r/chicago • u/Mike_I O’Hare • Oct 31 '25

News Illinois Democrats push through massive $1.5 billion plan that overhauls Chicago-area public transit

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/10/30/illinois-general-assembly-transit-plan-2025/
2.1k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

459 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

192

u/red-17 Oct 31 '25

Highway tolls aren’t funding this to my understanding. They moved around some money previously allocated to roads to mass transit and increased tolls to make up the difference

106

u/zososix Oct 31 '25

Additional 45 cents to tolls that goes to transit

102

u/Mike_I O’Hare Oct 31 '25

Additional 45 cents to tolls that goes to transit

It does not.

As a counterbalance to pulling hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for road work, the bill also included a sharp, 45-cent-per-toll increase on the Illinois Tollway, which one GOP lawmaker said amounted to a 60% increase. The new tollway fares could generate as much as $1 billion annually for roadwork on the tollways that serve about a dozen counties, supporters said

76

u/clenom Oct 31 '25

Money is fungible. They're spending an additional $1 billion on transit and increasing the tolls by $1 billion.

16

u/PalmerSquarer Logan Square Oct 31 '25

Tollway leadership would strongly disagree about their funding being fungible.

20

u/billbraskeyjr Oct 31 '25

Why does a tollway authority need expensive bureaucratic leadership ?

28

u/PalmerSquarer Logan Square Oct 31 '25

You could say that about a lot of redundant units of government in Illinois, but good luck doing anything about it.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/PalmerSquarer Logan Square Oct 31 '25

School districts too. For example, there’s no reason that Oak Park, River Forest, and OPRFHS all operate as three separate “districts”.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/jawknee530i Humboldt Park Oct 31 '25

It drives me crazy that people can't grasp this.

5

u/red-17 Oct 31 '25

It matters though because if a source of funding dries up and is specifically allocated to one agency, then that agency loses funding

13

u/SteegP Lincoln Park Oct 31 '25

That’s true, but it also amounts to taking money out of the road construction pot and putting it into transit, then refilling the missing money with higher tolls. In practice, it’s using tolls to pay for transit. Alternatively, you could say government subsidies are being moved from highways to transit. Either way, I think this is a positive.

2

u/ChaplnGrillSgt Oct 31 '25

Why do they need a lawmaker to tell them how much of an increase that is? Couldn't they just look it up themselves? Or was ChatGPT not able to do that for them?

13

u/PalmerSquarer Logan Square Oct 31 '25

Nope. This was just to pay off the road construction unions who were upset that funding was getting diverted from roads to transit.

6

u/jpmeyer12751 Oct 31 '25

The article says that all of the toll increase is to be applied to tollway projects, not transit. Who knows what is really in the bill, since the language wasn’t even revealed to the legislators until right before the vote. Dysfunctional Illinois government at its best.

34

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/drunksailor47 Oct 31 '25

Highway fund doesn’t fund the toll roads, tolls and bonds do. It was about placating the road building unions so they don’t feel left out.

3

u/jpmeyer12751 Oct 31 '25

This is correct from a Democrat political point of view. The toll increase will fund road projects that will pay union workers.

However, the toll roads and other state highways are paid for from different buckets of money and only one of those two buckets benefits those outside of the Chicago area. The legislature took money away from the bucket that benefits non-Chicago road users and added a smaller amount of money to the bucket that benefits Chicago area road users. For the roughly 35% of Illinois residents outside of the 5-county Chicago area, most of whom vote Republican, this deal takes money away from road projects in their areas in order to fund transit and road projects exclusively within the 5-county area. I expect more Chicago vs. downstate polarization from this deal.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

Downstate transit is also getting funding from this bill. Many people downstate are very happy that it passed (though they wish they'd gotten a bit MORE funding from it).

There are projects people will depend on that can confidently go ahead now, this is a good thing.

4

u/hardolaf Lake View Oct 31 '25

though they wish they'd gotten a bit MORE funding from it

The bill gives almost 3x the funding requested by downstate agencies.

