The Chainlink

Vote Yes or No to the Illinois Transportation Lockbox Amendment? Is the Measure Good or Bad for Cycling?

Does anyone here know if the proposed Illinois "Transportation Lockbox" would increase funding for cycling infrastructure, or completely kill it off?  I keep reading the proposed amendment and it doesn't say anything about cycling. Since cycling infra isn't spelled out here, section (e) looks ominous: it looks like cycling would need to find its own dedicated funding source (not very likely) if this measure passes. I'm trying to figure out how to vote on this one. Thoughts?

"(b) Transportation funds may be expended for the following: the costs of administering laws related to vehicles and transportation, including statutory refunds and adjustments provided in those laws; payment of highway obligations; costs for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, and betterment of highways, roads, streets, bridges, mass transit, intercity passenger rail, ports, airports, or other forms of transportation; and other statutory highway purposes. Transportation funds may also be expended for the State or local share of highway funds to match federal aid highway funds, and expenses of grade separation of highways and railroad crossings, including protection of at-grade highways and railroad crossings, and, with respect to local governments, other transportation purposes as authorized by law.

(c) The costs of administering laws related to vehicles and transportation shall be limited to direct program expenses related to the following: the enforcement of traffic, railroad, and motor carrier laws; the safety of highways, roads, streets, bridges, mass transit, intercity passenger rail, ports, or airports; and the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation, and administration of highways, under any related provisions of law or any purpose related or incident to, including grade separation of highways and railroad crossings. The limitations to the costs of administering laws related to vehicles and transportation under this subsection (c) shall also include direct program expenses related to workers' compensation claims for death or injury of employees of the State's transportation agency; the acquisition of land and the erection of buildings for highway purposes, including the acquisition of highway rights-of-way or for investigations to determine the reasonable anticipated future highway needs; and the making of surveys, plans, specifications, and estimates for the construction and maintenance of flight strips and highways. The expenses related to the construction and maintenance of flight strips and highways under this subsection (c) are for the purpose of providing access to military and naval reservations, defense-industries, defense-industry sites, and sources of raw materials, including the replacement of existing highways and highway connections shut off from general use at military and naval reservations, defense-industries, and defense-industry sites, or the purchase of rights-of-way.

(d) None of the revenues described in subsection (a) of this Section shall, by transfer, offset, or otherwise, be diverted to any purpose other than those described in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section.

(e) If the General Assembly appropriates funds for a mode of transportation not described in this Section, the General Assembly must provide for a dedicated source of funding."

https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_Transportation_Taxes_and_Fees_Lock...(2016)

http://nprillinois.org/post/illinois-issues-transportation-lockbox-...

Views: 215

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks! That's exactly what I need. I looked back 3 pages in the discussions and didn't see anything, didn't look back to September. Thanks again.
Just to review what your choice and vote does: This amendment needs a 60% approval margin of all voters. Those opposing it should vote NO. It seems that if you defer any choice it would count against the amendment. The fault with this amendment is that it really should have had included clear wording that it also would be in support of cycling funding issues.

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service