Last May, several Illinois House Democrats complained bitterly that their mass transit negotiators were ignored and even shut-out by the Senate Democratic mass transit negotiators.
The House members had a point. The Senate passed a bill which was an almost purely Senate Democratic creation. They literally gave the House a “take it or leave it, but you have to decide right now” moment during the final minutes of the spring legislative session.
But when it came time for the House to draft a bill, it chose basically the same route as the Senate Democrats. Its end product unveiled last Tuesday was based on an internal survey of House Democratic members with no buy-in from Senate Democrats or the governor.
The Senate Democrats were furious. The House proposed taxes that had never been discussed before, including a tax on unrealized capital gains that has never been tried by any state in the country. The Senate didn’t believe a revenue estimate claim on an “amusements” tax, which would hit everything from online streaming services to concerts. And they weren’t enamored with the plan to significantly expand speed limit enforcement cameras.
Gov. JB Pritzker held a press conference the next day and declared several of the revenue ideas to be nonstarters. But that meant it was back to the drawing board after months of work with one day left in the scheduled fall veto session.
“We need a leader,” insisted one powerful insider Wednesday. The person has been advocating for a mass transit reform bill and was worried that the whole thing could fall apart.
By Thursday evening, that very same insider marveled at how he had watched as Pritzker and his staff took charge of the collapsed transit talks and steered them to a conclusion.
And the final deal was a whole lot less visibly painful to the average Illinoisan than has been feared during the last year or more.
About a third of the $1.5 billion plan will come from a quarter-point sales tax increase in counties served by the Regional Transportation Authority. It’ll cost those folks 25 cents on every $100 purchase.
The other two thirds comes with no new tax money.
Back in 2019, the legislature decided to wean the state’s General Fund off sales tax revenues from motor fuels. That money was gradually shifted away from the state budget and sent to the Road Fund. But the final annual phase-out has not happened. That money has instead been used for mass transit, partly because the Road Fund is so flush with unused cash. The road building unions objected, but they were persuaded to go along for just a little while longer.
The heart of the transit funding package is a decision to use all state motor fuel sales taxes to fund mass transit instead of sending that cash to the Road Fund. That brings in about $860 million. Another $200 million will come from a Senate Republican proposal to use annual interest on the massive Road Fund account to fund transit capital projects.
So, how did the governor convince the politically powerful road-building unions like Operating Engineers Local 150 to go along with diverting sales taxes and earned interest from their precious Road Fund to mass transit?
A toll increase. Local 150 had opposed an earlier plan to use increased tolls to fund mass transit because it wanted to increase tolls for tollway capital projects. Pushing a toll hike after the tolls were already increased would be difficult, to say the least.
So, the bill allows a toll increase of up to about $1 billion a year, with a 4% inflation cap. Passenger vehicle tolls haven’t been increased in 13 years, but they’ll go up by 45 cents and commercial vehicle tolls will rise by 30%.
But there’s a catch: 85% of the sales tax money would go to northeastern Illinois and 15% to Downstate. And 90% of the Road Fund interest would go to what’s now called the RTA region, and 10 percent would go to Downstate capital projects.
Sean Stott with the Illinois Laborers’ Union testified against the bill in the House Executive Committee, saying it would take money away from Downstate road and transit projects. The Republicans claimed the new formula would take $500 million from Downstate.
But Stott told legislators later: “While we remain opposed to this funding mechanism, we are not asking members to refrain from supporting it.”
Stott explained that a promise had been made in the Senate to find a way to “soften the blow” to Downstate road and transit projects during the spring session.
- DS - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:01 am:
I didn’t think they were going to get it done.
- RNUG - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:08 am:
Well, the sausage making was ugly but it got done.
With the ton of new money, about 5 times what was needed this year, they’ve ensured they should not have to revisit the issue for several years.
Personally, I think the tolls and ticket prices should have carried more of the increase, but I guess that was the cost of securing metro Chicago votes.
At least there is a new, theoretically unifying, governance over the system. But I fear it will still be 3 individual fiefdoms …
- Amalia - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:10 am:
great work. but. cta fares should be included in the shared contribution by an increase.
- JS Mill - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:14 am:
=Personally, I think the tolls and ticket prices should have carried more of the increase=
Why an increase in tolls? Ticket prices makes total sense, but tolls? There is zero mass transit for me to use where I live. I do use the tollway to get to and around Chicagoland. And they are already expensive. The toll increase just never made sense to me.
I am interested to hear more of your thoughts on this. With respect.
- City Zen - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:16 am:
==cta fares should be included in the shared contribution by an increase==
CTA fares are increasing 25 cents February 1.
- RNUG - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:28 am:
== Why an increase in tolls? ==
As I may be wrong, but the way read it, a portion of the money is going to the tollways …
Plus increased tolls may encourage people to take alternate forms of transit.
- Think again - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:43 am:
=We need a leader=
With a veto-proof supermajority, it should never have come to the chaos of a midnight veto session vote. Sure, the inter-part and labor versus transit schisms may be solved; the Chicago versus the rest of the state is as bad as it ever has been.
- JS Mill - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:58 am:
Thanks for the explanation RNUG. I have great respect and appreciation for your comments here.
- City Zen - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 10:59 am:
==Plus increased tolls may encourage people to take alternate forms of transit.==
There is no alternate along the I-294/355/88 corridor.
