Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Why Are Tax-Exempt Hospitals Getting Rich?
Next Post: It’s just a bill
Posted in:
* This is a story an activist who has never been to Springfield would, and did, write. StreetsBlog Chicago…
Uber and the road construction lobby just killed Illinois’ transit funding bill, and your lawmakers let them
After months of negotiations, hearings, and community organizing, the most ambitious transit funding and reform bill Illinois has seen in decades was quietly killed. Not by voters, not by public outcry, but by notifications from Uber and Lyft.
It happened like this. Local 150 — the powerful private construction union that benefits from Illinois’ road-building contracts — which said it had “partnered” with the transit unions on funding, insisted that no toll revenue be used to support public transportation. That demand helped stall negotiations for weeks.
On May 31, in the final hours of the spring legislative session, the construction union only came on board after a last-minute addition to the transit funding bill introduced a $1.50 fee on some deliveries and a 10 percent ride-hail tax. These aren’t radical ideas. States across the country are already successfully using similar tools to support their transit systems. The fee didn’t apply to groceries, and most people already paying for delivery probably wouldn’t even notice the extra cost.
But then Uber and other gig economy giants went on the offensive anyway. Uber immediately blasted customers with a fear-mongering push notification: “SECRET tax hike… Act NOW.” [Emphasis added.] In other words, your pizza will cost more! Downstate Illinoisans will subsidize Chicagoland!
Um, no.
* The Senate Democrats were flat-out told by organized labor that a tollway surcharge would never be acceptable, and the SDems did it anyway. The idea was dropped almost immediately and replaced by a tax on deliveries, which StreetsBlog ridiculed…
"Sorry folks, we'd have liked to have picked another way to raise money for Illinois transit besides the widely reviled 'pizza tax' that didn't pass the House, but we couldn't think of any other funding sources… Wait, what?!"
🍕💰 –> 🛣️💰https://t.co/zubKrMRVf8 @capitolfax pic.twitter.com/la0pflWPVf— Streetsblog Chicago (@streetsblogchi) June 7, 2025
* Kristine Kavanagh, Communications Director, IUOE Local 150 replied to the StreetsBlog story…
Local 150 is committed to the future of public transportation in our region. We have collaborated with over 30 labor unions and state legislators for nearly a year supporting labor-backed legislation aimed at addressing public transit’s fiscal challenges and ensuring a smarter, safer transit system. Despite reforms being introduced close to the deadline, revenue discussions were lacking, particularly in the House. Local 150 is equally disappointed that the General Assembly failed to pass the legislation. We continue to advocate for better solutions alongside LAPT and emphasize the importance of adhering to the Safe Roads Amendment to prevent critical infrastructure funding diversions. Utilizing road funds in this manner would simply shift the crisis to highways and bridges, resulting in a scenario where we once again confront deteriorating infrastructure characterized by crumbling bridges and pothole-ridden roads.
Furthermore, any attempt at diverting funding from roads and bridges shows a lack of understanding of Illinois’ public transportation system. Nearly 55% of our public transit system operates on roads and bridges rather than rails. The time for Illinois Legislators to act is now, so we can find innovative solutions that ensure a robust public transportation system and maintain the integrity of our state’s infrastructure.
* House Speaker Chris Welch weighed in during a press conference yesterday…
From day one, we have said that reforms have to come before funding. The House has been insistent that reforms have to come before funding. And we are close on reforms, but we’re not there yet, and so we don’t want to continue to talk about this in five years, in 10 years and 15 years, because the system continues to be a failing system.
The House didn’t take up the Senate bill because, as Welch previously said, the bill was dead on arrival…
“In the House, we have not talked about a way to fund the transit system because we were committed to reforms first,” he said. “The Senate knew the bill they were proposing would be dead on arrival because we haven’t even discussed funding sources in the House.”
The House Democrats took this position despite the fact that organized labor, including Local 150, was fully on board with the Senate bill. And Uber’s astroturf lobbying was just not a factor. It wasn’t moving anyway.
