Mass Transit

From yesterday's News-Gazette:

Under the approved agreement, most residential property will not be annexed for 25 years. But all new developments will have to annex into the MTD district once they are annexed into the village and become contiguous with the MTD boundary.

"We're throwing them under the bus," Dykstra said. Even if those individuals know about the tax, Dykstra said, they will not want to pay it. She said now that the agreement has been passed, she hopes to see the village watch over the MTD and challenge the district to prove its services are being used.

Trustee Bill Smith said he had some concerns about the MTD and asked about having a representative work closely with the transit board.

"I'm disappointed because we as a village had the unique opportunity to make MTD accountable in a variety of ways," Dykstra said. "I think we've missed it."

Discuss.

The MTD rejects the Savoy annexation agreement:

Champaign-Urbana's mass transit board on Wednesday unanimously rejected an annexation agreement with Savoy that would have required rebating tax money to the village.

The issue has been left hanging since November, when Savoy's board voted 5-1 to forward an agreement with MTD that changes its annexation map and stipulates that the MTD must reimburse the village for 10 percent of the Savoy property tax payments for 25 years.

The rebated money would be used to repair and maintain roads.

Though MTD did not have a board meeting in December, individual members have been saying for nearly two months that approving the tax rebates would set a dangerous precedent, suggesting to boards in Champaign and Urbana or any future annexation area that they seek infrastructure reimbursement.

CUMTD had a blog post responding to concerns about road damage here.

There was a hearing today in the case of the  Champaign Southwest Mass Transit's petition to not be in the CU Mass Transit District.  (05 CH 206)  In a half hour hearing, Judge Leonhard denied the motion of the City of Urbana to intervene in the case, but granted the same motion to the City of Champaign, based upon their intergovernmental agreement with CUMTD regarding annexations.  Good news for citizens of Urbana who won't have to pay city legal staff to work on a case that has absolutely no bearing on their community.

The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for February 26, 2008. 

The CUMTD has a portion of their website called "Checkpoint" used to counter media reports it finds unflattering or incorrect.  They have two posts up so far. 

The first is a response to a letter-to-the-editor from a Board member of the Champaign Southwest Mass Transit District. 

The second is a response to Savoy's wanting the CUMTD to kick back some property tax revenues from annexed areas to the Village for road repairs:

Providing for community infrastructure is a community responsibility which is almost always paid with public funds.  Whether the funds for road improvements come from taxes collected by the Village or from property taxes collected by the MTD, the public pays the necessary taxes.  That is, the funds come from the same pool of tax money.  Approval of the 10% condition by the Board could be interpreted as a punitive measure designed to cast the MTD in a negative light if the MTD Board of Trustees does not approve the amended agreement.

The travel of transit buses is no more detrimental to the quality of roads than that of garbage trucks, school buses, fire trucks, and other service vehicles. When roads are properly constructed and maintained, the passage of transit vehicles has a negligible impact. It is patently unfair to expect the public transportation provider to “give back” for road repair when providers of other services are not required to do so. Furthermore, a primary avenue of travel for MTD buses would be Route 45, a State of Illinois road whose maintenance is funded by the State.  Also, the MTD does not have such an arrangement with Champaign nor Urbana.

They even have an RSS feed.  (It sounds trivial, but the good people at the State Republican Party haven't figured out feeds yet...)

Hat tip:  It's Matt's World.  Don't worry, Matt - I'm even later to this than you are.  ;-)

The Savoy Village Board is scheduled tonight to vote on an annexation agreement with the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District. While I don't claim to be an expert on the details of the proposal, I understand it would exempt most residential areas from annexation for 25 years. The exeptions would be new development that asks for it and a corridor down Rt. 45. It would also annex some properties...like the grain elevator at Church & 45 into the MTD. Honestly, I don't think many farmers take a bus to a grain elevator. Its a safe statement to say most people in Savoy don't want the MTD service. Whether they wouldn't use it or don't want busses on the street or hate the taxes...those are their reasons. What do you think of the agreement?

As you may have heard by now, Governor Blagojevich has called the legislature back today for another in a long line of special sessions. The problem is, his call to special session only included a bailout for Chicago Area Mass Transit systems. I say that because numerous downstate lawmakers have said they won't support an RTA bailout without a capital plan. Without a capital plan mentioned in the Governor's proclaimation. So what's going to happen? Nothing probably. State government at its finest.