- Amalia - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:12 am:
@CityZen, that was proposed. is it actually happening? it seems to have been left out of the greater discussion, as in a total amount of money available for transit.
- Think again - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:15 am:
=Plus increased tolls may encourage people to take alternate forms of transit.=
That’s true, but the alternate form of “transit” often involves trucks using non-toll US/state routes and local roads.
- Bogey Golfer - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:19 am:
At one time, toll revenue was exclusively used to fund the operation, construction and maintenance of the Tollway system. So when did they blur the trust indenture and would this lead to possible litigation from the bondholders?
BTW Rich, you need to reset your timer to CST.
- fs - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:25 am:
==Why an increase in tolls? Ticket prices makes total sense, but tolls?==
Maybe this is why:
==Passenger vehicle tolls haven’t been increased in 13 years==
There was a lot of screaming about cta not increasing in a number of years, but if the same is true for the tollways, seems fair to apply the same principle to get a deal done and this bill over the finish line.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:38 am:
===So when did they blur the trust indenture and would this lead to possible litigation from the bondholders?===
None of the money from the increased tolls is going outside the Tollway; it will pay for additional Tollway work,n theory to partially offset the reduction in road work on IDOT and local roads due to the funding shift to public transit.
- Chicagonk - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:45 am:
Such a better outcome than the house bill.
- ChicagoBars - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:46 am:
The 10% CTA fare increase in their 2026 budget is only proposed, not adopted. They have their public budget hearing on Wednesday this week. Guess we’ll know by then if they are going to keep it in the budget or declare fiscal cliff victory and drop it until their 2028 budget (at earliest).
Considering how many of Mayor Johnson’s remaining most diehard allies seem to believe “Transit should be free” I wouldn’t be totally surprised if his majority of CTA appointees try to table a 10% hike.
- Amalia - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:48 am:
@ChicagoBars…interesting. and if they leave out a fare increase that will be the wrong approach.
- JS Mill - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:53 am:
=seems fair=
How so? The Tollway has it’s own funding source and isn’t in financial trouble.
I cannot use mass transit because it isn’t available. I don’t mind my tax dollars going to help fund mass transit to some extent, but this seems unfair (to use one of trump’s favorite whines)
- Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 11:56 am:
===So when did they blur the trust indenture and would this lead to possible litigation from the bondholders?===
How could you notice I forgot (again) to reset the time change and still assume without evidence that the tollway hike is paying for something outside the tollway?
- fs - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 12:30 pm:
==How so?==
It’s fair, in this context, because logically it’s applying the same argument on fare increases to, most importantly, get a deal done. It sounds as if labor isn’t on board without more money for the tolls. And just as you can’t use mass transit, there are many who use mass transit who can’t use the tolls, but will be (eventually) paying more in fares that goes to transit and not tolls. The toll increase isn’t going to transit.
- Juice - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 12:31 pm:
JS Mill, the toll increase was put on the table to get organized labor to support the bill.
In essence, the argument was that the construction trades are giving up projects that would otherwise be funded by the road fund in exchange for a new $10 billion capital program for the tollway.
- ChicagoBars - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 12:33 pm:
I know the Statehouse saying is”Watch the roller coaster, don’t ride the roller coaster” but can I just say how personally happy I am the transit funding roller coaster has finally quit running?
That was a long strange six month trip. Even by my regular CTA rider standards of “strange”.
Congrats to the Governor’s team and everyone involved in finally closing that book.
- City Zen - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 12:51 pm:
==the construction trades are giving up projects==
It’s not their projects to give up.
I’m fine with where the state landed because the money was there all along. All it took was politicians prioritized what mattered more at this moment.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 1:11 pm:
JS Mill, the “unfairness”, if there is some, wouldn’t be felt for several years IF the overall condition of downstate roads and bridges fell behind that of the Chicago region. As it is, downstaters didn’t see an increase at the gas pump, unlike the tollway and transit users in the northeast. They may see a decrease in potential road projects as compared to the status quo being left in place. As it is, downstate seems to be awash in road projects with the highway program that was just released.
- P. - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 2:30 pm:
Such a better outcome than the house bill.
Honestly hope they revisit the pizza tax. It’s $ on the table. I think they took too big of a bite haha but so many government-funded systems and infrastructure pieces are making it easy for the Amazons of the world to profit and thrive and they don’t pay their fair share to cover their impact not to mention enough to employees or taxing districts.
- Dupage - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 3:47 pm:
Tollway tolls were originally supposed to be used for tollway expenses ONLY. I have mixed feelings on using them to support the CTA. I think at least an equal amount should go to badly needed tollway construction such as the Illiana Expressway.
- JS Mill - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 3:59 pm:
=As it is, downstate seems to be awash in road projects with the highway program that was just released.=
I live in rural Illinois as well. Lost of road work here, but I have zero access to mass transit. Until I make a trip into the burbs or city that is.
- D - Monday, Nov 3, 25 @ 4:48 pm:
=but I have zero access to mass transit. Until I make a trip into the burbs or city that is.=
I am not sympathetic to this argument because more money gets sent downstate than they generate all the time. I’m not saying this to insult downstate. I think that sending money where it is needed rather than where it originated is the ideal way to run a state.