Latest news with #LeanneRedden
Axios
03-07-2025
- Business
- Axios
Chicago transit leaders prepping budget cuts
Illinois' 2026 fiscal year started Tuesday, but more money for public transit is not in the budget, leaving transit leaders and commuters in limbo. The big picture: The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and Chicago area transit leaders have been sounding the alarm on a $770 million fiscal cliff expected next year as COVID funds are set to expire, and had requested $1.5 billion from the state legislature. But lawmakers passed the 2026 budget without that money. Why it matters: Short of lawmakers calling a special summer session or taking up the issue in October's veto session, RTA has one budget scenario that assumes 40% service cuts and a potential fare increase. Reality check: Although the state's fiscal year started July 1, RTA's doesn't start until Jan. 1. CTA, Metra and Pace must present their budgets by mid-October and with this year's uncertainty, RTA asked each to prepare two versions — one with additional funding and one without. What they're saying: "I don't want to give anyone false hope that there is still any way to avoid some of these negative impacts," RTA executive director Leanne Redden told the RTA board last month. "The negative impacts are here, and now we're going to have to all work together to mitigate the worst of those impacts for as long as possible, while the legislature continues to do their work." Catch up quick: The Illinois Legislature could not agree during the spring session on a package that included reforms and revenue for regional transit. The Illinois Senate passed a bill that included what lawmakers referred to as necessary reforms, including a new governance board called Northeastern Illinois Transit Authority, or NITA, an Office of Public Safety and a transit ambassador program. Some proposed revenue ideas included a transaction fee on tolls, $1.50 ride share tax and increased real estate transfer tax. Yes, but: "Those measures were met with stiff opposition from the collar counties," state Sen. Ram Villivalam said at the Union League Club last month. State of play: Villivalam has maintained that NITA would "promote integration and eliminate the silos" by creating a universal fare system and operating budgets for all agencies rather than separate budgets and leadership. State Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado echoed that it would benefit riders most: "I think Metro is very good at delivering commuter rail service. I would love for them to communicate more with the bus system, so that we make sure that the bus shows up at the same time the train does." The other side: CTA, Metra and Pace argue each agency is needed because of the specific needs of that type of transit — city, suburban bus and commuter rail – and also that they should remain separate to honor each agency's collective bargaining agreements with workers. Follow the money: Without support from the legislature, RTA has predicted $3.6 billion in operating expenses, down from $4.4 billion.
Time Out
26-06-2025
- Business
- Time Out
Chicago debuts its first-ever Regional Day Pass linking CTA, Metra and Pace
Getting around Chicago just got a whole lot smoother: Chicago Transit Authority just announced a brand-new Regional Day Pass that offers unlimited rides on CTA, Metra and Pace for a full day—all from a single purchase in the Ventra app. This is the first time the city's major transit agencies have teamed up to offer a truly unified fare option for daily riders. The pass is part of a larger push by the Regional Transportation Authority, CTA, Metra and Pace to make public transportation more affordable and convenient across the entire region. The Regional Day Pass includes unlimited access to Metra, CTA trains and buses, and Pace fixed-route buses for 24 hours. You'll need the latest Ventra app (that's version 2.2.11) and a registered Ventra card—physical or digital—to purchase and use the pass. "This pass is a huge step forward in creating a more seamless, rider-friendly experience," said RTA Executive Director Leanne Redden. And with summer in full swing, the timing couldn't be better for locals and visitors alike to explore Chicago without worrying about multiple fares. Here's what Chicago's new Regional Day Pass costs: On weekdays, pricing is tiered by Metra travel zones: $10 for single-zone travel $13.50 for two zones $16 for three zones (Discounted fares apply for reduced fare card holders.) On weekends, the fare is $9.50 flat, regardless of distance. The pass is currently being rolled out as a six-month pilot, with potential for a permanent spot in the system by 2026. Regional leaders are calling it a win—but also a preview of what's possible with further investment and collaboration. To get yours, just open the Ventra app (get your physical or virtual Ventra card here), go to "Buy Metra Tickets," choose your trip, and select the Add a Regional Day Pass option at checkout.