So I pose this question to you: What is more important, a capital bill or a mass transit bailout?

The floor is yours.

From today's News-Gazette:

Scott Garth and Linda Stark are among a select number of Savoy businesses owners whose property, on the east side of U.S. 45, could be annexed immediately by the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District if an annexation agreement with the village is approved.

"I joke and say it's because we're on the wrong side of the tracks," said Stark, owner of Savoy Storage, near the corner of U.S. 45 and Church Street.

Garth's business, Curtis Road Self Storage, sits just north of Stark's near the intersection of Curtis Road and U.S. 45.

But just across U.S. 45, businesses such as Old Orchard Lanes and Links, the Senator's Inn, the Best Western, the Savoy Super Wash, ABC Learning Center, Sonic and the Mobil Gas Station, among others, wouldn't be annexed by the MTD for 25 years.

"This has blown me away," Garth said. "If people are going to pay for this thing in Savoy, everybody needs to pay for it. But (I feel like) they are singling out businesses only to support this. I can understand apartments needing MTD service, but we probably will not ever have anyone get off an MTD bus to store stuff with us. The MTD is not a moving service."

I, for one, welcome our new CUMTD overlords.

Discuss.

From today's Daily Illini:

The village is currently debating the addition of a new bus route along Route 45. Savoy Village President Robert C. McCleary, said the annexation of a new route has been debated for two years.

"Mass Transit District has supplied service to about a third to a half of the community and some business developers have asked to see if Mass Transit could be brought in to other parts."

None of the village's current routes will be affected. Chairman of the Mass Transit District Al Anderson said what will change is that the routes will pass by new developments.

"We will not annex any of the current, call it housing partial, for the next 25 years, but we will have the option on annexing newly built housing and newly built apartments," Anderson said.

Discuss.

This is in today's News-Gazette.

The Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Board voted for a proposed tax levy increase of 4.9 percent Wednesday, down from the original proposal of 7.5 percent.

The $5.6 million levy is up $404,032 from fiscal year 2006-07, when the levy was up 15 percent from the previous year.

Managing Director Bill Volk proposed a 7.5 percent increase, noting that diesel fuel costs have gone up by more than $1 million dollars over the last two years.

The board voted 5-1 for the levy, a government's formal request for property taxes. Board Chairman Al Anderson voted against it.

"There are things in the budget that board members may not be aware of," Anderson said this morning. "Bill Volk asked for what he thought he needed."

Five percent is still a large increase, but it's better than eight percent.

Discuss.

From today's News-Gazette:

Since the southwest district's petition varies from Tapley's only in one paragraph, Leonhard wrote, and because the district did not exist at the time of Tapley's first action, it was reasonable for the two parties to join in one effort now.

Vaughan said "once again Judge Leonhard has demonstrated that he is both a thoughtful and scholarly judge who wants to rule on the matter based on law rather than emotion."

The judge ruled that the cities of Champaign and Urbana cannot yet intervene on behalf of the C-U MTD.

"The court cannot properly determine the viability of the requests for intervention until such time as the C-U MTD has itself answered the amended complaint of Mr. Tapley and the complaint of the CSWMTD," Leonhard wrote.

The next court date is at 1 p.m. Dec. 28 in Leonhard's courtroom.

Discuss.

Interesting:

The Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District is looking into renewing its service contract with the University before the current contract expires on August 19, 2008.

Negotiations will only begin after the completion of an ongoing study analyzing how MTD buses are moving people through campus, concentrating on where riders board and exit the buses. The study will give University administrators and MTD staff a better idea of how to run buses through campus and keep the safety of the campus community at the forefront of the service goal, said Pam Voitik, director of campus services at the University.

"We want to provide good service but service that is also safe," she said.

And note the sub-head:  "Student deaths will not factor in UI's decision process"

The News-Gazette gave the CUMTD a quarter-page guest commentary to respond to Sue Schimmel's letter to the editor, and since they refused to print Sue's rebuttal you can only read it here on IP:

I am sorry that Mr. Anderson feels discouraged by criticism of the CU-MTD.  I am not sure what issues he feels we strayed from, but allow me to be clear where the "vocal minority" stands on the issues we feel need investigation.

