
Editorial: Strapped for time, Springfield punts on transit funding and reform
State lawmakers left a large pile of major issues on their agenda for the waning hours of the 2025 spring session. Very few of them were addressed other than the must-pass budget for fiscal 2026. Color us unsurprised.
Despite a $1 billion shortfall that had to be plugged, the $55 billion budget proved to be anticlimactic, largely hewing to the outline Gov. JB Pritzker offered in February.
So what passed for news in the capital emanated mainly from what happen rather than what did.
At the top of that list was the fiscal crisis the Chicago-area's public transit agencies are facing, which those agencies have said will mean substantial service reductions if Springfield doesn't act in the coming months.
Following the end of the session, Pritzker and legislative leaders said the General Assembly likely would take the unusual step of acting over the summer on the issue. That's good. For the sake of commuters and the region's economy, they should act well before what would normally be the next opportunity — the fall veto session in November.
Springfield should learn from the mistakes of the just-concluded session.
Everyone has known for over a year that a transit overhaul and rescue needs to happen, and yet the effort still turned into the equivalent of an all-nighter for a student who hasn't done the coursework over the semester. The mad scramble for funding sources to plug the transit agencies' $770 million budget hole foundered, as rank-and-file lawmakers, stakeholders and most importantly the public were given no time for due consideration and feedback.
The typical Springfield gambit of waiting until the eleventh hour to spring controversial initiatives on the public in order to keep determined opposition from forming backfired spectacularly.
First, late last week state Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Ram Villavalam, D-Chicago, proposed a package of revenue generators including a 50-cent surcharge on tolls, a redirection of suburban sales taxes to transit, higher suburban real estate transfer taxes and a region-wide tax on Ubers and Lyfts. Suburban officials predictably balked at the lopsided nature of that 'deal,' creating the need for an immediate Plan B.
Villavalam pivoted with only hours to spare to a $1.50 charge on delivery of most retail products. The Senate approved the so-called pizza tax, the derisive sobriquet effectively wielded by opponents, by a 10-vote margin, but the House left town without acting, an acknowledgement the votes weren't there.
That proposal deserved to die. Among other things, there's no logical reason downstate Illinoisans should pay an extra $1.50 on deliveries mainly to bail out bus and train service in the Chicago area.
Making the idea worse was that Democrats in the Senate added a provision forbidding retailers (yes, like pizza makers) from showing the tax in a separate line item on their receipts. Nothing says confidence in your own policy-making like doing your utmost to keep consumers (most of whom double as voters) from understanding why their costs have risen so much.
It was the Democratic version of President Donald Trump's temper tantrum in late April when news surfaced that Amazon was considering showing customers the cost of tariffs in their product purchases from its low-cost website dubbed Haul.
So when lawmakers reconvene to take another stab at transit reform and funding, they should learn from this setback and embrace transparency. They must be more open with the public about the tax and fee mechanisms on the table and allow time for feedback.
As we said last week before the unproductive weekend in the capital began, safe and reliable public transit is critical to the region and the state. And the need for more revenue is inescapable. But public acceptance of whatever funding solution emerges, even if grudging, is critical to ensuring this rescue mission succeeds. And to win that support, Springfield must break with the cloak-and-dagger machinations and engage the public.
For the lawmakers, there's really nothing to lose at this point by being transparent given that people now have seen the sausage-making. Thirty-two senators are on record having voted for the pizza tax and have nothing to show for it.
While we acknowledge that settling on an appropriate source of money is delicate and complicated, we believe it's not impossible to find a means the public can accept. But to achieve that, a proposal must have two attributes.
First, it has to be broadly and fairly distributed among constituencies who have a legitimate stake in the future of public transit — including, by the way, those paying CTA bus and train fares that could stand to rise a little, if only to $3 or $3.50. Second, it must be related as directly as possible to the issue at hand. Part of the problem here is that Chicago's disastrous privatization of parking meters and the Chicago Skyway has reduced some of the logical levers and private garages already are drowning in some of the highest tax rates in the nation.
Still, ride-share taxes are clearly in the same world. So for that matter is congestion pricing.
Congestion pricing in New York, even though it has been the subject of controversy, has the virtue of generating revenue for public transportation in a city that is traffic-choked by any definition. That is not to say we're advocating congestion pricing for Chicago; indeed, we have editorialized against such a charge out of concern for the massive potential harm to downtown Chicago, which needs more activity, not less. But at least congestion pricing in support of public transit can be defended on grounds that the two are related.
To its credit, Springfield made substantial progress on giving regional transit officials far more power over local systems such as the Chicago Transit Authority. Those governance provisions, which appeared to have broad support in both chambers, are crucial to giving Illinoisans outside Chicago confidence that they're not bailing out an unpopular city government without appropriate safeguards. We also see the logic of sending some money from whatever Springfield raises to improve transit downstate. That's only fair.
