Illinois legislators left Springfield without funding public transit (for now). Here's what that means for CTA, Metra, Pace
For months, Chicagoland's transit agencies have sounded an alarm: If lawmakers don't plug a looming $771 million budget gap, they warned, residents will experience drastic service cuts on the CTA, Metra and Pace next year.
Over the weekend, Illinois lawmakers adjourned their spring legislative session without passing legislation that would avert the fiscal cliff.
The Regional Transportation Authority, which oversees CTA, Metra and Pace, has warned that it will have to start planning for dramatic cuts to transit service.
Next year, riders could experience a 40% reduction in transit service — with some rail lines and bus routes eliminated entirely — the RTA has warned. Nearly 3,000 workers could lose their jobs.
Still, service cuts are not slated to start until COVID-19 relief funding runs out in January, or even later into next year. That means there is still time for lawmakers to go back to Springfield to take another stab at passing legislation that would plug the budget gap.
However, any legislation passed after May 31 that would take effect before June 2026 requires — per the state's constitution — a three-fifths majority in both chambers rather than a simple majority. That makes lawmakers' task harder.
Here's what Chicagoans need to know about the future of transit service in the metro area.
In short, lawmakers in both chambers introduced legislation that would have revamped the structure of the RTA, which oversees the CTA, Metra and Pace. A Senate proposal that included funding mechanisms for those reforms and to avert the looming fiscal cliff — largely in the form of various taxes and fees — failed to get over the finish line in the House.
As the spring legislative session came to a close, a mantra of 'no funding without reform' came to dominate conversations in Springfield about the looming transit fiscal cliff. Bills introduced last week would have replaced the RTA with a new entity called the Northern Illinois Transit Authority that would be given broad planning authority.
But after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, lawmakers only began publicly sharing their ideas for revenue generation to avert the fiscal cliff on Thursday.
Those ideas included a 50 cent tollway tax that got shut down after fierce opposition from organized labor and suburban lawmakers and a $1.50 retail delivery fee that garnered similarly ferocious opposition from powerful business groups.
Shortly before May 31 gave way to June 1, the Senate approved a version of the bill that would have included the $1.50 package delivery fee.
But the bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ram Villivalam, was never called for a vote in the House. The legislature adjourned in the early hours of Sunday morning without passing any transit legislation at all.
While the General Assembly has been engaged in negotiations over ways to overhaul public transit in the Chicago area for months, if not longer, state Rep. Kam Buckner, one of the sponsors of the House's transit reform bill, noted the Senate's approach was different than the House's in that the Senate decided to include revenue options in its proposal while the House wanted to discuss operational fixes first before getting into how it'd all be funded.
Buckner noted that he and Chicago Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado, the main sponsor of the House's transit bill, were among the key House Democratic negotiators for the entire state budget, and Buckner said he was concerned about a transit revenue vote in the House derailing the budget talks.
Buckner also said the House wasn't aware that the $1.50 delivery proposal from the Senate was a possibility, 'which is why we never talked about it with our folks.' All in all, he felt it would have been 'disingenuous' and 'irresponsible' to ask fellow House members to vote on the bill without being more familiar with its revenue proposals.
'It jeopardizes the integrity of what we've built in the House and we made the right call,' Buckner said of the House's decision to not call the bill.
In a statement on Monday, Villivalam reiterated his consistent message on the issue that 'there will be no funding without reform' and said he looked forward to working with Delgado and Buckner 'to get this package of reforms and funding across the finish line.'
Yes. Lawmakers could go back to Springfield later this year to pass transit legislation that would plug the funding gap. Any laws passed after the end of May taking effect before June 2026 require three-fifths approval in both chambers to pass, which makes the path forward more difficult than it was on May 31.
While lawmakers will be scheduled to return to Springfield for the fall veto session, most likely in October or November, there's nothing stopping them from reconvening before that. Lawmakers had already left the door open to the possibility of coming back to the Capitol in the summer if they need to shore up the state budget in response to any federal action from President Donald Trump that could cause Illinois to lose critical federal funding.
Meanwhile, the RTA said, transit agencies will have to make their budgets for next year assuming they're not going to get any more money.
The RTA has said that layoffs could be announced as early as September. It's not clear exactly what might happen if transit workers are told they are facing layoffs and then the legislature, weeks or months later, passes a law ensuring more funding.
'It's going to be chaotic,' said P.S. Sriraj, the director of the Urban Transportation Center at the University of Illinois Chicago.