Chicago Tribune
20-06-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Regional day passes available now for CTA, Metra and Pace
CTA, Metra and Pace riders can now purchase day passes that cover unlimited rides on all three transit systems, the agencies announced Friday. The regional day pass costs between $10 and $16 on weekdays depending on the length of the Metra trip. Weekend day passes cost $9.50. The passes are priced to cost $2.50 more than a Metra day pass while giving riders full access to rides on CTA and Pace. That means that riders who, for instance, take a CTA train to and from a Metra station could save $2.50 by using the pass, because the cost of a CTA day pass is $5.00. Passes are available for purchase in the latest version of the Ventra app. The program is a pilot that is set to last at least six months. The day pass announcement comes after state lawmakers last month failed to pass transit reform legislation — or find funding to avert a looming $771 million fiscal cliff — during their spring legislative session. Legislation introduced in Springfield last month would have overhauled the structure and governance of the Regional Transportation Authority, which oversees CTA, Metra and Pace, by replacing it with a new oversight body called the Northern Illinois Transit Authority. The legislation, had it passed, would have given NITA broad authority to set fares and schedules and specifically called for the creation of an integrated fare system by 2030. Leanne Redden, RTA's executive director, referenced the failed governance and funding negotiations in Springfield in a statement about the day pass pilot. 'This pass is another step in our shared effort to make transit more seamless and rider-friendly across the region,' Redden said. 'To build a truly connected transit system, we need both reform and support, including increased operating funding and action on proposed legislative changes that would centralize and make fare integration easier to implement and sustain,' Redden added. The agencies could continue the pilot program permanently next year — 'depending on funding availability,' they said. The qualifier hints at the fact that the CTA, Metra and Pace are planning for the possibility of making drastic 40% service cuts next year if lawmakers don't allocate more funding in the coming months.
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Editorial: Chicago's transit agencies want you to panic. They don't explain the whole truth.
What is a rider's responsibility to a transit agency? Pay your fare and show courtesy to fellow travelers and hard-working staffers. That's all. Riders are customers, after all. But if you listen to our panicked transit agencies, that list of rider requirements now includes frantically lobbying Springfield for $1.5 billion in additional money to prevent the so-called fiscal cliff. If you don't obey Chicagoland's Regional Transportation Authority, you're unleashing a variety of horrors, including 'devastating service cuts that would leave 1 in 5 Chicago riders without the use of transit for their regional commute,' no Pace bus service on weekends, vastly reduced Metra service, and innumerable other undesirables. 'This isn't just a transit crisis — it's a regional emergency,' insists RTA Executive Director Leanne Redden in a mailer that came our way. 'If the General Assembly does not act this spring, hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans will wake up in 2026 without a way to get to work, school or medical appointments.' And, like all supplicants in Springfield, the agency likes to use the phrase 'fully funded,' as if there was general agreement as to how much subsidy transit should receive. The message is clear: If the trains don't show up anymore, it's the fault of Springfield and transit customers who did not listen to those who understood the crisis. Not the fault at all of the people in charge of actual transit. This level of panic stoking, of course, does not come cheap. The Tribune reported last month that Metra had agreed to pay its lobbyist 'as much as $4.65 million in part for work related to a looming transit budget crisis,' a head-spinner given how that big bill surely contributed to the same crisis it was supposed to fix. What the mailers don't say is that the Chicago area's transit agencies aren't alone in their financial trouble. Other cities share their dilemma. Why? Well, here's what McKinsey had to say last winter: 'Transit agencies in the United States are at an inflection point,' the consultants wrote in a clear-minded report. 'Ridership — along with revenue generated from fares — remains, on average, significantly below pre-pandemic levels. Costs continue to rise as agencies … pay more to expand services and adopt innovations that are demanded by riders. Aging infrastructure is creating growing maintenance backlogs. Meanwhile, federal subsidies, which helped many agencies stabilize their operations and workforce during the disruptions caused by the pandemic, are expected to largely expire in the coming year.' There's the problem in a nutshell: Riders have not returned in part due to hybrid work schedules, maintenance costs have been deferred, and the federal COVID money is running out. Meanwhile, the Chicago Transit Authority now is spending a stunning $5.1 billion on the Red Line extension (RLE). If you look back at the second paragraph of this editorial, you'll see that big ask of Springfield is a mere $1.5 billion; less than a third of the cost of an extension that, while worthy on an equity basis, is unlikely to attract hordes of new riders, especially if there are new service cuts. Of course, the reason the extension is going ahead is because it attracted $1.9 billion in federal money that could not have been applied to actually operating a CTA line. Welcome to the wacky world of transit funding. Money for politically attractive extensions but no money for actually running the trains on those lines. Look also at the $1.9 billion (also bigger than the RTA's ask) the state put into track improvements for a 'higher speed' Amtrak line to St. Louis. That achieved modest improvements in journey times when fright trains don't interfere and we've enjoyed riding that service, which beats driving. Yet there are only four trains a day in each direction. But the Red Line extension cost overages are something else. Transit advocate Nik Hunder laid it out late last month on the Substack known as 'A City That Works.' 