
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


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
‘I don't know why the president has this problem': Trump had a history of disparaging Haiti and Haitians before the travel ban
So when Haiti was included late Wednesday in a list of countries on which Trump was imposing a near-total travel ban, some saw a culmination of a long campaign against the population. Advertisement 'Donald Trump has been very consistent in his anti-Black racism, both domestically and globally, and when it comes to the country of Haiti, the people of Haiti, he has a long track record of vile, offensive, harmful rhetoric and policies,' said Boston Representative Ayanna Pressley, who co-chairs the congressional Haiti Caucus. 'It is just purely evil.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Florida Democratic Representative Maxwell Frost, who is of Haitian descent, echoed Pressley's comment that the travel ban is 'rooted in bigotry.' 'It does nothing to make our communities safer, but it does vilify immigrants,' Frost said in a statement. 'It will devastate our immigrant families across this country.' In response to Pressley's accusations, the White House called her assertions 'lazy, unfounded and just straight-up false.' Advertisement 'While President Trump is fulfilling his promise to unite the country and keep the American people safe, Pressley is desperate to divide us and smearing our heroic law enforcement officials in the process,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement, pointing to the rationale listed in the ban. Haiti is one of 12 countries facing a near-total ban on travel to the United States under Trump's new order, which cites an inability to vet immigrants for national security risks and a high rate of people overstaying their visas as justification for the measure. There are limited exceptions, including current visa-holders, permanent residents, dual nationals, athletic teams, and certain immediate family members of US residents. Other countries affected include Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The move follows several other Trump administration actions that have had an impact on the Haitian community in the United States, including an early end to Temporary Protected Status protections for an estimated through the appeals process. Trump made similar moves in his first administration though most were ultimately blocked by the courts. The United States first granted Haitian migrants protection from deportation after the 2010 earthquake that devastated the country. Since then, a string of natural disasters and political conflicts have worsened conditions. Today, gang violence, crime, and instability are rampant on the island. Advertisement Amid the worsening situation, many Haitians sought refuge in the United States or came to join family here, either through the CHNV program, legal avenues, or without permission. Massachusetts has the third-largest population of Haitians in the US, including an estimated 15,000 who held TPS, But the influx of migration from Haiti has also spurred backlash, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who was the only Democrat in the 2018 meeting with Trump's now-infamous comments, said he doesn't understand why Haiti seems to irk the president as it does. 'His hatred over Haiti is just impossible to explain,' Durbin said. 'I've been there many times. And this is one of the poorest nations on Earth, the poorest in our hemisphere, these people are suffering and need help, and they're wonderful people. I don't know why the president has this problem.' But Republicans defended Trump's actions and denied there was any animus behind it. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican who has backed pro-immigration policies in the past, was also in that 2018 meeting. And while Diaz-Balart declined to talk about what was said, he does not believe Trump has an issue with Haitians. Advertisement 'No, I don't,' he said. 'I really don't. I really, really don't.' His South Florida district is home to a large Haitian population and others affected by the CHNV and TPS reversals, including Cubans but he defended the travel ban. 'There are countries obviously that can't guarantee a process where we know that people are [vetted] to keep the country secure,' Diaz-Balart said. 'I don't think it's unreasonable.' Former Florida Republican Representative Carlos Curbelo, a moderate who was part of the immigration negotiations in 2018 that preceded the meeting, said Trump seems to prefer 'white-collar' immigrants or those whom Trump perceives to be have been recruited or have sufficient resources to come here. 'I don't think he understands or cares that those types of comments and campaigns unfairly mischaracterize hundreds of thousands of people at a time, and I don't think he understands that just because you're a refugee or an exile, that doesn't mean that you aren't capable of making major contributions to this country,' Curbelo said. Noting the Cuban exile community where he (and Diaz-Balart) hail from, Curbelo continued: 'It's people who had to leave their country, that was not their first choice, that was their only choice, and that doesn't preclude people from becoming exceptional Americans who do wonderful things.' Pressley, though, is convinced Trump's approach to Haitians is a concerted effort. She compared the trauma inflicted on the migrant community to the terror campaign of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, saying it gets harder to fight back and project optimism when the actions layer on top of each other. 'It is terrorizing. It is terrifying. It is traumatic,' Pressley said. 'And it's just so intentional. ... Singling out Haitians, I mean, he's moved in a way that is obsessive and consistently, pointedly harmful.' Advertisement Tal Kopan can be reached at

Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
DOGE caucus leader says Elon Musk made a 'massive exaggeration' about spending cuts
Shortly after the feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk hit its apex on Thursday, a key DOGE-minded lawmaker in Congress had some pointed words about the world's richest man. "Most everybody knew Elon was exaggerating to what he could do," Republican Rep. Blake Moore of Utah told reporters outside the Capitol. "He was claiming finding $4 billion a day in cuts he was going to get. One time, he said $2 trillion, he was going to find." "It's a massive exaggeration, and I think people are recognizing that now," Moore said. The Utah Republican is one of the three co-leaders of the House DOGE caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers who had hoped to support Musk's cost-cutting efforts. The caucus met a handful of times at the beginning of the year, and leaders previously told BI that they intended to compile a report of potential cost-saving measures for DOGE at the end of the first quarter of this year. That didn't end up happening, in part because the White House DOGE Office ultimately had little interaction with the caucus. One Democratic member declared the group to be "dead" last month. "We've always been a little frustrated that there was such limited interaction," Moore said on Thursday. "We couldn't really identify where we were to lean in, and we had a ton of folks ready to support it, but there just wasn't that interaction." Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Moore said that he wanted to pursue cuts to federal spending through the bipartisan government funding process, saying that there are "plenty of Democrats that recognize there's waste in our government." GOP leaders have said they'll pursue DOGE cuts both through that process and through "rescission" packages, the first of which is set to be voted on in the House next week. The first package, which includes cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid, is $9.4 billion, just a fraction of the cost savings that Musk once predicted. "It's definitely kind of over-promising, under-delivering," Moore said. Musk's public feud with Trump began last week, when the tech titan began criticizing the "Big Beautiful Bill" that Republicans are trying to muscle through Congress. The bill is projected to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, though Republicans have argued that those forecasts do not account for the economic growth that might be spurred by the bill. That feud boiled over on Tuesday, with the two men engaging in a war of words on their respective social media platforms. "When I saw Musk start posting, just parroting false claims about the tax reconciliation bill, it was clear something's amiss," Moore said. "And so it escalated, yeah. It escalated very quickly."