Workers who get pink-slipped would have to start looking for other jobs, he said. Then, if agencies learn they have more funding available and can start ramping up plans for more service, they may have to go out and hire new employees. 'You're now behind the 8-ball,' said Sriraj, who added that he believed the legislature would ultimately find funding for transit.
Buckner also indicated he understood the urgency for the state to come up with a solution on transit while the CTA is in the midst of crafting their budget.
'It's very clear to me that they need some stability and need some certainty to know what to do if they're going to balance their books,' said Buckner.
Service cuts throughout the Chicago metro area would be drastic if the legislature doesn't take further action, transit agencies have warned.
Service on half of the CTA's eight rail lines could be cut entirely or at least on whole branches of the line, the RTA has said. More than 50 'L' stations could close or see drastic service cuts. Frequencies on remaining rail lines would be cut between10 to 25%. And as many as 74 out of the CTA's 127 bus routes — close to 60% of them — could be eliminated. That could leave Chicago with fewer bus routes than Madison, Wi. or Kansas City, according to the RTA.
On Metra, early morning and late evening trains would be cut. Trains might run only once an hour on weekdays and once every two hours on weekends. The Metra Electric Blue Island Branch might be slashed entirely.
On Pace buses, weekend service could be cut entirely. Federally-mandated ADA paratransit service would still exist, but its service area could be slashed by 66% on the weekends.
And as more people take to their cars because of diminished service, traffic throughout the area — which is already among the worst in the nation — could worsen.
We don't know exactly where service will be cut. Here's what we do know about the process:
This month, the RTA will give the CTA, Metra and Pace directions for the creation of their 2026 budgets. RTA spokesperson Tina Fassett Smith said in a statement over the weekend that its budget must, by law, 'only include funding we are confident the system will receive in 2026.'
It will then be up to the agencies to decide how to adjust their planned service for next year. Staff at each agency will prepare proposals and budgets will be released publicly in the fall. As is the case in a typical year, each agency will hold public budget hearings in October or November.
Because the agencies receive federal funding, they will almost certainly go through a Title VI process to make sure that any proposed cuts — or fare increases — do not disproportionately impact people of color or low-income people.
For instance, the agencies will have to show that if they are cutting service 40% for riders overall, they are not cutting service by a significantly higher percentage for Black riders or low-income riders. If there will be a disparate impact from proposed cuts, they will have to show that they are taking steps to mitigate those effects. The Title VI process would include public hearings with the opportunity for riders to share their concerns.
As the agencies evaluate where to cut service, said Sriraj, they'll be weighing Title VI responsibilities along with ridership metrics on various routes and lines and the availability of alternative modes of transit near routes slated for cuts.
The respective boards of the CTA, Metra and Pace would ultimately be responsible for approving any proposed cuts or fare hikes.
Cuts would begin in January at the earliest.
Maggie Daly Skogsbakken, a spokesperson for Pace, said that though the agency's budget would take effect Jan. 1, it's possible the cuts would not take effect until later into the year. She also said that in the past, the agency has phased in large service changes rather than make them all at once. That could happen in this case, she said.
Metra spokesperson Michael Gillis similarly said the soonest cuts would begin would be in January.
The CTA did not directly address a question about when cuts would take effect, but said in a statement it would 'plan for a number of scenarios that could occur in 2026.'