* Gov. Pritzker yesterday…
I’d also like just to point out that there are a lot of contributors to the solution here. I know there are people who say, ‘Well, this is the cliff, and here’s the amount of money, and what is the state going to do to fill that gap?’ And the answer is not that the state is solely responsible for filling that gap. There are lots of sources right, the counties where their residents were affected, the City of Chicago, Cook County, too, and the riders themselves, as well as the efficiencies that need to be brought to the system.
And you have to put all of that together and determine how much money that the state should be putting forward. And I think that, you know, I just want to point out that everybody’s focusing only on the state, when actually there’s a whole lot to put together here.
Unsolicited advice: If you’re an activist, get your best deal on reform and then take the revenue that’s offered.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 8:38 am
Previous Post: Why Are Tax-Exempt Hospitals Getting Rich?
Next Post: It’s just a bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Dereliction of duty from the House Democrats to have not even discussed funding as the clock struck midnight. It’s an outrage.
Comment by DS Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 8:41 am
==Dereliction of duty from the House Democrats to have not even discussed funding as the clock struck midnight. ==
You didn’t read a single word of this post did you.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 8:45 am
There is a direct quote in the post from Speaker Welch acknowledging that the House Democrats “haven’t even discussed finding sources”. But sure, I’m the one who didn’t read.
Comment by DS Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 8:58 am
Funding*
Comment by DS Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 8:58 am
For once….Gov has it right. It will take many pieces to fill the void….State included.
Comment by Big Tent Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 8:58 am
Why did Harmon have his members vote on a revenue bill that was DOA in the house? Especially with the $1.50 delivery tax…Was it to show support for 150? They did the political calculus and figured a vote on a $1.50 delivery tax wouldn’t hurt them in the next election? If 150 worked with legislators and was fully supportive, why wasn’t the groundwork laid for passage in the house? From the story sounds like it was a last minute change and there was not enough time in the final hours of session? But why take a vote like this if you know it’s DOA? What am I missing
Comment by Blazzzer Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:01 am
The fee didn’t apply to groceries, and most people already paying for delivery probably wouldn’t even notice the extra cost.
What an insult to taxpayers…..there is absolutely no conscience or restraint by these people when they are looking at spending someone else’s money
Comment by It's always Sunny in Illinois Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:09 am
“….with a background in science, comedy, and theology.” description of the writer, written by the writer. The comedy part creates jokes that write themselves. the bit about “… most people already paying for delivery probably wouldn’t even notice the extra cost.” is particularly hilarious. there’s a certain faction of transportation activists who are quite high and mighty…mighty ridiculous.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:10 am
A flat tax on Amazon deliveries seems like bad public policy and bad politics.
I have a lot of questions about how it would work.
I disagree about not questioning the revenue though, that’s how we ended up with the parking meter deal.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:11 am
It’d be nice if Welch was at least a little bit embarrassed about not being “there yet”, as if that’s not a monumental failure on his and all of the other legislators (and every other stakeholder, to greater or lesser degrees) part.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:15 am
@DS
They stated the reason why. Hence you either didn’t read the post or have no reading comprehension. They stated they aren’t discussing funding without figuring out the reforms first. Not that difficult to understand. Your “dereliction” is another person’s “that’s smart.”
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:16 am
Reform? Revenue?
2things Illinois does not do well.
Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:17 am
==insisted that no toll revenue be used to support public transportation.==
Nor should it as I-294 and I-355 absorb N-S traffic not serviced by passenger rail.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:21 am
Blazzzer with the exact question I still don’t understand: “Why did Harmon have his members vote on a revenue bill that was DOA in the house?”
I am still baffled.
By my back of the bar napkin math around 17-18 of the yes votes in Illinois Senate are up for re-election in 2026. Why make them deal with this “Pizza Tax” (patent pending) vote in May? Or at least why not wait until petitions go out late this summer and Senate Dems can figure out who (if any) has a legit challenger headache? Especially once they knew it was DOA in the House?
Comment by ChicagoBars Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:22 am
== Why did Harmon have his members vote on a revenue bill that was DOA in the house? ==
I think to relieve pressure that was coming from his progressive caucus, who were very upset with the budget and badly wanted a “win” on transit. Kind of ironic that their ideological allies at StreetBlog are now taking shots at their bill.