1. We simply don't understand how a "vocal minority" can be blamed for the lack of communication between the MTD board and those that want and need MTD service.  Where buses are needed most (Public Health District, Plastipak, the North Prospect area as examples), a deaf ear is the result.  The MTD professes great interest in serving the community, but they manage to slight those that need it most and force themselves upon those that don't use the service.  It seems that listening is not one of the MTD board's fortes.  A very vocal MAJORITY told the MTD board that service was not wanted or needed in certain areas, but the result was forced annexation.  They insist that they know what's best for every element of our community, yet areas where buses are needed and wanted, service is lacking.  It stands to reason (also not an MTD forte) that we question their motivations.
2. Mr. Anderson tells us that we should feel good that the Federal government regularly reviews MTD operations.  Frankly, Mr. Anderson, the Federal Government doing anything does not make me feel good.  Rather "the vocal minority" would like to see some local investigation of what we feel are glaring inadequacies--the wastefulness and inefficiency of empty buses running where they are not needed, rate fare increases, and the highest tax rate of any MTD in the state of Illinois.  How are all of the millions and millions of dollars they receive from taxpayers each year being spent?
3. The MTD's mantra that the "vocal minority" are uncaring, self-serving members of this community who care not a whit about the "visually impaired, physically disabled and those who choose to use" the MTD is an offensive, unfair insult.  There are many in "the vocal minority" who give generously to wonderful community organizations that benefit the entire CU community.  There are also many more of the "vocal minority" who give of their time and talents to a multitude of community organizations.  In this case, Mr. Anderson, you don't have the "full story."  And if you think we don't pay taxes to support the MTD, I ask you where the $210,333 comes from that Unit 4 pays annually to the MTD to transport students?  Where does the $12.5 million come from that the State of Illinois gives you?  Where does the Federal grant money you receive each year come from?  All of that money is OUR money, OUR tax dollars, OUR contribution to the MTD.  We are tired of being painted as "self-serving" community members by the MTD board!  To imply that we are shirking our responsibility to this community simply because we don't want the CU-MTD in our area is ridiculous.
4. "The vocal minority" is pleased that the MTD can brag about the fact that 94% of 54% of households in CU are satisfied with the MTD.  I wonder if the parents of the most recently killed student are among that group?  Let me remind you of another set of statistics.  The areas which contain the "vocal minority" voted 79% to 21% to establish our own MTD district.  Why?  Because we know we can assess our areas needs and serve the very few who need public transport FAR more economically and efficiently that the CU-MTD.  The "vocal minority" does not believe in taxation without representation, a concept on which this country was founded.  We put a question on the ballot and people voted to fund our own MTD.  That happened before we were forcibly annexed into the CU-MTD district.
5. I strongly question that the CU-MTD should brag about "reduced congestion" and "improved air quality."  My neighbor and I carpool to the North Prospect area and on our way stop at the Community Recycling Center to drop off our plastic, glass, cardboard, tin, magazines and catalogs. I suggest we are being far better stewards of the environment than the numerous empty MTD buses we see on our way spewing fumes, wasting fuel, and causing traffic backups!

Constructive criticism is the way most people change their bad habits.  I ask that the CU-MTD take this criticism to heart and start to listen to ALL elements of the community, make a public accounting of every tax dollar they receive, and stop making negative references about "the vocal minority" who are sick and tired of being slandered simply because we choose to question the aggressive behavior (forced annexations) of the MTD board.

--Sue Schimmel, Champaign

From today's News-Gazette:

The board's July 18 study session has been canceled, making a July 25 public information meeting the first opportunity for residents and business owners to comment on the document. The July 25 public meeting will begin at 7 p.m., prior to the board's regular meeting.

Under the proposed agreement:

– Most residential areas in the village would fall under a 25-year period of nonannexation by the MTD. However, property that falls under this category could potentially be annexed with a petition from a coalition of residents or a homeowners association requesting MTD service.

– Property in the area of U.S. 45 could be annexed by the MTD any time after the approval of an agreement. Most of this property is in municipal territory and allows for businesses like Wal-Mart and multifamily residences like the Village at Colbert Park and the Courtyards at Prairie Fields to have MTD access.

