The recent NG stories on the CUMTD have focused on the tax levy, but given that its approval was a foregone conclusion, I think the real news has been the District's proposed park-and-ride/daycare facility:
[W]hen the conversation turned to the "park and ride" child care facility, board member Ron Peters said he thinks it's a great opportunity for the district. The district would contract the facility out, and could boost downtown development.
MTD's Director of Market Development Karl Gnadt said he thinks the location for the project at Illinois Terminal is the best of several prospects because it's in a central location and offers the best access to the most bus lines.
The board voted 5-0, with Tom Berns abstaining, to approve a letter of understanding with the city to look into what it would take to complete the project. Board member Yuki Llewellyn was absent.
It also voted 5-0, with Berns abstaining, to work with Ratio Architects to do preliminary architecture and engineering on the project, which could include up to four floors and 80,000 feet of space. The day care would occupy between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet of that, and other tenants would be found for the rest of the space, Volk said. Ratio Architects was chosen from eight firms that submitted proposals for the project, Gnadt said.
More information about the proposed facilty can be found here.
(Disclosure: I work for the Devonshire Group, which submitted a proposal for the architecture and engineering work, and also do politcal work for Congressman Tim Johnson who secured some of the Federal funding for the project.)
Mr. Berns has to feel out of place on this Board. Hopefully with time, he will take representation of us taxpayers seriously unlike the other members.
I find it both unamerican and undemocrat we have to refocus on justify the spending of "FREE" tax dollars from the Federal government because its a foregone conclusion the CUMTD Board will approve yet another increased tax levy on its districts landowners. Is no one else applaud by this?
I am baffled by this project.
- It creates a lot more day care capacity in the community at a time when local day care businesses are probably most fragile (increasing unemployment).
- It draws more cars/traffic/congestion into downtown.
- It also appears to be creating 70,000 sqare feet of excess commercial real estate capacity in downtown at a time when commercial real estate is going to get hammered by closing storefronts and companies/agencies pulling back on their use of CRE.
Why is the City of Champaign and MTD engaging in a project that may contribute to depressing the CRE market in town and possibly hurting local business? Is it for no other reason to spend the earmark?
"It creates a lot more day care capacity in the community at a time when local day care businesses are probably most fragile (increasing unemployment)."
I don't know anything other than my own experience, but the daycare we use still has a waiting list. Most of the facilities we toured in 2007 to choose a provider had waiting lists then, but I don't know how many do now.
Unemployment has ticked up about two points (from 4.9 in 8/07 to 6.7 in 8/08) during that time.
Our daycare also has a waiting list, but I am not too excited about the location of this project. Isn't the whole idea of a park and ride to get traffic out of the core areas? Why not another location outside of downtown, or campus town for that matter, to build this? Does the city own any other land that would be a better fit?
"Isn't the whole idea of a park and ride to get traffic out of the core areas?"
Not necessarily. A park-and-ride can be used in proximity to a mass-transit hub, as they would do here. I'm guessing, but I figured that their strategy was to serve UI faculty/employees who currently drive into campus from SW Champaign or out of town, but would rather drive downtown, park, walk their kid to daycare, and then take CUMTD to campus to work. That's probably a non-trivial number of drivers, but it only needs to be ~250 for the economics of a daycare to make sense.
Even with the parking problems downtown, it's still much easier than parking on campus, and a parking deck on the CUMTD site might make that easier still.
Also, the RFP doesn't specify that the CUMTD would operate the day-care. Just one other option would be that the CUMTD may own the building and lease it to a private-sector operator.
A park-and-ride can be used in proximity to a mass-transit hub, as they would do here.
It also focuses cars in the center of the city, so pre- and post-work trips will be shorter (effectively hub-and-spoke transportation). This way, you drive to downtown, take the bus to the Quad, take the bus back to downtown, then drive to North Prospect after work. Your total mileage is only slightly higher than if you had driven straight from home to North Prospect.
Volk optimizes on Volk goals. It doesn't matter whether the facility makes sense or not. If it increases mtd ridership or funding, then the Volkster (and his yes men) are for it.
If the market wanted 70,000 sf of commercial space, the market would provide it...unless you're talking about commercial space to be occupied by subsidized entities as currently occupy the Illinois Terminal.