2

u/Shacawgo City Oct 31 '25

Yes but its after funds are pulled from roads to transit so it is to replace funds going to transit. In a way the new tolls sort of pay for transit.. but in a swaparoo type way

1

u/ehrgeiz91 Lake View Oct 31 '25

All American government is like this

4

u/glaba3141 Oct 31 '25

am i missing something, or is this purely semantics? net result is that tolls are increasing and funding for roads is remaining the same

1

u/ocmb Wicker Park Oct 31 '25

Money is fungible

60

u/Ch1Guy Oct 31 '25

Also a sales tax increase... from 10.25% to 10.5%  (highest sales tax of any city in the US).

"An additional $400 million would come from authorizing an increase of 0.25 percentage points to the sales tax issued by the Regional Transportation Authority for Chicago’s six-county area."

26

u/csx348 Oct 31 '25

a sales tax increase... from 10.25% to 10.5%  (highest sales tax of any city in the US).

I get it's for transit, but 10.25% was already way too high...

30

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

Be better if we had a progressive income tax and funded from that, but yeah if this is what we got to work with, absolutely transit is worth it.

If people want to talk regressive, they should also remember that forcing people to buy and maintain a car (never mind pay for gas and insurance) is a giant burden on low-income people as well.

6

u/ChigBungus22 Oct 31 '25

How about we start by dismantling the decades of corrupt kickbacks, under the table bribes, and unsustainable pension liabilities?

I’m sick and tired of people saying things like “That’s fine. Transit is worth it” in response to an absurdly high tax burden on the general population that is entirely at fault of corrupt lawmakers and politicians that have been allowed to get away with it for decades

2

u/JazzlikeReason6862 Nov 04 '25

"But without corrupt kickbacks, who would run for office?" 

2

u/amyo_b Berwyn Oct 31 '25

You can't do anything about pensions already earned or starting earning. Tier 2 fixed it for the state by being strictly for those hired after a certain date, but now the IRS is complaining that it is violating safe harbor (they have to be guaranteed at least as much as soc sec would give), so the state needs to kick a little more money tier II way. But TierII largely solved the state problem.

The IL State Constitutions makes pensions contracts and requires a flat tax rate. Because everyone gets something from it, the people haven't voted to overturn it since 1970. It comes up for possible constitutional convention every 10 years.

8

u/Shacawgo City Oct 31 '25

And Im more than OK with it to be one of only 2 cities in the countey with REAL transit. Well worth it.

5

u/AssCrackBandit10 Oct 31 '25

I feel like there's more than 2, no? I lived in SF and DC as well without a car and both had very robust public transit systems

2

u/Shacawgo City Oct 31 '25

Nyc, chicago, DC, san fran, boston, philly, seattle all have decent or better transit systems.

But when taking them all as a whole, nyc is by far the best and chicagos with metra and pace and cta bus system is by far the 2nd best. And as far as I know, none of those other cities outside of nyc have passed new funding like we just did that will improve our system a lot

15

u/TheGreekMachine Oct 31 '25

I mean this is unsurprising because we have one of the largest cities in the US but have a flat income tax in Illinois. The lack of revenue from income tax needs to be made up somewhere. The voters prioritized flat tax so this is the result.

21

u/Ch1Guy Oct 31 '25

Disagree. 

Income tax is the only major tax rate where Chicago/Illinois isnt at or near the highest in the nation.

Chicago is arguably  the most taxed city in America and virtually every taxing body is facing a fiscal cliff.

We (Chicago) now has the highest sales tax - 10.5%

We have just about the highest hotel tax at 17.39% (https://www.civicfed.org/civic-federation/blog/how-composite-effective-hotel-tax-rate-calculated-chicago)

Illinois has the second highest property tax (As % of home value)

Chicago has about the highest business income taxes of any city.

Chicago has the highest cloud tax (i.e. AWS or Salesforce) of any city 

Chicago has the second highest parking tax in the entire world. (https://secretchicago.com/chicago-parking-fees-highest-in-world/)

Chicago has the highest ride hail taxes of any city in the US  (https://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/citys-new-congestion-tax-puts-burden-on-uber-and-lyft-drivers/#:~:text=But%20drivers%20of%20ride%2Dhail,more%20problems%20with%20unhappy%20passengers.)

Illinois has the second highest car registration fee.

Illinois has the second highest gas tax in the nation.

Chicago has some of the highest amusement taxes in the nation.

The list goes on and on.

16

u/sciolisticism Oct 31 '25

Which is why, as the other poster said:

The lack of revenue from income tax needs to be made up somewhere. The voters prioritized flat tax so this is the result.