– Property outside municipal boundaries could be annexed by the MTD after it has been annexed into the village and as it becomes contiguous with MTD boundaries.

– The MTD would not be allowed to provide service in Savoy for the Unit 4 school district.

Discuss.

Ok, i am a current user of MTD. I have no complaint against MTD. As someone with no vehicle currently, i rely on MTD to get me to work and

other important areas and places. I have never had any problems with MTD. The drivers are always courteous and get me where i need to go

on time.

My beef with the folks of Southwest Champaign is that your area is the fastest growing, and new businesses are starting there. Why

should their not be a bus line on where the businesses are, NOT the residential areas? Why should people be penalized because for

whatever reason, they have to rely on the bus for their transportation. Should we be allowed to enjoy your area businesses? As far as Savoy

goes, Savoy has always been part of MTD. I used to live in Winfield Village and rode the MTD to school and back. The MTD serves 
Savoy already. Buses run to the movie theater and the airport. Why would Savoy need it own transit system when its so small that

only one bus would be needed? That sounds like more like a waste of taxpayer dollars than the annexing of southwest champaign.

im actually in favor of expanding service as long as Champaign continues to expand. Its the cost of urban sprawl. Don't like mass

transit in your area, then stop growth. Im in favor of growth and more opportunity, so im willing to support more buses in our area.

I am opposed to the City of Urbana getting involved and will voice my opposition at the next council meeting.

Urbana looks to follow the Champaign City Council's decision last week to join the CUMTD in it's legal battles against the CSWMTD.

Urbana will likely join Champaign in attempting to intervene in a lawsuit over the creation of the Champaign Southwest Mass Transit District.

Meeting as the committee of the whole, the Urbana council, in a 6-0 voice vote, directed city staff to draw up a motion to intervene in the lawsuit. The issue will come up for a formal vote at the council's July 9 meeting. The Champaign council authorized legal intervention last week.

Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing, who is attending an out-of-town convention, asked the council to consider intervention in a June 20 memo.

This was inevitable.  There's also this gem:

Charlie Smyth, D-Ward 1, said that southwest Champaign residents drive more to get to the central city and require a greater investment in city streets. If residents there want to go strictly to user fees, he said, they should also pay a carbon tax for their negative impact on the environment.

There's nothing quite like an Urbana Council member telling Champaign residents they should be paying more.

Here is the NG article:

Three council members said the city needs to support the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District and can't allow some residents to opt out of property taxes for some services.

Council member Tom Bruno said cities like Champaign-Urbana, with a university with 45,000 students, require a mass transit system.

"Just because you're not riding a bus is not sufficient justification, in my opinion, for not paying your fair share," he said.

Council member Marci Dodds said that when voters in southwest Champaign voted in March 2006 to create the Champaign Southwest Mass Transit District, they were voting for "secession, pure and simple."

"We can't be a great city if we start splintering into smaller groups ... and end up cherry picking what city services we want," she said.

Feinen was the only Council Member to vote against intervention.

The Champaign City Council has on its agenda a Resolution Authorizing the Intervention into Cases Involving the Creation of the Southwest Transit District [sic].  You can read for yourself the WHEREAS's to see the reasoning behind the City's desire to intervene.  All of the basis for the City's intervention is predicated upon the assertion that the CSWMTD board is determined not to provide transportation services--clearly a matter of opinion and not substantiated by any CSWMTD board members. 

I'm not an attorney, so I don't understand how the City has any standing intervening in my lawsuit against CUMTD--regardless of whether the CSWMTD chooses to intervene (to me, the CSWMTD has an obvious and legitimate interest in an intervention).

Maybe the CUMTD feels its case is weak and/or the law is so vague they think that believe having the political support of another municipality will help them curry favor with the court? 

The City's intervention may be irrelevant, though, because the questions to be decided by the court are: 1) is the CUMTD's annexation power constitutional (forced annexation without any public petition or vote)? and 2) can the CSWMTD district's voters' rights be disenfranchised by an intentional act by CUMTD to thwart a referendum process to create a separate transit district that began before the CUMTD started their annexation process?

These questions have nothing to do with whether the CUMTD's actions are consistent with the City's agenda, plans or opinions.