Keep in mind that those "free" federal tax dollars come from your income tax.
I'm not clear on why MTD would construct/own the building. Why is MTD injecting itself into real estate development? Shouldn't MTD focus on trasportation?
The extra 70,000 sqft of commercial real estate in this project-- 7 TIMES the space occupied by the proposed day care -- is the statistic that makes it most clear that this is a massive unsustainable waste of taxpayer dollars.
This does not sound at all like a park and ride day care facility. It sounds like a huge piece of commercial real estate, that happens to have a day care inside of it.
I am sure that Devonshire/Ratio/City of Champaign/MTD are overeager to get their paws in this boondoggle.
Apparently it is the job of taxpayers to subsidize commercial real estate development.
How sad.
I really don't understand the concept. Park-and-ride facilities are typically located at the perhipery of a transportation system, NOT at a central hub. Is MTD just *calling* this a park-and-ride project to gain access to federal transit dollars?
To me, it seems more like a commercial real estate development with a totally fraudulent stated purpose.
"I am sure that Devonshire/Ratio/City of Champaign/MTD are overeager to get their paws in this boondoggle."
Devonshire submitted a proposal, but was not awarded the contract, and is not involved in the project.
Shut up and pay up, citizen. That's your only duty. I, for one, hail our new MTD overlords.
Is MTD just *calling* this a park-and-ride project to gain access to federal transit dollars?
It is just so, so hard to turn down earmarks, so you try to make it work with what you have.
This is our Republican Congressman, right after an election that had the GOP tossed out on its ear. Returning to conservative values doesn't work if everyone still feels the need to bring home the bacon.
Imagine how many projects like this there are, nation wide, that wouldn't have a prayer of happening without a handout from Washington.
Which companies have then recieved contracts to design and develop this facility?
Were any of them contributors to Tim Johnson's campaign?
If so, how much did they contribute?
Do any members of the MTD board or City of Champaign have family members connected to the firms chosen to design or develop this project?
Let's follow the money. If the whole thing is clean then let's prove it. There is enourmous potential for fraud here so if there's a rat, let's chase it out into the open.
Thank-you IP for inserting some reality and factual information. Anything to do with MTD usually just drives straight off the tracks on this blog into the land of the irrational with the "We hate MTD" crowd. The RFP, which I am impressed that you read, does specific some market analysis to be done by the private sector and day-care operators would be the ones doing that. As you correctly stated there are not enough spots in daycare centers in the community and having one at the main transit hub makes sense particularly for those people who do not own a car. Such a facility would be a help to the poor workers who have to spend hours on the bus to get their children to daycare and then to their jobs. As stated in the newspaper, the city and MTD appear to be trying to provide transportation options for those who need it most.
Anonymous 5:13--
Why is there then proposed 70,000 additional sqft of commercial real estate in this project, 7 times the size of the proposed day care facility?
Did the RFP mention what the space over and above what is needed for a day care center would be used for? Since the Burnham project is going so well, I guess the City needs another project to sink some money in.
I believe that the city is interested in developing more office space downtown. My understanding is that in order to attract new businesses to the community you have to have existing space that is ready for move-in.
Thank-you IP for inserting some reality and factual information. Anything to do with MTD usually just drives straight off the tracks on this blog into the land of the irrational with the "We hate MTD" crowd. The RFP, which I am impressed that you read, does specific some market analysis to be done by the private sector and day-care operators would be the ones doing that. As you correctly stated there are not enough spots in daycare centers in the community and having one at the main transit hub makes sense particularly for those people who do not own a car. Such a facility would be a help to the poor workers who have to spend hours on the bus to get their children to daycare and then to their jobs. As stated in the newspaper, the city and MTD appear to be trying to provide transportation options for those who need it most.
Another unsigned post written by MTD?
Anonymous 5:13--
Why is there then proposed 70,000 additional sqft of commercial real estate in this project, 7 times the size of the proposed day care facility?
Because that's the MTD way - why have a small taxpayer-funded empire when you can have a large one? It's free money, after all.
Because that's the MTD way - why have a small taxpayer-funded empire when you can have a large one? It's free money, after all.
The city is the one paying for the extra space. Why don't you focus on the elected officials who are working on this for the city?
I believe that the city is interested in developing more office space downtown.