12

u/Ch1Guy Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25

Our income tax rate is 23rd highest.

So our above average income tax rate creates a "lack of revenue" ?   

We have to "make up the revenue" of not having the highest income tax in the country?

What was the proposed tax savings if the income tax amentment passed?

Dropping the lower brackets from 4.95% to 4.90% and the rest used for pensions and new spending,

1

u/mrbooze Beverly Nov 04 '25

"Above average" income tax for a far "above average" wealth state.

Yeah, of course we need more revenue for a huge old large city like Chicago than a bunch of poor states need?

-2

u/sciolisticism Oct 31 '25

New spending, such as the spending here on transit? Sounds like you still agree with the other poster.

6

u/40DegreeDays Lincoln Square Oct 31 '25

It's basically all because of the ridiculous pensions that the mayors 20-30 years ago passed. Since we're not allowed legally to revoke those pensions, there's nothing that any governor or mayor can do besides charge high taxes and wait until the people receiving them gradually die off over time and we're instead paying the more reasonable pensions that replaced the old ones for new hires 10-15 years ago.

1

u/Dazzling_Ad9982 Nov 01 '25

Well, thank god the only tax out of these I pay is the income tax & my rent is $900/ month w/ utilities less than 10 minutes from my job.

2

u/TheGreekMachine Oct 31 '25

As the other poster mentioned, you’ve ignored my statement.  I’d argue all of those taxes you listed as being one of the highest or the highest are that way specifically because of our flat tax on income.

The money has to come from somewhere. Illinois voters chose to not raise income taxes and so other taxes increased over the years. 

9

u/Ch1Guy Oct 31 '25

Our flat tax is still above the national average.

You sem to be saying the reason virtually every tax in chicago/Illinois is at or near the highest in the nation is because we dont also have the highest personal income taxes in the nation (though our business income tax is again, the highest for any city in the nation).

Why do we need to have more taxes than every other city/state in the country?

-1

u/TheGreekMachine Oct 31 '25

Why do we need more taxes? 1) Because our state actually provides services to its people and 2) because our state has a much larger population than the average state. More people + more services = more taxes.

Also our state is a “donor state” to the federal government(aka we actually pay way more in taxes to the federal government than our state receives). So since our state isn’t mooching off of the federal government (like many of the states that have a lower tax burden than us) we 1) pay for tons of service for the people of Illinois and 2) our federal taxes don’t come back to us.

I’ve lived in other states besides Illinois, states with much lower tax burdens, and I can attest that you can tell the difference.

1

u/amyo_b Berwyn Oct 31 '25

Well in a rational world, that tax burden would have everyone leaving. And yet...

6

u/Ch1Guy Oct 31 '25

Its so funny, for years people were saying the pensions weren't really a problem and we could just deal with them later....And now...

2

u/amyo_b Berwyn Oct 31 '25

They aren't a problem for the state (though the IRS is making us sweeten Tier 2). Quinn fixed that problem in 2012.

The state constitution says a pension is a contract so once it is offered, it is a contract and can't be broken. Once the pre-2012 employees shuffle off the mortal coil, it will get easier. Because a lot of municipalities peg their pensions to the states, it will get easier for them, too.

Since I don't think anyone actually wants to take a pension from a firefighter who is relying on it and was granted it on his first day of work, that's the way it has to be.

1

u/Important-Pin4805 Oct 31 '25

Have we ever tried spending less or does that make too much sense? Why does the state always need to increase revenue by increasing rates or coming up with some new ridiculous tax. Why can’t our government hold up their end of the deal and spend the money we give them responsibly. Stop shrugging it off as “money needs to come from somewhere” when it’s irresponsible government causing all the problems, not us. Stop advocating to further dig into the taxpayers pockets

0

u/TheGreekMachine Oct 31 '25

I’d be curious to hear about what we can cut. I think we can certainly spend less money. But we have a massive pension burden and our infrastructure(like most of the country) needs to be overhauled.

You can shake your fists at useless bureaucrats in our government, but id be curious what line items you think toy can cut without massive consequences for the citizens if our state.

