepared to take, argues Anne Canby, president of the Washington-based Surface Transportation Policy Project. She points to a national poll showing 51 percent of the public favors more investment in public transit, only 18 percent more highway funding.
And there are multiple other reasons for a new transportation course, she argues. National asthma rates grew 59 percent from 1982 to 1996, with ozone and particulate matter from fossil-fuel burning especially serious health concerns. To handle an exponential increase in senior citizens who'll either not choose or be able to drive, we'll need much more transit, and many more safe paths and walkways.
There's a social-equity angle: For the less-affluent who have to own a car for work, the new high gas prices will darken even further their hopes of ever achieving homeownership.
Finally, and inevitably, there's the global energy-supply issue. The U.S. still voraciously consumes 25 percent of the world's energy supplies. Transportation accounts for 65 percent of U.S. oil use. "The lack of connection between our foreign policy and our oil appetite, which is highest per capita in the world, is somewhat unbelievable and maybe surreal," Canby argues.
The real question is likely not whether, but how we adjust to a more-sustainable course. Clearly, there's little hope in today's White House or Congress, still in thrall to the fuel industry and auto producers.
Belatedly but surely, governors, mayors and local groups are starting the exploration with varieties of energy-saving "green" agendas. Some local publics are voting for new transit systems, and against big highway-building packages.
But what's required is a fundamental, indeed radical, break with the policies born back in the days of 18.9-cents-a-gallon gasoline. Otherwise, the mounting emergencies of the 21st century will force us to our knees.
Β© 2005 Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2005
|
As a result, the bulk of the recent fee increases have been used to expand the sewage treatment capacity of Savoy and adjacent areas, even though these fee increases have been implemented uniformly throughout the Sanitary District. Thus, contrary to your assertion, it is quite correct to say that the expansion of Savoy is being subsidized by both Champaign and Urbana at the present time. If Savoy had to pay the entire cost of its sewage treatment facilities in order to accomodate its rapid growth, then their sewage treatment and hook-up fees would be much higher than they are now.
I appreciate your response, but I still consider that an overly short-term (and therefore misleading) interpretation of the numbers. You could just as well argue that UCSD customers in Savoy and southwest Champaign have long subsidized the availability of excess capacity at the Northeast plant which enabled recent growth in north and east Urbana, and will subsidize the next round of expansion at the Northeast plant when that happens in the next five years. Another flaw in the subsidy argument is that, in general, connection fees fund capital expansion whereas usage fees fund operations, so infrastructure and expansion costs associated with growth tend to be borne (as they should be) by the owners of the newly developed properties. One could probably even show that growth areas, whose connection fees fund expansion and thereby increase the overall economy of scale, are "subsidizing" users elsewhere in the community who had the advantage of connecting to District facilities at the old (lower) connection rates during the 35 years since the last rate increase. I perhaps did not make it clear in my previous post, but is the District's expectation that the $68 million for both plants will be expended within the 20-year planning horizon based on current growth projections. Of course, if it turns out that over the next 20 years, Savoy grows to 50,000 people and neither Champaign nor Urbana grow at all, those projections will change; but again the connection fee revenue that would result from such growth would track the resulting expansion costs.
These issues were discussed by the various municipalities at the time that the 2001 Long Term Plan was ratified, and although I was not associated with the UCSD at the time, my understanding is that consensus was achieved among the relevant bodies that the rates, costs and benefits in the LTP were equitable. There was some support in Urbana for a two-tier rate system which would differentiate between the two treatment plants, but in the end it was acknowledged that the uniform rate structure is equitable over the long run.
I apologize for belaboring the point, but I feel that comparisons between the UCSD and the CUMTD are fundamentally flawed because the UCSD receives no tax levy. Therefore, it has no financial incentive to annex property for its own sake, and no analog to the "we're being taxed for a service we won't use" arguments which (right or wrong) are being raised in the current CUMTD controversies. |
|
Oops! A Bit Skeptical Forgot about the 90% Federal Subsidy |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Oct 2005
|
TO: A bit skeptical
As I recall, the cost of the proposed light rail system was about $300 million, with the Dept. of Transporation picking up 90% of those costs. The remaining 10% of those costs, about $30 million, would be diivided between Champaign, Urbana, and the University of Illinois. To me, that sounds like a bargain-priced elephant. I challenge you to find another where the Federal government is going to pay 90% of the tab. If we delay too long, this Federal subsidy may be unavailable in the future.
If the light rail is implemented, it would probably provide service in the following areas: 1) Loop routes around the premises of the University of Illinois, 2) A route connecting downtown Champaign and the University of Illinois, and 3) A route connecting downtown Urbana and the University of Illinois. At the present time, these are the high-traffic bus routes, and thus the light rail would be put to heavy use.
No one's planning to send the light rail through Savoy. CUMTD doesn't need Savoy in order to build the light rail system -- what they require is the support of the Champaign City Council. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Oct 2005
|
Christopher Alix: "You could just as well argue that UCSD customers in Savoy and southwest Champaign have long subsidized the availability of excess capacity at the Northeast plant which enabled recent growth in north and east Urbana...."
That seems rather doubtful as Savoy and SW Champaign were probably cornfields at the time that the NE plant was built -- wasn't this about 1930? Furthermore, state and federal funds were often used to build sewage treatment plants in the past, in which case no significant imposition of local taxes and fees would have been involved in its construction. Although there is some conceptual validity to what you are saying, from a historical perspective it is misapplied. Furthermore, your perspective on this issue contains several unexamined assumptions that undermine your conclusions. I discuss some of these assumptions below.
Christopher Alix: "Another flaw in the subsidy argument is that, in general, connection fees fund capital expansion whereas usage fees fund operations, so infrastructure and expansion costs associated with growth tend to be borne (as they should be) by the owners of the newly developed properties."