'First, this project is disastrously expensive,' he wrote. 'The RLE will be the most expensive transit project per mile and most expensive per new passenger gained in North American history.' Here are the stunning details, per Hunder: 'When the CTA first pitched this project … in 2009, the original cost estimate … was only $1.09B (not adjusted for inflation). The estimated cost remained at $1.09 billion until 2016, when the price doubled to $2.3 billion. In 2022, it shot up to $3.6B, which is partially attributed to inflation and rising construction costs (though those increases were not to the tune of $1.3B). After the CTA received notice in 2023 that it was in line for $1.9B in federal funding, the cost estimates for the project continued to rise and quickly. In March 2024 it was $3.6B. In July it was $3.9B. In August, it was $4.3B, then 12 days later it was $5.3B and finally in October, it reached $5.75B. A 60% increase in seven months.' Ergo, anyone with basic math skills can see that the federal money now is covering an ever-smaller percentage of the total cost, which likely means saddling the CTA with enormous amounts of ongoing debt, even as other CTA lines like the poor Forest Park section of the Blue are plagued with lengthy slow zones for want of track improvements. Mayor Brandon Johnston constantly defended his embattled former CTA chief by saying Dorval Carter was great at getting federal money. What he never mentioned was how that money was paying for an ever-smaller proportion of the project. The CTA has said it will increase service this spring on some lines, but few Chicagoans think there are enough reliable trains, certainly not compared with London's Victoria Line, where trains arrive like clockwork every two minutes. It's crazy to extend a system when the existing system is in such disrepair. Hunder again: 'Local media only reported the updated values as part of the overall news about the CTA's progress in securing federal funding. … Celebrating the total value of a project is becoming a troubling trend in Chicagoland. Rather than evaluate an infrastructure project based on its value to communities, local officials are evaluating projects on how much they are willing to invest in disadvantaged communities regardless of whether it is cost effective and leaves an acceptable debt burden to those same communities and the city at large.' Amen to that. But what are ordinary Chicagoans who believe a great city needs effective public transportation to do? How do you show your disgust at all of the above and yet also prevent a situation where you cannot take a convenient bus or train? McKinsey's report actually suggested that some of these deficits are ballooning to the point where local and even state governments can't plug the hole, even if they wanted to do so, not something you hear from the RTA. But the consultancy also outlined some of the things that both Springfield and ordinary riders should demand right now, all of which suggest that merely begging legislators for money won't change much: 'Boosting non-farebox revenue, achieving more efficient results from operating budgets, and making better-informed choices about capital expenditures can all be ways to help strengthen transit agency balance sheets — while also accelerating the service availability, frequency, reliability, and quality improvements that riders value the most,' McKinsey wrote. That can be as simple as getting staffers to hustle so standing times for buses and trains are reduced (a chronic problem in Chicago and yet also a way to improve public safety) and more closely matching service to post-pandemic patterns of demand. It could involve transit-oriented development of agency-owned land, selling air rights to private developers, unloading office space, selling more parking, firing chronically absent staffers, vastly improving retail operations at stations, consolidating administrators and administrations, building better inter-line connections to boost ridership, offering premium express routes and focusing bosses' efforts not on just asking Springfield for money but on partnering with developers and actually building economic activity around transit modes. All are great McKinsey-esque ideas, some of which are being pursued, to a point. But in the case of Chicago, it's getting mighty hard to argue that a well-informed choice about capital expenditures was made by the CTA. We may be solving one fiscal cliff only to deal with another down the line. One final point. There is no inherent requirement that Chicago transit be run by the city of Chicago or one of its existing agencies. McKinsey also points out that big cities don't always directly run their own transit agencies and sometimes outsource to more able managers. We'll end with the smart transit advocate Illinois Rep. Kam Buckner on this matter: 'Want to energize Springfield?,' he wrote to the RTA on X. 'Don't pressure us. Impress us. Show us a plan. Show us discipline. Show us that the priority is riders — not optics. We don't need a marketing campaign. We need a turnaround.' Exactly. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Chicago Tribune
27-04-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Chicago's transit agencies want you to panic. They don't explain the whole truth.