Comment by Sam R. Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:26 am
Blazzzer, the Senate’s lead transit negotiator addressed this with media after the session. Basically said layoff notices and service cut announcements will be coming and the Senate Dems wanted to be on record as having offered a meaningful solution.
Sen. Ram Villivalam, D–Chicago, the lead Senate transit negotiator, told Crain’s his chamber’s vote reflected the urgency required to save mass transit.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/politics/why-illinois-transit-rescue-plan-collapsed
“We did not want to have a conversation with public hearings of 40% cuts to service and 3,000 layoff notices being sent to our front-line public transit workers. That’s why we put forward our package of reforms and funding, and that’s why we passed it over to the House,” he said.
Despite facing an uncertain future in the House, Villivalam said the Senate voted on the bill because “we believe in responsible governance, and we believe in avoiding 40% cuts to service and more than 3,000 workers getting layoff notices.”
https://www.nprillinois.org/government-politics/2025-06-05/legislative-leaders-discuss-next-steps-for-failed-transit-reform-push
Comment by Casper the Ghost Bus Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:35 am
If there is a time to take tough votes, it is in this election cycle. Democrats nationwide should outperform in 2026 - I highly doubt the Senate vote will matter.
Comment by Chicagonk Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:47 am
“The fee didn’t apply to groceries, and most people already paying for delivery probably wouldn’t even notice the extra cost.”
Except when it gets added to the orders you placed on the web, like from Amazon, that are delivered to your house via USPS or UPS. MN has a similar tax and it is added to web based purchases, much like sales tax is added.
Comment by No Relation Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:50 am
The Governor is right that funding sources need to come from more than just the state, but the state can support separate funding sources by allowing congestion pricing on state highways (like DLSD), which is currently prohibited by state statute.
Comment by Incandenza Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:54 am
==The fee didn’t apply to groceries==
The actual language in the bill suggested otherwise. As long as there was at least one taxable item in the order, the whole order was subject to the fee, i.e. a mixed basket. Almost no one orders groceries without ordering something else like personal care items, cleaning solutions, or a thousand different things. It also applied to prescriptions for the very same reason.
Comment by 8657 Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:56 am
==Dereliction of duty from the House Democrats to have not even discussed funding as the clock struck midnight. It’s an outrage.==
God I guess all those hours in caucus they were discussing the transit bill and the lead negotiators saying that final night of session that they weren’t picking it up because the Senate jammed in a revenue option that was not discussed in said caucus was just a nightmarish fever dream that I experienced.
They’ll just let anyone have a keyboard these days won’t they?
Comment by VK Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 10:18 am
Yet another chapter in the book titled “I don’t know how government works but I will have opinions on how it should work anyway.”
Comment by Remember the Alamo II Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 10:23 am
The Uber push notification claim is hilarious. I got several push notifications from Illinois sportsbook apps telling me to oppose the new wager tax. It clearly didn’t make a difference there.
Comment by Sportsbetting Tax Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 10:25 am
The whole transit funding “debate” continues to seem like a session being conducted a Circular Firing Squad. There is little to no effort being made to make a compelling case on why someone other than users should not be footing the tab for what they use.
That said transit benefits the region and perhaps the entire state. This is offset by the fact the legacy system is designed to haul people to places they no longer go.
Modify the system and developed a balanced revenue plan between users/farebox $$$ and subsidies.
Comment by Annon'in Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 11:23 am
This seems a bit harsh on Streetsblog Chicago. They do great work on transportation stories in Chicagoland when other outlets only cover rush hour crashes and highway construction. They’re more than “activists”
Comment by Joseph M Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 11:35 am
–”They’re more than “activists” –
In this case, they’re wrong.
Comment by Casper the Ghost Bus Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 11:42 am
===they’re wrong===
And doing harm by spreading misinformation/disinformation.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 11:44 am
Don’t ever let the correct information stop an activist from activating
Comment by Frida's Boss Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 12:03 pm
There is no question that fares need to go up across all mass transit systems in the state.