My preceding comment renders this statement inapplicable as funds for 'capital expansion' in this case were generally provided by the federal or state government.
I think it necessary to review the sources of revenue for the sanitary district and partition its costs to make all of this more clear. In the past, this could be conceptualized as follows:
Revenue:
1) Grants from federal or state government.
2) Hook-up fees on new construction.
3) Quarterly maintenance fees to customers.
Costs:
1) The cost of expanding the capacity of the sewage treatment system ( e.g., new treatment plants or expansion of old plants, installation of major sewer lines).
2) The cost of hooking up individual buildings to the sewer system (e.g., installation of minor sewer lines).
3) The cost of maintaining the sewer system at its current capacity (e.g., routine repairs and operating costs).
In this case, relating revenue to costs is simple: grants from the state or federal government were used to upgrade capacity, hook-up fees were used to pay for hook-up costs, and maintenance fees were used to pay for maintenance costs. This is an idealized relation between revenue sources and type of costs, of course, that doesn't necessarily correspond with reality in a strict sense (e.g., grants may pay for substantially less than 100% of the expansion costs).
However, today there are only two major sources of revenue to my knowledge: hook-up fees and maintenance fees. These two sources of revenue have to be partitioned among the three kinds of costs that are described above.
In your statement above, you imply that hook-up fees are used exclusively to fund all expansion costs, while maintenance fees are used to fund maintenance costs only. This is a highly dubious assertion because historically federal or state grants were used to fund expansion of capacity (as defined above), while hook-up fees were used to fund only hook-up costs.
Today, these government grant programs are defunct. Therefore, in order for your argument to be valid, hook-up fees would have to be increased dramatically to cover both routine hook-up costs and a major expansion of capacity. Meanwhile, maintenance fees should remain the same. However, that isn't what happened. The sanitary district increased BOTH hook-up fees and maintenance fees when it was confronted with the costs of a major expansion in capacity. It should be kept in mind that maintenance costs have actually decreased during recent years because of the reduction of personnel as a result of plant automation. Thus, it is quite possible that maintenance fees are also being used to fund the expansion of capacity at the SW plant, in which case everyone in the district is subsidizing it.
Your general argument also assumes that growth is uniform throughout the community, and therefore all members of the community will benefit equally from any expansion of capacity (at least in the long run, if not the short run). This is certainly not the case -- as you rather grudgingly admit. In reality, growth is rarely distributed uniformly throughout an urban area. These days, it is concentrated primarily along the periphery of cities in affluent suburban areas. This is where the new schools, the new roads, the new bridges, the new homes, and the new businesses are typically built along with the vast infrastructure to support it. Sometimes central areas of a city experience this kind of growth, but it is generally the result of gentrification -- an influx of suburbanites into central city areas when the suburbs along the periphery begin to decay. The development of new infrastructure usually follows the affluent and their money as they migrate from area of a city to another.
Thus, when the capacity of the NE plant is expanded, this will mostly likely be implemented to accommodate more suburban development along the periphery of Urbana and Champaign (exclusive of the SW) -- that is, it will result from the creation of other Savoy-like communities (whether or not they are independent villages). Undoubtedly this will produce another increase of both hook-up fees and maintenance fees. Thus, it doesn't make any difference whether the capacity of the NE plant or the SE plant is expanded -- the interests of the same social class in high growth neighborhoods will be served, regardless, at the expense of those social classes residing in the low-growth neighborhoods of central city areas.
You also make the hidden assumption that maintenance costs are uniform throughout the sanitary district. If this assumption is accepted at its face value, then it follows that the application of uniform maintenance fees throughout the sanitary district is also fair. The only problem is, this hidden assumption is generally false. Usually, affluent suburban communities have much higher infrastructure costs because there are fewer people residing in a given area. In central city areas, lot sizes are typically smaller and multi-story multi-family buildings are more abundant. In central city areas, businesses are more often located in adjacent multi-story buildings, while businesses in suburbia are more spread out (Wal-Mart being the perfect example). Thus, in suburban areas along the urban periphery, you have to build longer roads, longer sewer lines, longer utility lines, etc., in order to serve a smaller number of people in a given area. Consequently, maintenance costs are probably higher in suburban areas than central city areas, particularly in respect to residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the application of uniform maintenance fees in a sanitary district are inherently unfair, especially when this subsidizes affluent suburbanites at the expanse of the urban poor, as it frequently does.
Christopher Alix: "I apologize for belaboring the point, but I feel that comparisons between the UCSD and the CUMTD are fundamentally flawed because the UCSD receives no tax levy. Therefore, it has no financial incentive to annex property for its own sake, and no analog to the "we're being taxed for a service we won't use" arguments which (right or wrong) are being raised in the current CUMTD controversies."
CUMTD doesn't "anex property for its own sake," as this implies that CUMTD habitually taxes property in a given area without providing any services. If it is annexed, bus routes will be set up in Savoy, just like everywhere else, and this costs money.
Generally, the usefulness of a mass transit district to its riders is proportional to its size and its ability to provide service in densely populated areas. Compared to the rural areas of the county, Savoy is a densely populated area that is becoming larger. It is also located near Willard Airport -- and it is important to interconnect different modes of transportation with each other to facilitate transfer of passengers. For these reasons, it is hardly surprising that board members of CUMTD have been considering the annexation of Savoy, as this will enable CUMTD to provide better service for its riders. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Oct 2005
|
This is a continuation of my preceding comment in response to the comments of Christopher Alix.