Wait a minute...what is the City of Champaign's component of financing of this project?
If the city is contributing financing to this project, why would they be doing so when they are dipping into the city's cash to buy back adjustable rate muni bonds (from Burnham, parking garage, other infrastructure). Shouldn't they pay down these debts first before incurring more?
The city is the one paying for the extra space.
This is unbelievable to me if it is true. Wow.
The city is the one paying for the extra space.
I keep forgetting that I'm living in a socialist country.
when Tim Johnson annd Durbin first supported this project it was for a park & ride day care center located at the south research park. Since that time there only thing to do with this was give an extention of time to the City to work out another project. I can tell you that Tim didnt know about this project at the MTD site, and dont suppot it. I also feel that most of the Council will not support this project.
"Why don't you focus on the elected officials who are working on this for the city?"
As opposed to...say...the elected officials working for the MTD?
The park and ride funding was meant for a true park and ride, outside the center of the city. Volk dragged his feet and it didn't happen (the part in the N-G about Chesterbrook Academy changing the landscape is totally untrue-Volk was responsible for the park and ride not happening.).
Bringing cars into the urban area and (after your car is already warm) then you are going to take public transportation out? How ridiculous a plan is that? Very unrealistic.And we are going to use how many millions of tax dollars to build more of Bill Volk's empire for, say, 20-30 kids? It sounds more like a ruse to double the size of the building.
I've heard some pretty lame uses of tax dollars but this is up there in dumb. And no, it isn't anti-MTD to criticize this plan. I realize the MTD board is and has always been lemmings for Volk and Costello but we taxpayers aren't as easily hoodwinked.
"Which companies have then recieved contracts to design and develop this facility?
Were any of them contributors to Tim Johnson's campaign?
If so, how much did they contribute?"
Ratio Architects was awarded the preliminary A/E contract by the CUMTD board last week. As far as I know, Congressman Johnson hasn't gotten any campaign contributions from Ratio Architects.
You can view the Ratio Architects principals here (click on People and then Principals). You can view Congressman Johnson's campaign contributors here. You can search for contributions by employees of Ratio here.
Questions on any of Congressman Johnson's earmarks are always welcome. I don't know much about the particulars of this one, because I do political work for him, and earmarks are part of the legislative budget process, and so I don't often know much or anything about them. If you are wondering about this particular one, or the history of it, please feel free to call his Champaign district office at 403-4690.
"Anything to do with MTD usually just drives straight off the tracks on this blog into the land of the irrational with the "We hate MTD" crowd." Nothing like an unsubstantiated belch from the CUMTD with a small reference with the word 'tracks' to their proposed 'light rail system'.
Again, how is the city planning to finance the expansion of 70,000 sqft of commercial real estate downtown, when they are dipping into the rainy day cash fund to delay payment of municipal debt from other infrastructure projects like Burnham, parking garage, etc.?
If the city budget is crunched as has been widely noted by the city itself in the media, how does this expenditure make sense?
Better question, why is the CU MTD allowing the City of Champaign to piggyback this waste on top of their park-and-ride project? Why is the CU MTD presenting it primarily as a park and ride daycare when it seems largely to be just a commercial real estate development?
"Bringing cars into the urban area and (after your car is already warm) then you are going to take public transportation out? How ridiculous a plan is that? "
If the park and ride were at the Research Park everyone would have to drive to get there. And would the UofI really given up enough of that valuable ground to provide the parking? With a daycare at the Illinois Terminal, people in town can ride the MTD to get there and then get on another bus to get to work. Sounds like a good idea to me.
PS I have absolutely no connection to the MTD other than it reliably got me to campus when I was finishing my degree after I got married.
I wonder if anyone realizes that MTD lets City of Champaign employees (who work at 100 Neil) park in their east lot? Apparently, MTD got federal funding for their lot so that it could support users of the federally-funded train station. To get City of Champaign on board to build the train station, they traded away some of the parking which the Federal Government expected train station users to get.
MTD is very crafty with their little shell games.
Tonight I believe that the City is considering a budget amemdment tonight regarding this project. Maybe that will shed some light on their component. If this is for non-government tenants, doesn't that make the government a developer, and is that then taxable to them? Last week the City adopted a policy to cut back on street salt yet they have money for this.
