|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Hidden with code "Submitted as 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 alternativey. 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. 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 once made me tentative in supporting the tram, now make me less frightened. 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.
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 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 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.
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 promote the arts and modern transportation - to attract workers, rather than just being used the way they currently are - to attract businesses.
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: 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/
|