The assumption of uniformity of service in a sanitary district (as well as other municipal districts) is also violated by the problem of negative externalities. Consider, for example, the location of sewer treatment plants. They are usually located in poor neighborhoods where the residents have to put up with the stench of the treatment plant and its polluted discharge into local waterways. It so happens that the old NE plant of the sanitary district is located downwind from my neighborhood, which is poor. When I walk to the end of the street and wait for the city bus, there is occasionally a foul odor in the air, particularly on warm rainy days when the wind direction. The local air quality is also befouled by a small local dump that is located only a few blocks of day. These are examples of negative externalities that typically affect some groups of people (the poor) more than others (the affluent). Affluent suburban neighborhoods exist within an artificial bubble world from which these negative externalities are exported to other groups to people, typically the urban poor or remote rural areas. As a result, affluent surburbs are shielded from the negative consequences of their bloated standard of living, producing a disincentive to change their ways. The negative externalities of the sanitary district subtract from the good that the poor receive from this municipal service, even though fee assessments are uniform across the district regardless of income or value of property.
Christopher Alix: "I apologize for belaboring the point, but I feel that comparisons between the UCSD and the CUMTD are fundamentally flawed because the UCSD receives no tax levy. Therefore, it has no financial incentive to annex property for its own sake, and no analog to the "we're being taxed for a service we won't use" arguments which (right or wrong) are being raised in the current CUMTD controversies."
The distinction that you are making here is artificial. Regardless of what they are called, both the sanitary district and MTD impose mandatory taxes on everyone in their respective districts. If I receive a $150 bill from the sanitary district every year and a $150 bill every year from the mass transit district, what's the distinction? As far as I can tell, there isn't any substantial difference. The "maintenance fees" of the sanitary district are a mandatory tax because everyone within the district has to pay them, regardless of the extent to which they actually use the services of the sanitary district. For example, if you attempted to build a house within the sanitary district that relied on an outhouse or a septic tank for the disposal of waste, rather than the sewer system of the sanitary district, I doubt that the necessary permits for the construction of this house would be issued. Therefore, payment of the fee assessments (actually taxes) within the sanitary district are mandatory.
Similarly, no one can escape paying property taxes within the mass transit district, regardless of the extent to which they use these services, except for non-profit organizations. In this respect, both the sanitary district and MTD are nearly identifical (except as noted below).
You might argue that the sanitary district is somewhat different because it imposes hook-up fees on new construction to recover the high costs whenever the capacity of the system is expanded. Even if this were true (which it often isn't), this argument fails because MTD does the same thing when it charges bus fare to passengers. People who use MTD morely heavily (and impose more costs on the district), also tend to pay more. Again, the fee structure of both the sanitary district and MTD are remarkably similar, even though they may appear quite different from each other at first glance.
There is one substantial difference between these two districts in the structure of their revenue flow: MTD imposes a flat tax on property that is proportion to the value of that property. Thus, the affluent tend to pay more than the poor because the former usually owns more valuable taxable property than the latter.
The local sanitary district, on the other hand, imposes a flat tax on households regardless of the income of that household and the value of its property. This is a very regressive system of taxation. It is similar to the head tax that was imposed on peasants during the Middle Ages, and what Margaret Thatcher had imposed on the poor in Great Britain. Thus, the "maintenance fees" of the sanitary district (in reality a flat household tax) imposes a heavier burden on poor households in central city areas than on affluent households in suburban areas. This type of tax is more regressive than the property tax of the MTD. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Oct 2005
|
$3 gas? That's cheap compared to what the rest of the world pays. In Japan they laugh at Americans whining about high gas prices. Too bad transit is so backward.
All I gotta say is, I'm glad I live within an easy walk to my job. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Oct 2005
|
Mr. Hilty: I'm pleased to see that you've considered my comments in such detail. Although I still believe that aspects of your analyses are inaccurate in the context of the UCSD, I acknowledge that you are clearly also familiar with the relevant history and have thought a lot about the economic issues, even if we have reached different conclusions by looking at more or less the same data.
A few final comments (since we've gotten far afield from the CUMTD at this point):
First, I am not expressing any opinion on the CUMTD. I am simply trying to address what I believe to be misconceptions about the UCSD.
Second, you are correct that saying "connection fees fund expansion whereas service fees fund operations" is a simplification. It would be more correct to say "track" rather than "fund"; in that the levels at which connection and service fees were set in the recent Long Range Plan were based on anticipated expansion and operational needs.
Third, as I stated in my first post, a large portion of the capital expenditures in the LRP are not for expansion, but for rehabilitation--in effect, large lump-sum replacement and renewal costs that should have been factored into rates in the past 35 years, but weren't because the UCSD did not raise rates throughout this period. In effect, the UCSD "used up" the equipment that was installed under the grants you referred to, without establishing a rate system sufficient to ensure the availability of funds for its eventual replacement. I stand by my earlier contention that connection fees correlate with current expansion costs, whereas service fees correlate with operational costs, assuming that one considers (as I do) the cost of ongoing facility rehabilitation to fall under operations rather than expansion.
Fourth, as an observation on urban planning in general, I strongly concur with your statements that negative externalities tend to bear disproportionately on the poor. However, I think it's a stretch to indict the UCSD in that regard--both UCSD plants were relatively remote at the time they were built, and the areas "downwind" of the Southwest plant are in fact some of the more affluent areas of Champaign. It's a challenge to manage sewage flow in a cost-effective manner in a nearly completely flat service area, and I think an objective observer would conclude that the siting of the UCSD plants is, as I stated originally, more a matter of geography and topography than politics.