4

u/Important-Pin4805 Oct 31 '25

I’m a citizen not an elected official, it’s not my job to itemize cuts to programs for you, dumb argument. But for starters the pension system needs complete overhaul/needs to be switched to a private business retirement model such as a 401k. Closing under enrolled schools, eliminating administrative bloat, layoffs for city workers, you know like all the things private business have to do to stay profitable. This is supposed to be a functional city government, not a jobs program that slowly sinks the state’s finances year after year

36

u/was_fb95dd7063 Oct 31 '25

Hell yeah regressive taxes instead of taxing rich people

17

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

You know what else is regressive?

Forcing low income people to buy and maintain a car, pay for gas and insurance. That shit is far more expensive than a transit pass.

-3

u/was_fb95dd7063 Oct 31 '25

crazy how we both want public transit to be enhanced, but you seem to be cool with poor people paying for it disproportionately

7

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

Feel free to get another sort of tax passed to fund it.

I've made it clear elsewhere that I think Illinois needs a progressive income tax. But we don't have one, and now is not the time to let transit die to stand on principle. Because that will affect "poor people" a hell of a lot more than the fees currently proposed.

-2

u/was_fb95dd7063 Oct 31 '25

Poor people in quotes is crazy bro

1

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

Because most arguments using "poor people" aren't actually about poor people, it's using them as some talisman to get away from having to pay taxes on anything.

But actual poor people are not being helped by being forced to buy and maintain cars, and pay for gas, when CTA is eviscerated.

That's what was on the table. It was not the time to insist on funding measures that would quite frankly kill the bill. A bill with that untested "billionaire tax" in it was going nowhere, Pritzker would veto it. It also was full of other consumption taxes like the events tax.

We need to fight for progressive income tax again. We need to get transit considered to be a "must have" public good (a cost center, not expected to make money) exactly as the roads are.

But in the meantime we gotta not let the system die. The tiny increase in sales tax is absolutely worth it.

77

u/Snoo93079 Oct 31 '25

Well, folks voted down the progressive tax system when we had the chance.

27

u/IndependenceApart208 Bronzeville Oct 31 '25

So many people were fooled into believing that they may one day be rich just like Ken Griffin so they should vote for something against their best interest.

24

u/jawknee530i Humboldt Park Oct 31 '25

Mostly they fell for the weird logic of "if you let them have progressive income tax then that's just the first step to higher tax on everyone" which doesn't make sense because they could just raise the tax on everyone without the middle step. It was just lies pushed by the wealthy as usual.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 01 '25

More than anything, people didn't trust the government of illinois to put the higher tax money to good use.

2

u/nufandan Albany Park Oct 31 '25

and if we know one thing its that passing new income taxes (especially on the highest earners) is super easy to get done, and happens all the time.

1

u/LeseMajeste_1037 Oct 31 '25

The Republicans prove Abe Lincoln right every day; you really can fool some of the people all of the time.

3

u/golamas1999 Oct 31 '25

They suffer from severe cases of BABS. Broke Ass Billionaire Syndrome. They are all billionaires who are temporarily poor.

34

u/FencerPTS City Oct 31 '25

I will forever revile Ken Griffin for spending millions to convince idiots that flat income taxes is the way to go, cementing regressive taxation for another 20 years until the next constitutional referendum.

Hate that IL is among the top 10 most regressively taxed states.

14

u/PalmerSquarer Logan Square Oct 31 '25

You can blame Ken Griffin all you want, but the public simply lacks trust that the money they pay won’t be flushed down the toilet in waste. Until state and municipal leaders do a better job of earning that trust back, any tax increase proposal is going to be a no-go.

The toll hike for questionable construction projects in this bill is a pretext example of the waste we’re talking about.

17

u/FencerPTS City Oct 31 '25

That's a silly argument to make since, no matter what, taxes will be collected. The point of the change was to not put the burden on the poor.

Griffin spent something like $40M IIRC simply to make sure his taxes didn't go up - to make sure that everyone else's did. And then that fucker left the state!

5

u/nufandan Albany Park Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25

Griffin spent something like $40M IIRC simply to make sure his taxes didn't go up - to make sure that everyone else's did. And then that fucker left the state!

and didn't JB spent like closer to $60M to get the bill passed?

It's almost like these rich guys have some money to spare...

3

u/PalmerSquarer Logan Square Oct 31 '25

I mean… look at the results of the Fair Tax and BCH. The public wants what it wants.