'We are committed to working on behalf of our riders and employees, and we look forward to continuing the work to secure funding for Chicago-area public transit,' the agency said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
Biden ‘talking in the quiet car,' asking for ice cream on Amtrak rides to DC office
He may be out of office, but he's still driving people crazy. Former President Joe Biden has been overheard asking for frozen treats while commuting on Amtrak to his government-provided DC office — where little known work is being done — as well as allegedly forgetting a top rule of the train. 'He was talking in the quiet car!' a disbelieving Amtrak regular vented to The Post. The 82-year-old former chief executive, who rode the route back and forth to Delaware during his 36 years in the Senate, also has gotten rusty on the cafe car's offerings. Biden recently asked for ice cream — his favorite snack — but had to settle for a muffin. Amtrak's 'quiet car' is the second on the Acela — behind first class — and its code of conduct is enforced by conductors and passengers who brusquely hiss 'shhhhhh!' at violators. A second witness who has seen Biden chatting in the quiet car argued it wasn't his fault. 'If he's talking, it's because he's constantly approached,' said this person, noting that whispered exchanges are allowed. '[That] is always a criticism of him — that he's too soft spoken! No winning.' The ex-president's travels have been captured in a stream of photos from fellow riders — and even a brief May 8 interview with CNN's Dana Bash. The Amtrak he was on was stopped last week due to a track issue outside of Baltimore and fellow riders flocked to the Democrat for selfies. Biden, who dropped his re-election bid last year amid a mutiny by allies over his perceived cognitive decline, has been visiting DC roughly once a week for meetings, the Wall Street Journal reported last month. 5 Several alums of the Biden White House say there's intrigue into what exactly he is doing most weeks at his temporary office a short distance from DC's Union Station. The General Services Administration pays for the office until July, meaning Biden will have to relocate soon if he intends to continue commuting to the capital. 'It's really a mystery,' one former Biden aide said of his activities while visiting DC, noting that staff still working for Biden 'avoid answering.' 'They're supposed to be setting up library stuff but no one has heard anything,' this person said. 'We're all wondering the same thing because he doesn't go to restaurants or anything public around here.' A source familiar with Biden's activities said that at the office he conducts meetings with staff and former staff and passes the time calling members of Congress and other Democratic leaders. 'He's also been attending events which are sometimes coordinated through the office,' the person said. 5 'He was just in Galveston, Texas, to attend a Juneteenth service as a recent example. Separately, he's working on his book and library and foundation phases of post-presidency.' They were unaware of any plans to find a new DC office when the federally provided space ends next month. Sources tell The Post the family faces financial difficulties after losing his $400,000 presidential pay. He has struggled to find takers for his offer to give speeches for $300,000 — a figure first reported by The Post — while his son Hunter Biden, who formerly raked in millions from abroad, admits to.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Fannie Mae chief Pulte sends savage one-word message to Fed's Powell
There's mounting tension in Washington, D.C. over the Federal Reserve's interest rate policy. After cutting interest rates by 1% late last year, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has taken a decidedly different tack in 2025, holding interest rates steady, and frustrating many, including President Donald Trump, who wants rate cuts now. President Trump has called Powell a "numbskull" for not reducing the Fed Funds Rate, and "Mr. Too-Late" because of the risk that the Fed's hesitancy will put it behind the curve, possibly causing stagflation or worse, a recession. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The Fed's dilly-dallying on rate cuts means homebuyers will have to wait for lower mortgage rates, a fact that hasn't been lost on housing market experts, including Fannie Mae Chairman Bill Pulte, who is also director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). Pulte knows a thing or two about the housing market, given he's the grandson of the founder of the mega homebuilder PulteGroup and formerly served on PulteGroup's board of directors. This week, Pulte targeted the Fed's monetary policy, delivering a harsh rebuke and curt message to Chairman Powell that has raised eyebrows. Image source: Bartkowski/Getty Images The Federal Reserve has an important mission to encourage low inflation and unemployment by raising or lowering the Fed Funds Rate. The FFR is the rate that banks charge each other when lending excess reserve balances overnight. Unfortunately, its dual mandate is easier said than done. Often, low inflation and unemployment are contrary goals. Higher rates lower inflation but increase job losses, while lower rates decrease unemployment but increase inflation. Related: Fed interest rate cut decision resets forecasts for the rest of this year We've witnessed that dynamic in real time over the past five years. At risk of surging unemployment due to the Covid pandemic, the Fed doubled down on its zero-interest rate policy of low rates. The move worked, helping the U.S. avoid a recession or worse. However, low rates (and stimulus payments) caused inflation to spike in 2021. At the time, Fed Chair Powell initially and infamously referred to inflation as 'transitory;' however, he was forced to switch gears and embark on the most aggressive rate hikes since the 1980s after inflation skyrocketed to 8% in June 2022. The higher rates have sent inflation below 3%; however, they've done so at a cost, given emerging cracks in the jobs market. The U.S. unemployment rate has moved up to 4.2% from 3.4% in 2023, and over 696,000 layoffs have been announced this year through May, up 80% year over year, according to Challenger, Gray, & Christmas. There's also increased evidence that the economy is weakening. ISM's latest manufacturing and services PMIs, which measure economic activity, were below 50, suggesting contraction in May. A concerning job market and potential economic slowing aren't great recipes for consumer and business spending, yet the Fed has kept its finger off the rate cut