Finally, service fees charged by the UCSD are not a "flat tax" as you characterized them. Service fees are based on sewer usage (deduced from water usage, since sewage isn't metered) . I'm less familiar with the Sewer Benefit Taxes which are collected by the municipalities and pay for the street and collector sewers (which within muncipal limits are not the province of the UCSD), but my recollection is that at least in Urbana those taxes are also usage-based. New-connection fees are indeed fixed rather than proportional to the value or square footage of the home, which you could characterize as regressive, but only if you can show that the residents of large homes flush more than the residents of small homes. The older areas of the city which you assume are easier to serve based on density also tend to have older street sewers with higher stormwater infiltration, so again it's more complicated than it might appear to establish a clear revenue or expense bias in favor of any particular region or class of customer.
I believe that the revenue/expense structure of the UCSD is equitable, and it sounds like you don't, which presumably means that we'll never reach consensus. I think this public discussion has given anyone who cares more than enough information from which to draw their own conclusions, and I appreciate your in-depth comments. I'll let everyone go back to talking about mass transit now, if they're so inclined, and apologize for the digression. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Oct 2005
|
This is probably my last comment about sanitary district issues. I never anticipated that such a detailed discussion on this topic would arise in response to my defense of the expansion of the mass transit district.
-----------------------------------------------
Well, the crux of this issue appears to depend on the extent to which connection fees in high growth areas actually pay for expansion of capacity. If they pay for the entire cost of expansion, then my argument that low-growth urban areas in Champaign-Urbana subsidize high-growth suburban areas (such as Savoy) is without merit. On the other hand, if maintenance fees subsidize the expansion of capacity , at least in part, then this argument has merit, and Savoy can be criticized for failing to reciprocate the assistance it has received from Champaign-Urbana to facilitate its growth.
I don't have access to the financial information to determine which of these two possibilities is actually true in the case of the UCSD sanitary district. Because BOTH connection fees and maintenance fees were increased at the time the SW plant was expanded, I assumed that they were BOTH involved in underwriting the expenses of the expansion. This does not seem unreasonable to me, although I am willing to admit that a careful examination of the appropriate financial information for UCSD may fail to verify this assumption.
Christopher Alix: "However, I think it's a stretch to indict the UCSD in that regard--both UCSD plants were relatively remote at the time they were built, and the areas "downwind" of the Southwest plant are in fact some of the more affluent areas of Champaign."
Yes, I agree that the negative externalities of the NW plant doesn't have any bearing on Savoy and the SW plant. I was thinking about the general case, which is often true. Your comment that affluent SW Champaign is "downwind" from the SW plant is a counterexample to the general case that poor neighborhoods often bear negative externalities from infrastructure development. However, it supports my contention that Savoy is attempting to create a parasitic relationship with Champaign-Urbana by covertly exporting a negative externality of its development to the city! Its possible that the newer sewer treatment plants are less smelly than the older ones.
Christopher Alix: "Finally, service fees charged by the UCSD are not a "flat tax" as you characterized them."
Very well, I am willing to grant you this point as a newspaper article led me to believe that the situation was otherwise. However, even if there is some consideration of actual usage of the sanitary district's services on a per household basis, it can still be regarded as a regressive tax because it disregards household income and the value of tangible property. It's like imposing a head tax on children who are sent to the public schools in a given school district, which would impose a severe burden on the poor. Therefore, my comparison still applies. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Oct 2005
|
Mr. Hilty's support of all things MTD has been an interesting adventure in half-truths and mythology. Now that the dust has settled, I must throw my measly 2 cents in.
Having researched some of the claims made for taxing Savoy, I have discovered:
Because of Savoy's relatively small size, village leaders were able to survey most of the residents of the area. The survey came back 97% of the residents of Savoy vigorously oppose MTD service in their area and oppose this tax. The News Gazette cannot be blamed for not running the voice of those who support the tax, because, frankly, that animal is a rare breed and barely exists. The tax, by the way, is going to be about $200 a year for a standard home in Savoy. An adult year-around MTD bus pass costs $180.00. Residents of Savoy will not be offered unlimited free rides on the MTD if they were to pay the tax.
No one can vote for or against an MTD Board member to be an MTD Board member. Mr. Hilty is quite correct that the County Board members appoint the MTD board. However, it would be foolish for voters to throw their county board members out of office for the flawed transportation policies created by the MTD board. If that is what Mr. Hilty calls public accountability, that ain't much to change the minds of the MTD Board. In fact, the MTD has a nasty little way of holding all their public input meetings at 3:00p.m. on random weekdays when the public is least available to offer such input. Doesn't matter much anyway, because the MTD has shown an arrogant disregard for the citizens they serve. Once the MTD Board has made up its mind on how to spend more government money on fancy transportation gizmos (although daycare doesn't seem to transportational, though I get what they are trying to do), the public be damned if they were to oppose, such is the MTD's attitude. |
|
Re: And Another Thing(s).... |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2005
|
To continue.... Mr. Hilty explains the ridership of the MTD is supposed to be a mega-ridership of something like 10,000,000 riders per year. What is never discussed, if that number is true, is how the MTD has inflated its ridership by taxing every U of I student, every semester (I think it's $35 a semester), whether they ride the bus or not. In exchange, the MTD is giving free rides to every student upon presentation of their student I.D. The result has been students using the bus for very short rides whereas before they walked to their classes, biked to their classes, and did not pay the $1.00 fare like everyone else does. The study has yet to be done measuring how far the students are really traveling. If the MTD continues their whining about how crowded their buses are, they can drop the semester fee they collect and let those that ride the bus, pay for the bus. You'll see the buses empty very quickly were the students forced to pay the fare like everyone else. What Volk and Costello are doing by making it ever so easier for students to hop a bus for a quick trip down the street is to inflate their ridership numbers so as to qualify for more federal dollars. "See? We have as many riders as Santa Fe, New Mexico, a town twice our size!" so saith the MTD gods. But if the market were really determining the ridership, the MTD could never justify the obsene number of buses it's slamming into the core campus area, all the while, we see the MTD's safety record continue to decline as its obsession to get every walking student on its bus increases.
