
Illinois legislators left Springfield without funding public transit (for now). Here's what that means for CTA, Metra, Pace
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


Politico
20 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats desperately look for a redistricting edge in California, New York and Maryland
Hochul's political allies believe there is little upside to drawing new lines. 'I understand those in New York who are watching what's happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage,' said New York Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs. But 'the constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years. I don't know where someone could interpret it as something you can do every two years.' Beyond Texas, Republicans have their eye on picking up seats in other states like Missouri and Florida — which would put Democrats in a tough spot, given they don't have as much leeway to squeeze out extra seats. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy was noncommittal when asked by reporters earlier this week if he plans to pursue redistricting, noting that it's 'too early to make any definitive statement about it.' But he echoed what many other Democrats across the country have said when talking about the possibility of early redistricting: 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight.' New Jersey has its own constitutional impediment, which states that congressional districts, which are drawn by an independent commission, 'shall remain unaltered through the next year ending in zero in which a federal census for this State is taken.' Even if they were able to circumvent the state constitution, Democrats already have the majority in the New Jersey congressional delegation, and just two seats — the 7th, held by Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr., and the 9th, held by Democratic Rep. Nellie Pou — are considered battlegrounds. Even some other Hail Mary options seem off the table. State lawmakers in Washington, Minnesota and Colorado balked at the suggestion they should pursue drawing new maps in the next few months. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, accompanied by several members of the Texas state Legislature, calls for a new way for California to redraw it's voting districts during a news conference In Sacramento, Calif., Friday July 25, 2025. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP 'It's just not in the cards,' said Washington House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, citing the requirement that a two-thirds majority is needed in both the state House and Senate to reconvene the state's bipartisan redistricting commission. And Minnesota State Sen. Aric Nesbitt shut down the idea quickly: 'We're not power-crats, we're Democrats. We should do things that improve democracy, even if that means sometimes we don't get our way.' Democrats hold the governorship and state Senate in Minnesota, but Republicans narrowly control the House.


UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Judge throws out federal suit on Illinois, Chicago sanctuary policies
Chicago police officers watch as activists take to the streets for a May Day protest on May 1 to voice concerns on Trump administration's policies, including immigration. May 1 is also known as International Workers Day. File photo by Tannen Maury/UPI | License Photo July 26 (UPI) -- A federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against Illinois, Cook County and Chicago sanctuary policies that ban assisting in immigration-related matters. On Friday, District Judge Lindsay Jenkins in Chicago dismissed the entire lawsuit, writing the U.S. Department of Justice lacked standing, though she allowed lawyers to amend their lawsuit by Aug. 22. Jenkins, who serves the Northern District of Illinois, was appointed by President Joe Biden. Illinois is a blue state with a Democratic governor, Chicago mayor and Cook County state's attorney. Chicago is located in Cook County. In the lawsuit filed in February, the DOJ accused the governments of blocking federal immigration law based on the 10th Amendment, which deals with state and federal powers. DOJ hasn't yet publicly said whether there would be an appeal. The Department of Homeland Security has increased deportation raids, particularly in big cities with sanctuary laws. "The Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants' decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law - a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by [the federal Immigration and Nationality Act]," Jenkins wrote in the 64-page ruling. "Finding that these same Policy provisions constitute discrimination or impermissible regulation would provide an end-run around the Tenth Amendment. It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity - the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment." In their lawsuit, DOJ lawyers said sanctuary cities violate the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause. In 2017, then Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed the 2017 Trust Act, which prohibits state and local law enforcement from involvement in separation efforts with U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement, as well as other federal agencies. The law allows coordination among agencies. A state law in 2021 prohibits local and state officialsgiving a person's custody status, release date or contact information with federal immigration officials. Raunere was succeeded by J.B. Pritzker, who testified last month to a U.S. House committee about sanctuary policies. He was also named in the suit. "Illinois ensures law enforcement time and energy is spent fighting crime - not carrying out the Trump administration's unlawful policies or troubling tactics," Pritzker spokesman Matt Hill said in a statement. "As the grandchild of Ukrainian refugees, the Governor's personal story shows how immigration is central to America's story, economy and culture. He told it to Congress when he laid out how Illinois follows the law and would like the feds to follow suit." Pritzker posted on X that "Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court. Their case challenging the bipartisan TRUST Act was dismissed -- unlike the President, we follow the law and listen to the courts." Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul noted in 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal officials may not "impress into its service - and at no cost to itself -- the police officers of the 50 States." In 1985, then-Chicago Mayor Harold Washington signed an executive order declaring it a sanctuary city. In 2006, Chicago enacted the Welcoming City ordinance, which allows all residents to obtain city services, including police protection and medical care. "We will continue to fight for the dignity of our immigrant, migrant, and refugee communities and stand up for the rights of all Chicagoans against any federal overreach," Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who was named in the suit, said in a statement to WLS-TV. The federal lawsuit also targeted Cook County, which bans ICE agents from the county jail or other places unless they have a criminal warrant not relayed to immigration. "The Trump administration's continued attempts to bully local communities into adopting their preferred policies are not only unlawful, but counter to our values and ability to fight crime effectively," Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke said in a statement. "We need victims and witnesses of crime to feel comfortable coming forward, just as we are compelled to hold those who commit crimes accountable." The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said in the statement that the court "was correct to reject the Trump Administration's lawsuit and to allow public officials in Illinois and Chicago to follow our policies that prioritize local public safety and welfare over federal civil immigration enforcement." Trump in an executive order on Jan. 25 stripped sanctuary cities of all federal funding. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her agency was filing a civil lawsuit against state of New York over immigration enforcement. "This is a new DOJ. We are taking steps to protect American citizens," she said with federal agents behind her. "As you know, we sued Illinois, and New York didn't listen ... you're next." Lawsuits also have been filed against California and New Jersey. There are 13 sanctuary states, including New York and Illinois. In addition, there are sanctuary cities outside them, including Atlanta; Louisville, Ky.; Baltimore; and New Orleans as well as several designated counties. None are in Texas or Arizona, which border Mexico. The other two border states, New Mexico and California, have sanctuary laws.


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Rick Scott summons NYers to Florida with sky-high advertisement
Florida Congressman Rick Scott wants New Yorkers wary of life in the Big Apple under a potential Zohran Mandani administration to know they've got options. On Saturday, an aerial advertisement with Scott's logo crossed the skies high above Coney Island, encouraging beachgoers to consider a relocation to the humid, hurricane-prone home of at least five varieties of venomous snake, should the leftist New York City mayoral front-runner win in November. 'Hate socialism?' read the banner ad. 'Us too! Move to FL.' 4 The aeriel banner was financed by Sen. Rick Scott. Michael Nagle 4 Scott's current term ends on January 3, 2031. Getty Images Scott's airplaned pitch follows recent Times Square digital billboard ads paid for by the Ohio Gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy's Vivek Super PAC, which supports the biotech entrepreneur-turned-failed presidential candidate's bid to govern the Buckeye State. 4 A spokesperson for Scott's office was unavailable Saturday. Michael Nagle 4 Zohran Mamdani is favored to win his mayoral bid this fall. Getty Images It was unclear how much the flying ad cost Scott, but on average, aerial advertising in New York City runs between $7,000 and $9,000 for a two-hour flight, according to DashTwo. A representative from Scott's office was not available to comment Saturday. Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist who won the mayoral Democratic primary last month, is considered the frontrunner for City Hall.