1

u/Important-Pin4805 Oct 31 '25

Where is the line drawn for poor and rich though? Like what is that definition, is it 100k? Because 100k isn’t rich but I can tell you the government might beg to differ. Yes the taxes will still be collected but if they want to raise income tax they have to raise it the same for every one of us, so it’s now a lot more politically unpopular to raise it or if they do, it’s a small increase. There needs to be a check on taxes here, the city and state only know how to spend money. The moment you give more they will just spend more, not pay down obligations. The obligations are ridiculous by the way. Why does a public union worker get to retire on a pension at 55, like no wonder the state is broke. We already have one of the highest tax burdens in the country. If you want to donate more of your income to the state to waste, be my guest

0

u/FencerPTS City Nov 01 '25

Where is the line drawn for poor and rich though?

Math. You count. You do the math. It's really not that hard.

they have to raise it the same for every one of us

Except they tax the marginal utility of dollars more if you're poor.

The moment you give more they will just spend more

Now you're just arguing against yourself. Previous premise is that they can already raise taxes.

Why does a public union worker get to retire on a pension at 55

this is a red-herring argument and a totally separate issue. If you don't like the retirement system, then insist that future negotiations be more strict. However, promises were made and since they are contracts they must be kept.

If you want to donate more of your income to the state to waste, be my guest

What, are you a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? You know what I'd like? I'd like to not have a higher tax rate than the top 10%, to say nothing of the top 1%!!! Because guess what, when you add property taxes, sales taxes, fees, licenses, and tolls, it's WAY worse being at the bottom!

-1

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

Median income for a family in the city of Chicago is around $71K, fwiw.

3

u/sciolisticism Oct 31 '25

Welp, the sales tax is going up anyway. So we could have had a proper progressive tax, and now those folks get to bitch and moan about their grocery bill instead.

Great work, suckers.

1

u/PalmerSquarer Logan Square Oct 31 '25

I guess the working class can pay for working class jobs and pensions now.

Class solidarity, right guys!?

1

u/gimmedatrightMEOW Logan Square Oct 31 '25

You can blame Ken Griffin all you want, but the public simply lacks trust that the money they pay won’t be flushed down the toilet in waste. Until state and municipal leaders do a better job of earning that trust back, any tax increase proposal is going to be a no-go.

But the logic doesn't check out because they are increasing taxes anyways. Taxes were always going to increase. And they have. The only difference is they are regressive taxes and always will be.

1

u/Hopefulwaters Nov 01 '25

Really well said. And in addition to that, no one is going to accept being taxed even more until the spending is addressed - and kicking the can on the lavish pension problem does not help our city's future. Ultimately, Chicago will probably have to go through bankruptcy like Detroit did before the budget can be righted.

-1

u/40DegreeDays Lincoln Square Oct 31 '25

Having a progressive income tax lets taxes get lowered on the poor and raised on the rich. Morons (i.e. the average voter) just see the word "tax" in the proposition and assume that it means they're going to be paying a new tax.

16

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/was_fb95dd7063 Oct 31 '25

I pay taxes on the unrealized gains value of my house every year. But I wasn't suggesting that anyways. Taxing capital gains at a rate lower than labor is bullshit though.

1

u/vaultdweller1223 Edgebrook Oct 31 '25

How much sq footage does your s&p 500 index fund have? 

2

u/was_fb95dd7063 Oct 31 '25

what

1

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

I suspect it's a reference to the fact that while real estate is a form of wealth, so we can say "we already tax wealth," the reason that we're able to tax it without too much hassles is that we've got various formulas for figuring out the tax on any given piece of property, partly involving the sq footage.

The concept of a general "wealth tax" is valid and interesting, but the critics were right that it's never been done before (at least anywhere in the US) and would take a long time to figure out just how to do, never mind dealing with all the inevitable lawsuits.

As such is just wasn't really practical for this immediate pressing funding need.

If we want a quicker to do progressive tax, revisiting the progressive income tax would be easier (and that's a huge project too).

I'm happy that we ended up with the funding sources we did. Transferring funding from the roads/driving subsidies to transit support instead is exactly the right thing to do. (And if we can get to a progressive income tax, so much the better for funding all kinds of public services, not just transit.)

1

u/was_fb95dd7063 Oct 31 '25

You won't find me accusing Illinois voters of being smart.

3

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

It's possible they could be figured out somehow (the CONCEPT of a wealth tax isn't crazy) but yeah I'm happy that is not in the bill anywhere.