trigger, citing inflation uncertainty amid recently enacted tariffs. Related: Major housing expert predicts huge change to mortgage rates in 2026 Since February, President Trump has placed 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and autos, a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, and stiff tariffs on China, a significant trade partner that supplies just about everything from clothing to car parts. While China's tariffs have retreated from a sky-high 145% in April that effectively shut down trade, they remain at 30%. Worries that tariffs may cause inflation to reassert itself in the coming months have Fed Chair Powell a bit boxed in, given that rate cuts to shore up the economy may add to possible inflationary fires this year. Fed Chair Powell argues that a wait-and-see approach makes sense, given that unemployment is historically low and the economy, while showing some worrisome signs, is still expected to grow by 3% this quarter. Related: Forget tariffs, Fed interest rate cuts may hinge on another problem "The effects on inflation could be short-lived - reflecting a one-time shift in the price level. It is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent," said Powell after holding rates steady on June 18. "Avoiding that outcome will depend on the size of the tariff effects, on how long it takes for them to pass through fully into prices, and, ultimately, on keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored." The worry over tariffs isn't shared by Fannie Mae Chairman Pulte. After Powell held interest rates at their current 4.25% to 4.50% range, he blasted Powell, calling for immediate interest rate cuts to lower mortgage rates and support the housing market. "Jerome Powell is a main reason for the Housing Supply Crisis in this Country," wrote Pulte on X. "By improperly keeping interest rates high, Jerome Powell is trapping homeowners in low-rate mortgages and choking off existing home sales - directly fueling the housing supply crisis. He must lower rates." Pulte is, at a minimum, correct anecdotally that the housing market is in a crisis, especially with first-time homebuyers who struggle to come up with enough money for a down payment, given supply shortages have propped up home prices, and can't afford monthly mortgage payments. More Economic Analysis: Federal Reserve prepares strong message on long-term interest ratesMassive city workers union approves strikeAnalyst makes bold call on stocks, bonds, and gold Mortgage rates typically run 2% to 3% higher than the 10-year Treasury note yield, and the Fed Funds Rate highly influences the 10-year yield. As a result, 30-year mortgage rates have risen to roughly 6.8% from 2.7% in early 2021 before Powell raised rates to fight inflation. In April, the median price for a new home exceeded $407,000, up from $310,000 five years ago. Meanwhile, according to Bankrate, the average mortgage payment doubled to $2,207 in 2024. With housing affordability so challenging and the Fed firmly in the "no cut" camp, Pulte sent a powerful message to Powell. "Americans are sick and tired of Jerome Powell. Let's move on!" wrote Pulte. "Funny thing is Jay Powell is talking right now about the housing market - he has no clue what he can do for the housing market. And he's not listening to the people who help lead the housing market." His blunt advice to Powell? "RESIGN," said Pulte. Related: Veteran fund manager who predicted April rally updates S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Democrats are at odds over the Israel-Iran war as Trump considers intervening
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats are now finding themselves at odds over U.S. policy toward Iran as progressives demand unified opposition to President Donald Trump's consideration of a strike against Tehran's nuclear program while party leaders tread more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatens to destroy Israel. But Trump's public flirtation with joining Israel's offensive against Iran may become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it is sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. While progressives have staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential actions, the party leadership is playing the safer ground of demanding a role for Congress before Trump could use force against Iran. Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations are staying silent, so far, on the Israel-Iran war. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats use Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., has called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party' and has introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that calls on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the 'manosphere.' 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Very fine words. Trump should remember them today. Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders has reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but he is so far holding off this time. Some believe the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance as Trump weighs whether to launch a military offensive that is seemingly counter to the anti-interventionism he promised during his 2024 campaign. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. Bridging the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., was also cautious in responding to the Israeli action and said 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment." 'It really seems like the Trump and Iran war track is kind of going along like a Formula 1 racetrack, and then the Democrats are in some sort of tricycle or something trying to keep up,' said Ryan Costello, a policy director for the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, which advocates for diplomatic engagement between U.S. and Iran. Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., on X. 'The single reason Iran was so close to obtaining a nuclear weapon is that Trump destroyed the diplomatic agreement that put major, verifiable constraints on their nuclear program.' The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari, an Iranian American from Arizona, said Iranians are unwitting victims in the conflict because there aren't shelters or infrastructure to protect civilians from targeted missiles as there are in Israel. 'The Iranian people are not the regime, and they should not be punished for its actions,' Ansari posted on X, while criticizing Trump for fomenting fear among the Iranian population. 'The Iranian people deserve freedom from the barbaric regime, and Israelis deserve security."