When Bill Volk proposed that residents of Savoy pay about $200 bucks a year for bus service to the Village Trustees of Savoy, he was confronted by the fact 97.9% of all Savoy residents own a car, if not several. Other than a few students from Sterling Court and the good residents of Parkview Apartments, no one else in Savoy would ever use the bus, especially all the newly taxed homeowners. Well, um,....Volk stammered,....uh, Savoy folks could sell their cars. Yeah, right. So like it or not, Volk is offering a service that no one will use. Would they use it were the buses running in Savoy? Survey says,... no, they would not. Unlike police, school, sewage, fire protection, ...stuff that benefits everybody in health and safety, Savoy would be paying for something it would not utilize.
Well, maybe, as Hilty claims, Savoy ought to pay for the less congested traffic conditions they enjoy in the Champaign-Urbana area thanks to the good 'ol MTD? C'mon. Really. Do you really believe traffic congestion is less in Champaign-Urbana nowadays? Traffic congestion is a product of design. Build a North Prospect, and the cars will come. The cities and the U of I have been schitzophrenic in their transportation planning. Wringing their hands about the impending congestion and suburban sprawl out of one side of their mouth, and then approve another Clint Atkins/Peter Fox Suburban wet dream or build another multimillion dollar parking garage with the other side of their mouth. The fact is C-U continues to have one of the best commute times in the State: about 16 minutes. That has had little to do with the MTD. The MTD ridership from 1990 to 2000, according to the U.S. Census, shows a 3% decrease in the number of people commuting on the bus. Right now, about 28% of the C-U population does not ride in a car. They either bus, walk, or bike. Volk and Costello claim their goal is to bump that up to 35%. What has that got to with Savoy? Nothing. And is that a problem that can only be solved by using large buses? The obvious solutions to decreasing traffic congestion are solutions the U of I and the Cities are afraid to promote, lest they make the U of I less attractive to Chicago Suburbanites. Don't allow undergraduates to bring their cars. Finish the bike paths. Connect the downtowns and campus with bike paths. Oh. That doesn't cost near as much as a new bus or a new tram or a new daycare center. Funny how the MTD never proposes anything that doesn't serve its own interest.
Hilty brings up the Blessed Tram. Ah yes. Now the MTD taxing of Savoy and everywhere else begins to make sense. For Volk and Costello know that in order to qualify for that big fatty Federal Transportation grant ($220 million dollars) they pay Schlictman and Associates in Chicago $13,000 a month to lobby for; they will need to show the Federal Transportation Administration that it can maintain the Tram every year after it's built. $200 a house from growing subdivisions would help. There is no other explanation why the MTD wants to tax them. It surely is not because they need bus service.
While I think Mr. Hilty has the best of intentions, and talking about city planning and transportation is a very good thing; the MTD has been off course for the last 7 years, ever since it's foray into retail real estate went kablooey with the Intermodal Transportation Terminal thing. They have been contaminated with the prospect of more federal funds for more gimmicky goodies our cities don't need. The MTD has made up its mind it will build a tram no matter what, (they are approaching the $2 million dollar level in their "exploration" of the question) and is willing to rely on half-truths and gentrification to git'r done. The taxing of Savoy is a symptom of the MTD's overeaching ambitions and utter contempt for the people they serve. The tram, which would be the largest infrastructure project in the history of C-U, is only 17 votes away (majority votes of both city councils for new tax purposes and the BOT at the U for more student fees.) and will not ever be voted on by the public. Asked repeatedly, if the tram is such a good idea, then why not put it to a county wide referendum, Volk mumbles incomprehensibly they don't need to do that and it would be cumbersome to have the voters vote on every MTD decision. Even when those decisions get wildly expensive and ineffective.
For now, the tram promises to be a racist, ill-conceived, unsafe, elitist, gentrifying, overpriced elephant that will do none of the good things environmentalists are being sold. Sad but true. Public transportation is an important tool to get off the Oil Dragon taking our country down the way of Rome. I wish it weren't run by old men looking to leave a lasting legacy unto themselves. |
|
Another Blindman and His Elephant |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Oct 2005
|
Before I begin to address Local Yocal's long-winded rant against CUMTD, I have a suggestion for him: Get rid of that damned motor vehicle! The sooner this is done, the more clearly you will think about MTD-related issues and the better off you be in long run.
-------------------------------------
I'll be blunt: Private motor vehicles don't belong in cities. They invariably degade and depersonalize the urban environmment. Some of the best and most livable cities in the world (Europe has many fine examples, e.g. Venice) were created before the automobile ever existed. Many of these still exist without automobiles, at least in their central urban areas.
Here in America, most people have become addicted to their motor vehicles and can't imagine life without them. As a result, ALL of our nation's cities have suffered a serious invasion by the motor vehicle fleet with catastrophic results. If you want to continue your addiction with the automobile and log another 20,000-30,000 miles on it next year, that's fine: But first move to one of those redneck small towns or the thinly populated countryside and stay out of urban areas so that city people like me can live in relative peace, safety, and comfort. That's all were asking for: Just a few small places on this side of the planet where we can escape from those accursed cars! Is that asking too much?
To revive our nation's cities, it is necessary to repel the Imperialism of the Car Culture.
--------------------------------------
As my time permits, I will attempt to address other issues that Local Yocal has raised. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Oct 2005
|
Exactly John.