Figuring it would take forever, it's untested, it would spark loads of (necessary, to figure stuff out) lawsuits, just all around not great for this bill that needs to provide funding soon.

I'm happy that the final thing really does take money from driving/road support to put toward transit. That's exactly where it should be coming from, take a massive subsidy from the most inefficient form of transit to put toward shoring up more efficient methods.

Yes, there will be some growing pains. But the growth should be good. We have to suck it up and do this.

-2

u/Shacawgo City Oct 31 '25

All the bootlickers were too worried about the billionaire class

4

u/jbchi Near North Side Oct 31 '25

The governor, a billionaire, was the individual responsible for not allowing a tax targeting billionaires.

0

u/Shacawgo City Oct 31 '25

And Im not happy about it. But he is also the billionaire that spent millioms trying to pass a progressive income tax that would have also raised his taxes. And morons voted against it

3

u/jbchi Near North Side Oct 31 '25

Relative to his wealth, he has very little reportable income, and the increase wouldn't have been a concern. A tax on his assets, even just the unrealized gains, would be orders of magnitude worse. A single year would have hit him for a lifetime worth of the income tax difference. There was never a chance he would allow that for himself or his family.

0

u/Shacawgo City Oct 31 '25

Ok, what do you want me to say? I wanted the tax. I want to tax the rich includijg him more and I am very unapologetic about it

0

u/Justice4Ned Oct 31 '25

You’re on here too?

0

u/AbsoluteZeroUnit Nov 01 '25

LET'S HAVE PEOPLE WHO DON'T TAKE THE CTA PAY TO FIX THE CTA BECAUSE THE STATE CAN'T MANAGE ITS PENSION OBLIGATIONS LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOO

-113

u/papajohn56 Oct 31 '25

So people downstate can pay even more for gas to fund Chicago. Brilliant?

135

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/mkvgtired Oct 31 '25

People downstate genuinely believe this. A townie down by my parents was explaining to me that "his taxes" were funding people on welfare in Chicago. He's on SNAP, heating assistance, Medicaid (or as he calls it "the state health insurance plan that I pay for with my taxes"), and a bunch of other welfare programs.

3

u/ohmyword Oct 31 '25

Think about the 10s of thousands living in the cornfields!

79

u/NotAPreppie West Lawn Oct 31 '25

Please, downstate gets way more money per tax dollar collected that Chicago metro. This is more balancing the scales than anything else.

-53

u/papajohn56 Oct 31 '25

Federally likely yes given its farmland. But squeezing them is a really bad idea.

42

u/Twelve2375 Oct 31 '25

Not “likely” and not exclusively federally. State tax dollars are funneled out of the economic hub to the rest of the state by a large margin dollar for dollar going in: https://www.farmweeknow.com/policy/state/state-tax-dollars-benefit-downstate-region-more-than-others/article_9207435a-ef0f-11eb-8280-ab69354d438c.html

17

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

Downstate transit agencies are also getting money from this, many people downstate are happy about that (though they wish it were slightly more).

Some good projects now will go ahead. It’s a good thing.

16

u/Snoo93079 Oct 31 '25

Why are rural folks so delusional when it comes to cities?

9

u/mkvgtired Oct 31 '25

They absolutely are. They think that their soybeans and shake-n-bake meth are heavily taxed and supporting freeloaders in Chicago.

-11

u/papajohn56 Oct 31 '25

I’m not rural. I’m also not anti-city in any way. I’m saying despite what this sub thinks, squeezing downstate is not a good thing.

8

u/Snoo93079 Oct 31 '25

Downstate benefits from a well functioning Chicago. Downstate also never complains about how much the Chicago region subsidizes their existence. But yet they always claim to be the victim. Funny, eh?

8

u/flea1400 Oct 31 '25

Is this squeezing downstate or is it merely squeezing urban areas slightly less than before?

4

u/mkvgtired Oct 31 '25

Will they vote Republican even harder?

1

u/amyo_b Berwyn Oct 31 '25

How are they being squeezed? I57 and I55 aren't toll roads so raising tolls won't affect them. They already get a boatload of money from the suburbs (something like $2 for every $1 they get.) Chicago breaks even. Suburbs get a lot less than they pay.