Last week the News-Gazette reported that the Village of Savoy had negotiated a deal with the CU Mass Transit District on future annexation into the MTD.  It’s hard to understand just why the Village of Savoy feels like they need to cut a deal with the CU Mass Transit District.   The news coverage of the deal doesn’t particularly give details about why, except for one suggestion that developers would like the district, which is interesting because developers won’t pay the taxes, and Savoy has had booming growth in the areas of the Village that exclude the MTD.

I suspect that it is motivated by a couple things.

First, the MTD adopted an adversarial position toward the Village.  When that happens just about anywhere in government, it seems that there are always some number of lawmakers  who want to compromise with anyone who brings a dispute before them.  It’s part of the “can’t we all get along” school of governance.  The News-Gazette article calls it “middle ground”. Adopting that philosophy gives inordinate power to those seeking change to the status quo.  I have seen nothing that makes a case for a need for the Village of Savoy to adopt this proposal. 

Second, I believe that there is a presumption by some, especially government administrators, that mass transit is a “good” that any “progressive” village or city will have.  I have seen nothing in the discussions about this proposal that informs the public as to why this will somehow be a benefit to the Village of Savoy.  And even if there is some thought that it will benefit the Village I certainly haven’t seen any hard numbers presented that support that claim.  Villlage Board member Jan Niccum suggests that this will help the Savoy Wal-Mart remain competitive with the Champaign and Urbana Wal-Marts.  How many people take the bus to Wal-Mart in Champaign each week?  Wouldn’t that number at least be interesting to know?

Is the Village going to go ahead and add this substantial tax burden to their citizens without any proof that there will be a benefit.  Taken another way, what could the Village do with the tax dollars that will be given to the MTD?

If the benefits that will accrue to Savoy from this deal are so great, it should be easy for the supporters of the deal to show the residents of Savoy how.

A massmail was sent to all students on campus inviting them to participate in an online survey for miPLAN. By calling it miPLAN (pronounced my plan), the plan will have more credibility than if it were called theirPLAN.

The survey is here.

Here is a sample of questions:

11. What was the most recent week-day on which you had class, had to use the library, lab (etc.) or go to work?

12. On the very first trip on that most recent week-day for academic or work purposes (i.e. not including going out to coffee or breakfast or meeting friends), how did you get from your residence hall or on-campus apartment to that location?

Now, question 12 comes after 10c.

10c. In the past month, how have you most often gone from your off-campus residence to the campus?

I live off campus (And the survey knew that, because it asked in a multiple-choice question), so I'm not sure how they would like me to answer question 12.

Question 29 is a good one. I have a feeling the results will be used to ask for more money:

29. For commuting: Suppose that an CU-MTD bus ran every 30 minutes, came within a block or two of where you live and ran directly to within a block or two of your campus or other local destination, that it ran frequently and took no more than 1 ½ times as long as the same trip by car. Thinking realistically, how likely would you be to use it to get around campus or Champaign-Urbana once a week or more?

Question 40 asks if you would be more likely to bus or bike to campus if there were "small cars to rent by the hour on or near campus" or a "Guaranteed Ride Home (for example a free taxi) if you had an emergency during the day"

The last question is more preaching than a question.

And the final question …. For the sake of controlling traffic congestion as the Champaign/Urbana area grows, reducing the number of people who drive alone is a high priority.41a. In your own words, what is the main reason that you ride the bus, carpool, vanpool, bike or walk to your primary campus destinations?

Having gone through the survey, it seems there are many questions like "If the MTD were better, would you use it more?" I think it's clear people will tend to answer yes, and those responses will be used to ask for more funding.

There were no questions about a tram and no questions about if students are worried a bus will hit them as they walk to class.

Anyway, it looks like anyone can see the survey. I hope it doesn't mess up their results if people look at it.

From an email sent to me by Scott Tapley:

The CSWMTD will be holding a public hearing to obtain voter feedback in regard to a proposed tax referendum.  The primary intital use of thetax proceeds would be to fund the lawsuit against the CUMTD for thepurpose of undoing the annexation of the territory within the CSWMTD'sboundaries. 

 

Date:  February 8

Time:  7PM

Place:  Windsor Road Christian Church, Champaign

 

If you live within the CSWMTD boundaries and have an opinion as to how the CSWMTD should be funded, whether you are for or against a tax referendum, or you are merely interested in hearing more about it, please attend this meeting.