So every time Clint Atkins is to expand his empire, every time the U of I or the City of Champaign builds more car parking decks, everytime a new subdivision gets planned with winding roads and three car garages, every time another Walmart or Strip Mall gets built to the perimeter, I expect you to deliver the above at the public podium. Good luck trying to stop the Convention Center/Golf Course in Peter Fox's Research Park. These developers are going for it: a southern march to Williard Airport- complete subdivision in-fill. Which is why Volk wants a piece of the pie now while no one notices. The revenue will only grow, one house at a time.
I personally walk everywhere I go and I agree the car is taking us off the cliff to ruin.
Developers, City Council members, and the U of I Board of Trustees have never had sufficient testicular growth when it comes to the Almighty Consumer Choice- the almighty car. For example, I expect you don't agree with the City of Urbana's choice to issue building permits to allow O'Brien's car dealership to do a $20 million dollar expansion next to the Farm and Fleet, right? You are going to propose the cities put a local $1.00 tax on every gallon of gasoline to discourage gas guzzling, like you would for cigarettes, right?
I see four moves, that don't involve a $300 million Tram Scam and the higher taxes that go with it, that could get us headed in the right direction:
1) Finish the bike paths and connect the campus to both downtowns.
2) Don't allow undergraduates to bring their cars down here anymore. They don't need them.
3) Seal off the Campus Core area from Pennsylvania to Springfield and First Street to Lincoln Avenue from car traffic. Make it all pedestrian and bike.
4) Quit issuing building permits to the perimeter of the cities that require cars to get to and fro.
But you won't see a single civic leader call for those common sense proposals. Probably because the sales taxes from all the car-generated revenues are too enormous to turn down for fine schools and roads and policemen like ours.
And by the way, is the U of I researching a way to retrofit standard automobiles with equipement that will burn biodiesel or hemp? No? Gee, why is that? Is that because the Government is headed by an actor. No wait. That was the 80's. Um,...oh, maybe someone representing the Texas Oil Cartel, perhaps?
Regardless, John, I am glad you posted your article and got a thread going that is an important topic. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Oct 2005
|
Okay, here it goes . . . .
--------------------
Local Yocal: "Mr. Hilty's support of all things MTD has been an interesting adventure in half-truths and mythology. Now that the dust has settled, I must throw my measly 2 cents in."
Considering the length of your overall response, I'd say its closer to $20, not 2 cents. You undervalue your labor.
Local Yocal: "The survey came back 97% of the residents of Savoy vigorously oppose MTD service in their area and oppose this tax. The News Gazette cannot be blamed for not running the voice of those who support the tax, because, frankly, that animal is a rare breed and barely exists."
This wasn't a scientific survey and its results aren't necessarily reliable. Do you really believe that 97% of the voters in Savoy would reject the MTD annexation in a referendum? After observing the political process for several decades, I have never observed such a lopsided outcome, except in third world countries where the election results were rigged.
Many people who rely on CUMTD for transporation are unlikely to be participants in such surveys. For example, how many adolescents in Savoy who aren't old enough to drive a car participated in this survey? Very few of them, if any, I suspect.
Even if it is true that 97% of the residents in Savoy oppose MTD annexation, this doesn't necessarily imply that their opinions should be respected. Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? If 97% of the residents in Savoy oppose the entry of African-Americans into their village, their opinions should be respected?
To some extent, I view the MTD-annexation as a civil rights issue. By refusing MTD-annexation, Savoy is essentially banning MTD-dependent residents in Champaign-Urbana from entering the village of Savoy. Should this be allowed? I don't think it should.
Let's consider people with disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA is a Federal law that has as its objective the full integration of people with disabilities into the life of their communities so that they won't be institutionalized and segregated from everyone else. This is what routinely occurred in the past and still continues to some extent into the present, notwithstanding ADA. Savoy's refusal to be annexed by CUMTD could be viewed as a disability rights violation under ADA as they're essentially banning MTD-dependent people with disabilities from entering their village and gaining access to its public accomodations..
In this regard, it makes little difference if the large majority of residents in Savoy are hostile to MTD-annexation, it is still illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities. Under ADA, all public accommodations are required to be accessible to people with disabilities. This is the reason so much money has been spent in making buildings wheelchair accessible. This also includes the modification of city buses so that they are accessible to people in wheelchairs. However, if those wheelchair accessible city buses aren't allowed to travel anywhere because they've been banned from communities like Savoy, then what's the point of modifying public accomodations to make them wheelchair accessible? Without a transportation system in place to deliver the people in wheelchairs to these public accomodations in the first place, such modifications to buildings under ADA make no sense!
Local Yocal: "Doesn't matter much anyway, because the MTD has shown an arrogant disregard for the citizens they serve."
You must be referring to those citizens who NEVER use MTD-services and who hate the idea that ANY public money is spent on mass transit (e.g., people like Scott Tapley). I guess the opinions of the rest of us don't count, huh?
However, as I have already indicated, a large percentage of the local population DOES use CUMTD and its services are exemplary. I know this is true because I've used CUMTD as my primary source of transportation for the past 12 years. This is an award-winning mass transit system and you will be hard-pressed to find a better one for a city that is the size of Champaign-Urbana.
Local Yocal:"Mr. Hilty explains the ridership of the MTD is supposed to be a mega-ridership of something like 10,000,000 riders per year."
Yes, that sounds about right.
Local Yocal: "What is never discussed, if that number is true, is how the MTD has inflated its ridership by taxing every U of I student, every semester (I think it's $35 a semester), whether they ride the bus or not. In exchange, the MTD is giving free rides to every student upon presentation of their student I.D. "
This is a very poor anti-MTD argument. First of all, those U of I students have always voted in favor of the MTD transportation fee whenever it appears on the ballot in student elections. The transportation fee was not summarily imposed on them by the MTD board as your comment implies. Nor is it correct to assert that MTD has "inflated its figures." Their ridership statistics reflect the growing demand for their services within the community.