Failure isn't an option. Come back to Springfield this summer, lawmakers, and get this needed transit reform done the right way.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Marjorie Taylor Greene Now ‘Proud' She Voted for Bill She Bashed a Day Ago
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is tying herself in knots over Donald Trump's spending bill. On Tuesday, the Georgia Republican admitted she hadn't read some of the bill's contents before voting for it, and she didn't like them. She specifically called out a section of the bill that would stop states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade. Greene said she was 'adamantly OPPOSED' to this 'potentially dangerous' measure and 'would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' She later added to her criticism on the House floor, saying 'we must always limit federal power and protect state power,' and urged the Senate to strip the clause. But on Wednesday, when pressed during a congressional hearing, she flip-flopped on her flip-flop, insisting she was 'proud' to have voted for the legislation. Rep. Robert Garcia, a California Democrat, brought it up during a DOGE subcommittee hearing as he highlighted Elon Musk's vicious opposition to the GOP bill. 'It's also interesting, because Chairwoman Greene, I understand, now regrets voting for this bill, as she mentioned yesterday,' Garcia said to the congresswoman, who leads the subcommittee. 'Is that correct, Chairwoman Greene?' Greene replied, 'The bill actually destroys what you guys voted for for the past four years, and I'm proud to have voted for that bill to fund border security to deport all of those illegals you guys let in.' It's a curious departure from her remarks just a day earlier, when she called the AI provisions she unwittingly voted for 'pretty terrifying.' Attempting to justify her oversight on NewsNation Tuesday, she had explained, 'We don't get the full bill text until very close to the time to vote for it, and so that was one section that was two pages that I didn't see.' It marked a rare crack in Greene's reliable loyalty to the president and his agenda. Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' has exposed deep Republican divisions after passing the House by just one vote last month. Musk set off a firestorm this week when he declared it an 'outrageous, pork-filled ... disgusting abomination' and excoriated Republicans who voted for it. The infighting has erupted over several flashpoints, including the $2.4 trillion it's estimated to add to the national debt over the next decade. Sen. Rand Paul has been a leading GOP critic of the bill, blasting it for ballooning the deficit and lifting the debt ceiling. He's drawn heated rebukes from Trump, who claims the bill will drive 'tremendous GROWTH.' Democrats broadly oppose the legislation, arguing it gives tax breaks to the rich while hurting the low-income Americans. The budget package would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts and introduce new ones, including no taxes on tips, while imposing work requirements for Medicaid, cutting food stamp access, and directing billions toward immigration measures to boost border security and fast-track deportations.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High-speed rail off the tracks? Federal grants for project may be revoked
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Wednesday that California's high-speed rail project has, 'no viable path forward.' The project — approved by voters in 2008 — has long been under fire for lengthy delays and billions of dollars over budget. That argument is nothing new. But now, critical federal grants could be revoked. 'California High-Speed Rail. No viable path. We just released a report today, 300 pages, about how bad this project actually is. 15 years, $16 billion, not one high speed track has been laid,' said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in a video posted to the social media platform X. Duffy released the bombshell announcement, one that could send plans for California's high speed rail project off the rails. 'We have $4 billion on the line in this project,' the secretary continued in the video. That federal funding is now on the chopping block for California, as DOT said the project has violated terms of the federal grants, such as 'missed deadlines, budget shortfalls and overrepresentation of projected ridership.' This letter from Duffy to California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri is part of a more than 300-page report — The Federal Railroad Administration's Compliance Review Report. 'I agree with everything that's in the letter,' said Ahron Hakimi, executive director of the Kern Council of Governments. 'Less than an hour to downtown L.A. That was very quickly another example of a promise by high-speed rail,' Hakimi added. Ahron Hakimi has been in the transportation industry for nearly four decades. The Kern Council of Governments is a group of city and county electeds that address regional transportation. 'When you bring a brand new rail line over a city that's well over a hundred years [old], it creates many disruptions. Wasco's a great example of that. It cuts off existing streets, it cuts off existing utilities.' In a statement, a spokesperson for the Authority wrote, 'The Authority strongly disagrees with the FRA's conclusions, which are misguided and do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California. We remain firmly committed to completing the nation's first true high-speed rail system connecting the major population centers in the state. While continued federal partnership is important to the project, the majority of our funding has been provided by the state. To that end, the Governor's budget proposal, which is currently before the Legislature, extends at least $1 billion per year in funding for the next 20 years, providing the necessary resources to complete the project's initial operating segment. The Authority will fully address and correct the record in our formal response to the FRA's notice.' High-speed rail, often a topic split along party lines, with an adamant Governor Gavin Newsom leading Democrats. 