Those who live in Illinois who have been tracking our in-state political news over the last year may know that a battle has been going on for the last year over the funding crisis at the Chicago area transit agencies. Last week, the legislature and the governor finally passed and signed an agreement that increases the sales tax in Cook County by 0.25%, calls for an increase in the City of Chicago’s real estate transfer tax, and provides for additional state funding from existing general revenue. An overview of the new agreement is here at the Chicago Tribune’s Red Eye CTA Blog.
I am not bringing this up to comment on the details of the deal–many found fault with the fact that user fees (the cost of a bus or ‘L’ ride) are not going up at all, and quite a few people thought the governor’s last-minute call for free rides for seniors was unnecessary. I’ll leave those arguments for other people, or at least another time. Here is an opinion expressed in a comment on the Red Eye CTA Blog that caught my eye:
yeah, have a nice commute on the backs of us millions of taxpayers who do NOT take public transit! It’s like a curse on area drivers! And while everyone else pays more to get around the CTA has no fare increase! Let’s send these idiots a message and shop outside the Regional Taxation Authority boundaries!
I am a great believer in user fees to cover the lion’s share of most government services. As an occasional user of the CTA (I use the system for general transport, but not on a daily basis for commuting. My wife does use the ‘L’ to get to work) I would understand a reasonable increase in the cost of a ride. But the statement of this commenter that a general tax to fund transit is a “curse on area drivers” shows a lack of understanding of the history of transportation funding in the U.S.
Using the assets of the government to build transportation modes goes back to the National Road under Jefferson, if not earlier for improvement of post roads at the general expense of the public. Ferry lines and canal building often involved a transfer of government-owned property to a private company with no remuneration, only a stipulation that the franchise owner would provide a public service at a reasonable fee. This arrangement was pushed further with the land grant railroads–Rail lines could lay tracks through the West (where the U.S. government originally claimed direct ownership of all land) and when the tracks opened the company would get deed to all government property within several miles of their lines.
But the single most heavily-subsidized transportation method in the nation’s history is the private motor vehicle. Since the passage of the first Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, general tax revenue has been diverted to the construction of roads. Since the Road Act only gave matching funds to road building projects in rural areas or in municipalities of 2500 or less, state highway departments naturally spent most of their resources on building outside of cities and large population centers. At the time there was no federal gas tax, so the 1-to-1 matching funds from Uncle Sam came from general revenue; most states funded their half from motor vehicle license fees and later from gas taxes. This amounted to a socialistic transfer of wealth from the cities–where most of the car owners lived–to the rural areas. In nearly all cases, the resultant improved roads were free from any direct user fee.
So, the city-dwelling car owner paid twice. His/her state license fees and gas tax funded the building of roads in the hinterland, and his city and county taxes were used to build and maintain the urban streets and alleys. As well, if that city dweller still used transit, then he/she paid for the privilege with every ride.
With the 1956 Highway Act, the imbalance became worse, as the feds paid $9.00 for every dollar of state funds. While a federal gas tax was part of the funding formula, still most of the cars in the country belonged to city dwellers, and still the vast majority of road building projects funded by the Act were non-urban.
So, I find it ironic that this commenter has an issue with a “diversion” of general revenue to cover transit budgets. Simply put, if we expect transit riders to fund their rides strictly through user fees, then all expressways should also be subject to tolls, and gas taxes and license fees should be allocated to road building and maintenance in the areas where they are generated. When the costs of this are actually seen, I think this commenter and other like-minded folks would go away quietly.