What is a rider's responsibility to a transit agency? Pay your fare and show courtesy to fellow travelers and hard-working staffers. That's all. Riders are customers, after all. But if you listen to our panicked transit agencies, that list of rider requirements now includes frantically lobbying Springfield for $1.5 billion in additional money to prevent the so-called fiscal cliff. If you don't obey Chicagoland's Regional Transportation Authority, you're unleashing a variety of horrors, including 'devastating service cuts that would leave 1 in 5 Chicago riders without the use of transit for their regional commute,' no Pace bus service on weekends, vastly reduced Metra service, and innumerable other undesirables. 'This isn't just a transit crisis — it's a regional emergency,' insists RTA Executive Director Leanne Redden in a mailer that came our way. 'If the General Assembly does not act this spring, hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans will wake up in 2026 without a way to get to work, school or medical appointments.' And, like all supplicants in Springfield, the agency likes to use the phrase 'fully funded,' as if there was general agreement as to how much subsidy transit should receive. The message is clear: If the trains don't show up anymore, it's the fault of Springfield and transit customers who did not listen to those who understood the crisis. Not the fault at all of the people in charge of actual transit. This level of panic stoking, of course, does not come cheap. The Tribune reported last month that Metra had agreed to pay its lobbyist 'as much as $4.65 million in part for work related to a looming transit budget crisis,' a head-spinner given how that big bill surely contributed to the same crisis it was supposed to fix. What the mailers don't say is that the Chicago area's transit agencies aren't alone in their financial trouble. Other cities share their dilemma. Why? Well, here's what McKinsey had to say last winter: 'Transit agencies in the United States are at an inflection point,' the consultants wrote in a clear-minded report. 'Ridership — along with revenue generated from fares — remains, on average, significantly below pre-pandemic levels. Costs continue to rise as agencies … pay more to expand services and adopt innovations that are demanded by riders. Aging infrastructure is creating growing maintenance backlogs. Meanwhile, federal subsidies, which helped many agencies stabilize their operations and workforce during the disruptions caused by the pandemic, are expected to largely expire in the coming year.' There's the problem in a nutshell: Riders have not returned in part due to hybrid work schedules, maintenance costs have been deferred, and the federal COVID money is running out. Meanwhile, the Chicago Transit Authority now is spending a stunning $5.1 billion on the Red Line extension (RLE). If you look back at the second paragraph of this editorial, you'll see that big ask of Springfield is a mere $1.5 billion; less than a third of the cost of an extension that, while worthy on an equity basis, is unlikely to attract hordes of new riders, especially if there are new service cuts. Of course, the reason the extension is going ahead is because it attracted $1.9 billion in federal money that could not have been applied to actually operating a CTA line. Welcome to the wacky world of transit funding. Money for politically attractive extensions but no money for actually running the trains on those lines. Look also at the $1.9 billion (also bigger than the RTA's ask) the state put into track improvements for a 'higher speed' Amtrak line to St. Louis. That achieved modest improvements in journey times when fright trains don't interfere and we've enjoyed riding that service, which beats driving. Yet there are only four trains a day in each direction. But the Red Line extension cost overages are something else. Transit advocate Nik Hunder laid it out late last month on the Substack known as 'A City That Works.' 'First, this project is disastrously expensive,' he wrote. 