A budget amendment, heh. Where is all of this coming from? Let's also have a budget amendment for free ponies and skittles while we're at it. Our grandkids can pay for it, the little cretins.
So many of our local "leaders" are so out of touch with the reality of the current situation that it boggles the mind.
My experience with Park'n'Ride type setups has been with larger cities where such spots are set up on the periphery and in nearby burbs, mainly for commuters (though often convenient for visitors depending on the circumstances). They generally bring people to the central hub, that also tends to be a major stop for commuters as well (ie business districts, downtown districts, etc), where they can reach their final destination by connecting to another route from that hub.
This plan seems completely backwards from how I've seen Park'n'Ride setups all over the country. Instead of having it on the periphery it is based at the central hub in an area that is already facing serious traffic constraints. Instead of being convenient for commuters and giving them an easy option to utilize the public transportation here in an efficient manner, it seems geared towards encouraging more people to drive to the central hub through a high traffic area.
That said, I've normally seen such things for larger cities, so perhaps there are good reasons why our situation is different and this striking departure from the norm somehow makes sense. But the argument that it would be convenient for UofI folks seems to be a distraction from the problems of this particular location causing other problems in traffic and inefficiency. A Park'n'Ride station somewhere off of south neil/45 that doesn't require them to drive into one traffic heavy / parking restricted hub to avoid another worse one seems more sensical to me while also having the handy bonus of being convenient for those who live in Savoy and other towns further down 45 for both school and other areas served by the MTD. A commuting-centric approach would probably also look towards a Park'n'Ride near the Prospect exit off of I-74 for people coming from Mahomet and other towns outlying in that direction, while also helping students living on the periphery in that direction to do the same to connect to the central hub as opposed to having them drive all the way to it.
Whether or not we're large enough for a typical Park'n'Ride system is a whole other matter of course, along with whether or not using diesel buses reduces the overall efficiency of such a plan (and if so, how much) compared to the more typical rail-based mass transit used by most Park'n'Ride setups I've seen/used. The issue of the daycare center seems like it should be a backburner issue until these other concerns are resolved so it can be determined whether it has any merit after it's being proposed within a transit framework that makes sense.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
If the park and ride were at the Research Park everyone would have to drive to get there.
Hence, the park and ride.
And would the UofI really given up enough of that valuable ground to provide the parking?
They were all onboard.
I know it is PARK and ride. But someone asked why anyone would park their car downtown after it got warm to get on a bus. I was just pointing out they would do the same thing at the Research Park.
And the Illinois Terminal, while technically Downtown, is certainly on the fringe. It's not like people are bringing extra cars to Neil STreet. University is a main thoroughfare with lots of traffic. Most people who would use this facility probably already drive past there anyway.
Go to the City's agenda for tonight--it's fascinating. $30,000 is coming out of the TIF's. The total of federal earmarks and other grants for this is $2,376,370, with a 20% match total from MTD and the City (each will pay 10%). In the meantime, the City can't pay for sewer maintanence, so they're proposing to raise our sanitary sewer fees by 8%. I hope that the alleged conservatives on the Council take a hard look at this. The tax levy is going up as well, I believe, although I'm not sure if that's based on rising assessments or something else.
And the Illinois Terminal, while technically Downtown, is certainly on the fringe.
You can't much more downtown. It most certainly is not considered by Chamapign residents or city officials as fringe. And I agree that the city has more pressing, practical needs than building more office space in a building that is under-utilized now.
And the Illinois Terminal, while technically Downtown, is certainly on the fringe. It's not like people are bringing extra cars to Neil STreet. University is a main thoroughfare with lots of traffic. Most people who would use this facility probably already drive past there anyway.
Wow. So the Illinois Terminal is now considered a fringe development? You can't be serious. And how do you know who most of the people using this are going to be.
There's nothing to debate. This is just Volk trying to further snowball his wasteful little empire.
Moot points now. The city council last night cast their first vote on this issue and took it off the agenda by a vote of 8-0. But it was fun speculating.
The interesting thing was that the City Manager last night asked that the council bills regarding this be removed because he said that funding wasn't in place, and that there was no reason to enter into an agreement if funding was suspect. I don't disagree with that statement, but the City surely didn't find out yesterday that funding was suspect. If funding ever becomes available, I expect this to come back up.