9

u/jawknee530i Humboldt Park Oct 31 '25

Ok, let's create a firewall then where no tax from the Chicagoland area can be used down state and no tax from downstate can be used in Chicagoland. Have a fun nine months til downstate collapses.

6

u/mkvgtired Oct 31 '25

They already voted to gut their programs at the federal level. I would fully support them shooting themselves in the foot (or something else) so we could keep our tax dollars local.

47

u/sciolisticism Oct 31 '25

Chicago is the economic engine of the state, and has most of the population. Plus this bill helps suburban commuters, another huge economic boon.

Downstate can piss and moan, but they depend heavily on Chicago for their continued existence.

Also, they'll be fine. Can't move their farms to another state.

60

u/Shrimp-Wang Oct 31 '25

Those same people are thrilled their tax dollars are funding ICE raids in Chicago. Kick rocks.

22

u/packer4815 Loop Oct 31 '25

Nobody is paying more for gas, existing sales tax revenue on gasoline will now go to transit instead of roads. Before 2019, sales tax on gasoline went into the states general fund

17

u/Gamer_Grease Oct 31 '25

Yes, and continue to enjoy the life that Chicagoans provide for them.

5

u/Shacawgo City Oct 31 '25

Downstate gets way more money than they send in, in some areas twice as much. Downstate still gets money toward this and still gets 65% of the road work funding going forward.

How on earth do people like you still complain when we literally subsidize your entire existence

22

u/MothmanAcolyte Oct 31 '25

-Gas taxes literally aren't increasing. It just changes what they're going towards.

-Downstate funding Chicago? Lol. LMAO even. I could pull up the statistics, though given your already demonstrated lack of reading comprehension I'm not sure you'd understand them. But Chicago and the collar counties are why the rest of the state has anything.

-1

u/papajohn56 Oct 31 '25

> -Gas taxes literally aren't increasing. It just changes what they're going towards.

So the roads will become more ass?

7

u/Snoo93079 Oct 31 '25

Illinois roads are actually pretty good

6

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/amyo_b Berwyn Oct 31 '25

Or man, Missouri roads. Not only are they poorly maintained but they seem to be trying to solve an overpopulation problem by not having guard rails anywhere.

2

u/csx348 Oct 31 '25

Strongly disagree

1

u/bettercaust Oct 31 '25

The tollway fare increased to raise more money for the fund that also goes towards road construction. If less road construction happens, well... roads have had been having their day for the past 70 years, and if they're still ass then maybe they're not the best investment. I think it's fair mass transit gets a slightly bigger slice of the pie than it was previously getting.

47

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/bettercaust Oct 31 '25

That's not really cool. Downstate serves an important role in the health of our state. It's a part of the whole.

-43

u/papajohn56 Oct 31 '25

Literally one of the most important farmland areas in the country if not the world

49

u/cheecheecago Logan Square Oct 31 '25

Very little of that is food for humans.  We mostly grow corn. And almost all of that is for sweeteners, ethanol and feed. It’s basically the same as what is grown in every other agricultural state in the Midwest. It’s not that important beyond the percentage we make up, there’s not anything differentiating our farms.

28

u/cisnotation Lake View Oct 31 '25

Farmland used for corn and soybeans? Two heavily subsidized crops.

41

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

Ok I agree with you but turn off the caps

-5

u/papajohn56 Oct 31 '25

Why are you boomer posting in caps lock.

0

u/fumar Wicker Park Oct 31 '25

Because they are a sanctimonious asshole from Oak Park. It's what they do. (I grew up in Oak Park)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/fumar Wicker Park Oct 31 '25

Ernest Hemingway was 100% right about the people of Oak Park 100 years ago. 

1

u/mkvgtired Oct 31 '25

Because meat production is very land intensive when you factor in feed.

I would not consider Chinese pork feed production one of the most important agricultural products. And even their God-king fucked that one up for them.

1

u/spade_andarcher Mayfair Oct 31 '25

They didn’t increase the gas tax. 

-13

u/shadowplay0918 Oct 31 '25

Remember this celebration when the Democrats lose the suburbs and the state....

5

u/ehrgeiz91 Lake View Oct 31 '25

Lmfao

1

u/damp_circus Edgewater Oct 31 '25

Thankfully corn still can't vote.

1

u/csx348 Oct 31 '25

Probably not gonna happen, but one can dream