As an example…using the CTA. A single fare should be the most expensive fare. A 24 hour pass would be cheaper than a single fare. A 30 day pass would be the cheapest fare (riders are paying in advance, hence the biggest discount).
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 12:08 pm
=== A 30 day pass would be the cheapest fare (riders are paying in advance, hence the biggest discount)===
They also don’t ride 30 days, maybe not even 20 days, with a 4 day workweek that might only be 16 days
Comment by EP1082 Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 12:16 pm
=== They also don’t ride 30 days, maybe not even 20 days, with a 4 day workweek that might only be 16 days ===
Then don’t get the 30 day pass. Good grief.
Comment by Remember the Alamo II Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 12:28 pm
Toll surcharges, congestion pricing, tax hikes on Uber, Lyft and the Magic Burrito Taxi companies, taxing engine displacement, etc…. all of these are sane, rational ways to increase transit funding.
Private vehicles are the primary source of transportation pollution, not counting the military, and they contribute the most to congestion.
Mobility is a social justice issue as well as a climate issue, and obviously not everyone is able to own or drive a private vehicle. Increasing the availability of public transportation will help both of those concerns.
It is fair and right to put the burden on cars.
Comment by Thicc Offerman Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 1:25 pm
===put the burden on cars===
Cars don’t pay taxes.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 1:30 pm
=== There is no question that fares need to go up across all mass transit systems in the state. ===
Why should the burden be borne on the backs of the working poor and disabled folks? They aren’t part of the problem.
Comment by Thicc Offerman Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 1:44 pm
===Why should the burden be borne on the backs of the working poor and disabled folks? ===
I can’t quite remember what it is, but if you look at the transit bill, there are big discounts for those folks.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 1:46 pm
=== There is no question that fares need to go up across all mass transit systems in the state. ===
=== Why should the burden be borne on the backs of the working poor and disabled folks? They aren’t part of the problem. ===
I would argue that the vast majority of people that take public transit are not working poor or disabled folks. This is based on 25 years of taking public transit to and from work on a daily basis. For folks that do fall within those categories, maybe there can be a reduced fare system put in place. At the end of the day, however, refusing to raise fares because of how it affects a smaller subset of riders is silly policy.
Higher fares need to absolutely be a part of the solution. Of course there could be other revenue options as well, but why wouldn’t the folks that use the system the most have to bear the cost of system improvements and upgrades? My Metra monthly pass is actually considerably lower than it was in 2019 prior to covid. With this said, we already have a drastically lower ridership on our Metra line than we did pre-covid.
Funding a transit solution will undoubtedly be difficult. Ruling out fare increases, however, would be silly policy that leaves an important source of revenue on the sidelines.
Comment by Remember the Alamo II Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 2:07 pm
@remembering: thank you. A 7 day pass would be discounted from a single fare but not as much as a 30 day pass. No different than it is now.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 2:09 pm
I don’t think anyone is seriously advocating for a fiscal solution that doesn’t involve some level of fare increases, even if only to keep pace with inflation (CTA hasn’t raised fares since 2018; simply keeping up with inflation since then would put CTA fares at about $3.25 today).
However, it’s also unrealistic to expect a fare-only solution to actually be workable: in the 2025 RTA budget, fares would have to nearly double — without losing a single rider — to mitigate the loss of remaining Covid relief funds.
Transit and transportation is not something that someone can simply “opt out” of; it’s all a single network, and we collectively experience benefits when folks have mobility options beyond needing to drive everywhere. Maybe you drove to the store today, but the person stocking the shelves took the bus, and if the bus wasn’t running they either wouldn’t be working there, or they’d be contributing to the traffic you’re already sitting in, to say nothing of other societal benefits like lower pollution and safer, more walkable communities.
Comprehensive reform in how Chicago-area transit is governed, overseen, organized, and operated will yield some efficiencies in the long run, but it’s also intended to help justify a transformational new investment in creating a 21st-Century transportation network that better reflects how people travel post-pandemic and serves many more trips than “traditional” commutes. The Senate was right to address both revenues and reform concurrently, and I hope their House counterparts are able to do likewise.
Comment by StarLineChicago Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 2:59 pm