'We're kind of too far in to abandon this project completely, said Christian Romo, chief of staff to Kern District 5 Supervisor Leticia Perez. Romo said while he and many Democrats, including Perez, agree the project has taken too long and too much, he hopes to reap the once-promised gains. 'We'd like to prioritize the benefits of this. The job growth, the workforce development,' he added. According to the Authority, the project has created more than 15,300 'good paying' construction jobs for residents, with over 97% being filled by Californians, and 70% by Central Valley residents. And, in Kern County, 2,790 good paying construction jobs have been created. But Republicans maintain enough is enough. 'It didn't come, and I don't see it coming, said Kern District 3 Supervisor Jeff Flores. Flores added, 'Not to be pessimistic, but to protect the taxpayer dollar, to protect Kern County's interest.' Bakersfield has already seen physical impacts in anticipation of tracks being laid down. The Bakersfield Homeless Shelter on East Truxtun has been in the process of relocating now for years. 'For many years, my predecessor was unable to do capital improvements to this property because the lingering unknowing of high-speed rail,' said Lauren Skidmore, CEO of The Open Door Network. 'The property continued to get dilapidated, we continued to have infrastructure issues, and now we're at a point where we absolutely need to move this campus,' Skidmore added of the longtime limbo they were in. In 2019, the Authority purchased the property for $6 million. Skidmore said they've been leasing the property for the homeless shelter ever since. Their migration to the new and improved facility is underway, though more costly than anticipated. Just this Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors approved $1 million in funding for the new shelter. But they've only raised a little more than half the anticipated cost, Skidmore noted. 'I think we would've done things differently had we known high speed rail wasn't coming as quickly as we thought it was.' Another example — the Golden Empire Transit announced in 2022 it would be relocating its facility Golden State Avenue, the planned site of the Bakersfield High Speed Rail Station. That move has not happened yet. Supervisor Flores added, 'The delay and the cost are so overbearing. How do we make it work?' Flores, emphasizing that he's not holding his breath, as potential federal funding cuts would put the state project 'even further behind.' '[We wouldn't be] abandoning actual segments because it hasn't come to fruition,' Flores pointed out, adding that California remains in a budget deficit crisis, as does Kern County. 'I don't think it's going to materialize. I don't think we can afford it,' Flores said, remarking that while he'd love to go to a Dodgers game in 30 minutes, the possibility no longer seems doable. Local leaders aren't skimming over the effectiveness of high-speed rail. In fact, both Flores and Hakimi noted they've utilized the transportation technology internationally, like in South Korea and Europe. 'High speed rail is a great thing,' Hakimi stated. 'If it was delivered as promised, I would be a rider.' Hakimi detailed that most physical impacts thus far of the project have been roughly Wasco north. Current construction is on a 171-mile segment from Merced to Bakersfield, with testing anticipated in 2028. The full high speed rail track aims to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco. In January, temporary track — to transport materials to build the actual track — was laid down in Shafter. The Authority has up to 37 days to respond, after which the grants could be terminated. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘An issue of democracy': Activists against book bans hold panel discussion in Rochester
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (WROC) – Across the nation, schools and libraries are opting to ban books in response to community feedback on the subject matter they portray. Those in support of these bans argue it's a necessary step in protecting young children and families. Local community members against book bans came together Wednesday evening for a discussion at St. John Fisher University, during which a panel of literature experts spoke on why they believe book bans are harmful to society. Associate Professor of English at SUNY Brockport Cody Miller was on the panel and explained why he believes this discussion to be important now more than ever. 'Access to books through both public libraries and public schools is inherently an issue of democracy,' Miller said. 'When we limit access to books and information, you can't be a well-informed, well-rounded citizen to then participate in the democracy at large.' West Irondequoit School Board Member Tamara Wall, Henrietta Library Director Adrienne Pettinelli and Churchville-Chili student and activist Jaise Newman were also on the panel. Newman says the discussion of book bans is personal to him. 'There's a lot of books that I really love and have done important things for me,' Newman said. 'It's a little scary to hear that books that I love, my friends love or even my English teachers love are at risk of being banned.' Some of the sub-topics discussed by the panel include censorship, autonomy, diversity and inclusion. Event organizers also summarized how they believe book bans have impacted culture in Rochester since the 1950s. Newman and Miller share the perspective of books continuing to hold heavy influence in the way we function as a society, especially when it comes to policy-making. 'I think everybody's read something that's really connected with them, and people see the power books have and that they can impact students and young people,' Newman said. The panel also discussed New York Senate Bill S6350B, which is in Assembly review. If passed, it would implement 'The Freedom to Read Act', requiring the Commissioner of Education, school systems and libraries to establish policies to adhere to when selecting and removing books from shelves statewide. The full Senate bill can be found here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.