'The RLE will be the most expensive transit project per mile and most expensive per new passenger gained in North American history.' Here are the stunning details, per Hunder: 'When the CTA first pitched this project … in 2009, the original cost estimate … was only $1.09B (not adjusted for inflation). The estimated cost remained at $1.09 billion until 2016, when the price doubled to $2.3 billion. In 2022, it shot up to $3.6B, which is partially attributed to inflation and rising construction costs (though those increases were not to the tune of $1.3B). After the CTA received notice in 2023 that it was in line for $1.9B in federal funding, the cost estimates for the project continued to rise and quickly. In March 2024 it was $3.6B. In July it was $3.9B. In August, it was $4.3B, then 12 days later it was $5.3B and finally in October, it reached $5.75B. A 60% increase in seven months.' Ergo, anyone with basic math skills can see that the federal money now is covering an ever-smaller percentage of the total cost, which likely means saddling the CTA with enormous amounts of ongoing debt, even as other CTA lines like the poor Forest Park section of the Blue are plagued with lengthy slow zones for want of track improvements. Mayor Brandon Johnston constantly defended his embattled former CTA chief by saying Dorval Carter was great at getting federal money. What he never mentioned was how that money was paying for an ever-smaller proportion of the project. The CTA has said it will increase service this spring on some lines, but few Chicagoans think there are enough reliable trains, certainly not compared with London's Victoria Line, where trains arrive like clockwork every two minutes. It's crazy to extend a system when the existing system is in such disrepair. Hunder again: 'Local media only reported the updated values as part of the overall news about the CTA's progress in securing federal funding. … Celebrating the total value of a project is becoming a troubling trend in Chicagoland. Rather than evaluate an infrastructure project based on its value to communities, local officials are evaluating projects on how much they are willing to invest in disadvantaged communities regardless of whether it is cost effective and leaves an acceptable debt burden to those same communities and the city at large.' Amen to that. But what are ordinary Chicagoans who believe a great city needs effective public transportation to do? How do you show your disgust at all of the above and yet also prevent a situation where you cannot take a convenient bus or train? McKinsey's report actually suggested that some of these deficits are ballooning to the point where local and even state governments can't plug the hole, even if they wanted to do so, not something you hear from the RTA. But the consultancy also outlined some of the things that both Springfield and ordinary riders should demand right now, all of which suggest that merely begging legislators for money won't change much: 'Boosting non-farebox revenue, achieving more efficient results from operating budgets, and making better-informed choices about capital expenditures can all be ways to help strengthen transit agency balance sheets — while also accelerating the service availability, frequency, reliability, and quality improvements that riders value the most,' McKinsey wrote. That can be as simple as getting staffers to hustle so standing times for buses and trains are reduced (a chronic problem in Chicago and yet also a way to improve public safety) and more closely matching service to post-pandemic patterns of demand. It could involve transit-oriented development of agency-owned land, selling air rights to private developers, unloading office space, selling more parking, firing chronically absent staffers, vastly improving retail operations at stations, consolidating administrators and administrations, building better inter-line connections to boost ridership, offering premium express routes and focusing bosses' efforts not on just asking Springfield for money but on partnering with developers and actually building economic activity around transit modes. All are great McKinsey-esque ideas, some of which are being pursued, to a point. But in the case of Chicago, it's getting mighty hard to argue that a well-informed choice about capital expenditures was made by the CTA. We may be solving one fiscal cliff only to deal with another down the line. One final point. There is no inherent requirement that Chicago transit be run by the city of Chicago or one of its existing agencies. McKinsey also points out that big cities don't always directly run their own transit agencies and sometimes outsource to more able managers. We'll end with the smart transit advocate Illinois Rep. Kam Buckner on this matter: 'Want to energize Springfield?,' he wrote to the RTA on X. 'Don't pressure us. Impress us. Show us a plan. Show us discipline. Show us that the priority is riders — not optics. We don't need a marketing campaign. We need a turnaround.'