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Ocasio-Cortez faces test of her political power
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) faces a test of her political influence after endorsing a progressive candidate in the New York City mayoral race. Ocasio-Cortez backed New York state Assembly member Zohran Mamdani on Thursday, pitching him as the best chance to upset former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the front-runner since before he entered the race. Her endorsement is sure to raise progressive hopes and give Mamdani a much-needed boost ahead of the June 24 primary. But it will also draw attention to the strength of her political clout as she positions herself as the next standard-bearer for the Democratic Party's progressive wing and possibly the party as a whole. 'She represents a younger, newer generation of Democratic voters,' said New York Democratic strategist Basil Smikle, adding that the movement she's led has been 'more forward looking with respect to the party, not just locally but nationally.' Observers of the Democratic primary for the mayor's race have been eagerly awaiting news of Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement for weeks. Reports indicated that the Bronx-area congresswoman has methodically reviewed polling and pitches from various candidates on how they plan to defeat Cuomo, who has dominated in name ID and polling. Among the more progressive candidates in the race, her support was coveted as one of the top leaders of the progressive wing since her own major upset win in 2018, making her the youngest woman elected to Congress. She was also credited with significantly improving Maya Wiley's chances of winning the Democratic nomination for mayor in 2021 as she gave an endorsement shortly before the primary then too. While Wiley ultimately lost to now-Mayor Eric Adams (D), her polling numbers jumped from single digits to make her a top contender after Ocasio-Cortez backed her. Ocasio-Cortez ultimately announced her endorsement of Mamdani in an interview with The New York Times the morning after the candidates faced off in the first debate of the race. She said Mamdani has made the best case that he can best Cuomo, showing a 'real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack.' Democrats said Ocasio-Cortez has demonstrated her influence in past races in New York and could put it on display again. George Albro, a co-chair of the New York Progressive Action Network, noted her support for current mayoral candidate Brad Lander during his city comptroller race in 2021 as he was trailing in the primary at the time. She and other top progressives appeared in ads backing him. 'He was trailing his opponent, and then they did a number of commercials for him, and he won the comptroller's race because of it, a city-wide race where he wasn't that well-known,' Albro said. 'It will be very impactful,' he added about Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement. But her endorsement in the race also comes at a time when she is taking on a rising profile within the Democratic Party as a whole in the aftermath of former Vice President Harris's loss in the November presidential election. Discontent has been growing among the party's base with the current leadership, as polling has found voters widely split or unsure who their standard-bearer is. Ocasio-Cortez received widespread attention for the 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour that she and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) embarked on earlier this year, fueling speculation of a role beyond representing New York's 14th Congressional District in Congress. Her name has been floated as a possible choice for Senate in 2028, with many Democrats expressing frustration with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), or even president, with the Democratic field in three years currently appearing wide open. New York Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf said Ocasio-Cortez is emblematic of the generational change that many in the party are searching for. He added that what happens in New York won't stay there. 'The generational shift is something that matters in New York politics and will ultimately matter around the country,' he said. 'Why? Because what happens in New York reflects national trends, unquestionably so, both culturally, from a media perspective, from a financial perspective, and certainly from a political perspective.' Sheinkopf argued that Sanders is the candidate many young people ideally wanted in 2024 rather than Harris, but Sanders has 'deputized' Ocasio-Cortez, who resonates even more among the voters whom a candidate like Mamdani appeals to. 'It doesn't matter whether he wins or loses,' he argued. 'The fact is that she's lined up with the younger generation of voters.' Democrats also said they don't believe Ocasio-Cortez is taking on much political risk even if the candidate she's backing, who is a significant underdog, falls short. New York Democratic strategist Trip Yang noted Cuomo still had significant inherent advantages in the race, including name recognition, calling him an imperfect but 'strong' candidate. 'Even if [Mamdani] doesn't win, he improves his political standing tremendously and the new progressive movement as a whole,' Yang said. 'At the end of the day, whatever happens, progressives will come out of 2025 looking better than they did in 2021,' he said. Smikle said Ocasio-Cortez isn't likely to alienate any potential followers by weighing in, as her base does not have too much overlap with Cuomo's core supporters. 'I don't think there's a downside [for her] at all,' he said. Smikle said Ocasio-Cortez has also effectively been what polling has shown New Yorkers and Democrats broadly want from their leaders — someone who will stand up to President Trump and fight for their constituents. He argued that New Yorkers don't have a specific ideology of moderate or progressive but just want someone who will 'fight' for them. He said Ocasio-Cortez is one of the few major leaders in the party who has been 'speaking forward,' talking about what the future of Democratic politics and the coalition needs to look like and what ideas should be put forward. 'It's not just playing defense in the moment,' Smikle said. 'It's thinking about what that offense is going to be, what that offense needs to look like. There are not a lot of people speaking about that.'