There is nothing unusual or unfair about the agreement that CUMTD has with U of I students. A transportation fee of $35/semester is equivalent to an annual fee of $105/year. This amount is less than purchasing an annual pass on an individual basis ($180/year), but it saves CUMTD enormous trouble in issuing passes because of the high turnover rate of the college student population. Furthermore, it's standard business practice to offer sizable discounts when a service or commodity is purchased on a group basis. Another reason that CUMTD can afford to offer a discount is that some U of I students don't use MTD services even when it is free. In contrast, an individual who goes to the trouble of purchasing an $180 annual pass is virtually guaranteed to use MTD services heavily.
Local Yocal: "The result has been students using the bus for very short rides whereas before they walked to their classes, biked to their classes, and did not pay the $1.00 fare like everyone else does."
Because U of I students have repeatedly voted in favor of the transportation fee in their elections, I fail to see why you or anyone else has the right to dictate how they should use MTD services. After all, they've already paid for these services. As for walking around campus, this method of transportation has become less practical because the U of I campus continues to grow in size -- it takes too much time. Also, many college students live in apartments that are located a considerable distance from campus and so they would want access to MTD services for that reason alone, particularly when campus parking is in short supply and gaining access to such parking costs money anyways.
As for bicycles, that's the most dangerous form of transportation that there is! Even if you're willing to risk your neck in heavy city traffic, you'll be greeeted by the unpleasant surprise of bicycle theft and bicycle vandalism. If you're will to put up with such dangers and silly nonsense, then I applaud your urban endurance, however I must question the soundness of your judgment.
Local Yocal: "What Volk and Costello are doing by making it ever so easier for students to hop a bus for a quick trip down the street is to inflate their ridership numbers so as to qualify for more federal dollars."
They're responding to the demand for MTD services by the people who ride the city buses, which includes college students. If CUMTD is able to capture some extra Federal dollars by providing these services, then so much the better.
Local Yocal: "Volk stammered,....uh, Savoy folks could sell their cars. Yeah, right."
That's perfectly sound advice. The sooner Savoy folks get rid of their cars, the better off they will be in the long run. The private motor vehicle is a money sink-hole that quickly winds up in the junkyard -- why waste one-third of your valuable time and money attempting to maintain such a silly thing? It's much cheaper to rent a car using a credit card for the occasional trip out-of-town.
Local Yocal: "So like it or not, Volk is offering a service that no one will use. Would they use it were the buses running in Savoy? Survey says,... no, they would not. Unlike police, school, sewage, fire protection, ...stuff that benefits everybody in health and safety, Savoy would be paying for something it would not utilize."
First of all, it really doesn't matter whether anyone from Savoy uses the services of CUMTD after it is annexed -- many residents from Champaign-Urbana undoubtedly will use whatever bus routes are set up in Savoy. This is true of all the bus routes that have been set up. If the ridership of a bus route doesn't meet expectations, then its changed to a different route.
However, there will be residents from Savoy who will use CUMTD once it becomes established in the city. This is because Savoy isn't really that different from Champaign and Urbana. And even if it IS different, then it will have to change because we really don't want a little suburb dictating the transportation policies of the greater city. Those residents who are implacably hostile toward MTD services really don't belong in a city -- they should move to Mahomet, St. Joseph, Monticello, or some other place outside of the city, and let the truly urban residents determine the policies of their city.
You see, the development of communities are strongly influenced by the municipal services that are provided and the policies that prevail in the greater metropolitan area. If CUMTD annexed Savoy, this would help to civilize Savoy and drive some of the rednecks out of the area. Then we could implement such small amenities as public sidewalks and trash recycling without having to listen to their endless whining and complaining against anything that seems "too liberal" and "too urban." Eventually, even Savoy will change as it becomes more assimilated by urban culture.
I also question Local Yocal's attempt to justify municipal services on the grounds that it's "stuff that benefits everybody" equally. However, municipal services don't benefit everyone equallly and the costs that are incurred in providing such services to different individuals and organizations aren't equal either.
Consider the vast network of roads, overpasses, bridges, tunnels, and parking lots that's been created to accomodate the needs of people who drive private motor vehicles everywhere. Needless to say, the creation and maintenance of this vast network is monumentally expensive to members of society. Does this vast network benefit everyone in society equally? Absolutely not! This transportation system benefits people who drive private motor vehicles primarily. It certainly wasn't set up to benefit people who use mass transit in cities. If everyone used mass transit in cities, instead of private motor vehicles, then there would be no need for the bulk of this vast network to even exist . . . . . Most of these roadways, bridges, overpasses, tunnels, and parking lots would never have been built because they would not be needed by members of the mass transit society.
Nor do gasoline taxes pay for the construction and maintenance costs of this vast system -- at least not in the USA. At best, these roadway-related taxes pay for about one-half of these costs, while the rest of these costs come out of somebody else's pocket. As for the negative externalities that are associated with this vast roadway network and its infrastructure -- the noise, the pollution, accidental death and injury, degradation of waterways, destruction of land, wars in the Middle East, oil spills in oceans, global warming, superfund toxic waste sites, depletion of non-renewal resources, etc., etc. -- the only group of people who attempt to calcalate these kinds of costs are environmental economists!
And so when I read in the newspaper about the affluent residents in Savoy complaining for the one-hundredth time about the unfairness of imposing mass transit costs on them, give me a break! These people are totally nuts if they think that they haven't already imposed a heavy financial and environmental burden on the rest of us through their reckless car-driving habits! |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Nov 2005
|
I forgot to address the tram issue. The arguments that Local Yocal and other people have used against the tram consist of the following: 1) It's too expensive to build and maintain, which is the reason CUMTD wants to annex Savoy, and 2) It isn't necessary because either too few people would use it or the city buses are adequately meeting the needs of residents.
First, let's consider the cost issue. The critics of the tram like to wring their hands and moan aloud over this one. And the cost of the tram IS expensive. However, what modern transportation system isn't expensive to build and maintain? I dare anyone to name even a single example. And I don't mean bicycle paths and pedestrians on sidewalks, either: We're not running a summer camp for children in the woods! This transportation system has to serve the needs of a modern city.
Let's consider the dominant transportation system that most people rely on in the US: public roadways, private motor vehicles, and their infrastructure. What does this consist of? It is essentially a vast network of roadways, bridges, overpasses, underpasses, tunnels, parking lots, and gas stations that covers the entire continent. Does anyone seriously believe that this is a cheap transportation system to maintain? If so, they should have their head examined!
Now let's consider airports and their jet airplanes. Please don't tell me that there are people out there who believe that flying around the country in a big Jumbo Jet is a cheap and efficient form of transportation! Now let's consider the local version of air travel, Wiilard Airport. If this isn't an example of a White Elephant, then the creature doesn't exist.
All of these transportation systems are heavily subsidized by government. There's no such thing as a market-driven transportation system in this country. It would be more correct to say that our transportation systems are subsidy-driven. The vast network of roadways that many people like to imagine as cost-effective and efficient is heavily subsidized by government at all levels: Federal, state, county, city, and even township!
Nor do gasoline taxes raise enough money to cover the costs of building and maintaining this vast roadway system -- certainly, this isn't the case in the United States. At best, gasoline taxes pay only one-half of these costs, and the rest comes from taxes that are not road-related.
And so far, the negative externalities of building and maintaining this sprawling colossus hasn't been discussed. Well, what are those? Here's a few of the unhappy spin-offs from maintaining the roadway grid for private motor vehicles: 1) Paved over land that could be used for other proposes, 2) incessant noise from motor vehicle traffic, 3) air pollution from these same motor vehicles, 4) flash floods and polluted waterways, 5) oil spills in the oceans, 6) wars in the Middle East, 7) large trade deficits, 8) accidental death and injury from motor vehicle traffic, 9) superfund toxic waste sites, 10) tire dumps, 11) stress-related illness from motor vehicle congestion, 12) financial hardship and bankruptcy from spending too much money on cars! Does the price of gasoline or automobiles take into the consideration the costs of these various externalities? No it does not!
And so, when the cost of the proposed tram is viewed within this context, it doesn't seem nearly as bad.
Another reason why I am unimpressed by the hand-wringing and whining over the cost of the proposed tram is that Champaign-Urbana has had them before! During the time period 1900-1950 (approximately), trams were an important transporation system within the city. No only were the trams operating within the city, they also operated between Champaign-Urbana and neighboring cities, with occasional stops at scenic areas of the countryside where the urban population could relax and engage in recreational activities.
If former city residents in Champaign-Urbana could afford to build tram systems both within and between cities, then we can afford them as well. After all, our ancestors had a lower standard of living than we do and they had access to more primitive and less efficient technology. Quite frankly, it's rather embarassing when local residents make the claim that they can't afford the services their ancestors took for granted. It's tell me that there's something fundamentally wrong with the priorities of our society.
Another shortcoming of the cost-of-the-tram complaint is that these whiners overlook the cost of maintaining heavy bus service around the University and downtown areas. Do they think that maintaining this heavy bus service is free? I'm not an expert in this area, but it's quite possible that the cost of maintaining a tram system is LESS than the cost of maintaining those buses and their routes. Buses break down and they have to be replaced periodically. Also, the labor costs of trams are probably lower than those buses because there are more riders per driver. Because buses are big and heavy, they also wear out the roadways, increasing maintenance costs. For these various reasons, it is by no means clear that a tram system is more expensive to operate and maintain than the current system of city buses in high traffic areas.
As for the 2nd issue, it's totally ridiculous to assume that the tram system will have few riders. Already, U of I students are riding city buses in the University area in droves, and I suspect that a fancy new tram would be even more popular with them. Similarly, there is little doubt in mind that trams will be very popular with local residents in the high traffic corridors in the downtown areas. Who would want to ride a city bus, when there's a sleek and shiny tram available?
Personally, I think some of the local opposition to the tram is grounded in human jealousy -- that's right, jealousy! After all, if U of I students and poor local folks are observed riding around town in fancy trams, it seems to me that this could cause jealousy among people who drive cars or who can't afford a ticket or annual pass for the tram. Those college students and poor folks would have a Jetson-like existence gliding smoothly and quietly around town in those shiny new trams, while everyone else would feel like they had been dumped at the cattle ranch of the Cartwright family in Bonanza. After all, the automobile is modern society's version of the horse, and a house in the suburbs is modern society's version of a log cabin.
City bus service in the high traffic corridors of the University and the two downtown areas has been pushed to its limits. CUMTD has reached a stage where it can no longer accomodate any increase of demand in those areas. For this reason, a tram system should be seriously considered. A monorail system would be even better, although it would doubtlessly precipitate an even louder explosion of protest from those people living in our community who clearly hate mass transit, especially if it appears to be more glamorous and superior to the transportation that they are using. |
|
Re: The Incorporation of Savoy within the Mass Transit District |
by Ralph Langenheim
rlangenh (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Jan 2006
|
|
Several commenters want to ban cars for undergraduate students. Please be informed that students, most of them, are voting citizens and have all of the rights of citizens, excepting liquor consumption. |
|
