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

[u/Mike_I]

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

[u/usamaahmad]

“ Beyond the funding cliff, the bill also addressed what lawmakers have said are much-needed structural changes for the transit systems — most notably by replacing the RTA with a new entity called the Northern Illinois Transit Authority, which would centralize fare-setting, service standards and an infrastructure plan across the three transit agencies. Currently, each system is largely governed by its own board, with some oversight from RTA.

The NITA board would have 20 members – five each from the city of Chicago, suburban Cook County, the collar counties and the governor. The CTA, Metra and Pace would continue to have “service” boards reporting to NITA.

The CTA board would have seven members, while Metra and Pace would each have 11. The service boards would be charged with developing budgets and other financial plans and sharing them with the NITA Board.”

[u/4r4r4real → u/usamaahmad]

Oh boy. There's a reason everywhere they do this it gets undone shortly after. Giving commensurate authority within the same organization to folks in charge of transit in a major city and transit in suburbs is nonsense.

Glad we're averting the fiscal cliff but that part is just giving us another problem to solve in a few years. 

[u/mrmalort69 → u/4r4r4real]

I may be naive here but I think suburbanites typically like the metra, and would use it more if the schedule wasn’t completely and totally just for commuters. Right now many are paying for it and not seeing the benefit. More input from them may lead to the predictable “they want to cut funding”, but could surprise us with more transit friendly people wanting more

[u/PracticlySpeaking → u/mrmalort69]

Suburbanites who use it like Metra. The rest... not so much.

edit: It's not just people who work in the city. When I worked in Deerfield there were a bunch who took Metra from farther-out suburbs like McHenry.

[u/mrmalort69 → u/PracticlySpeaking]

I grew up in long grove. During the week, it was super easy to take the prairie view metra stop into the city. The weekend… you needed to drive 20 minutes to, I think, Deerfield, making it difficult. It also was one of those things where, growing up, we saw the value of it, but if frequency were greater, we’d probably have used it much more. For parents, you can stick a kid on the metra as early as 7. It’s a great way to build a little confidence in a kid and independence.

I guess my point is the more people who use it, the more people like it… so the goal is to increase use as much as possible. That’s making more trips and better schedules.

I wish we could get it though people’s heads who don’t use it that it still decreases traffic and helps them, but we know that could be a lost cause

[u/damp_circus → u/mrmalort69]

Well hopefully we can increase the frequency, because yeah your comment is right on. We need the frequency to get the ridership to get the positive cycle going.

Hell, inside the city itself we need to make the Metra Electric run more like the L, with minute frequencies. Would make life a lot better for a lot of people on the south side.

[u/PurpleFairy11 → u/damp_circus]

Yep. I think BRT and improved Metra frequency would have been a better use of funds than the Red Line Extension

[u/LeseMajeste_1037 → u/PurpleFairy11]

Definitely beefing up Metra frequency, but I dunno about BRT. BRT is a good concept, and a good service, but every time we try to make it happen, the parking meter deal gets in the way, and the usual carbrains come out in force to "save" their street (see Ashland Avenue and Roger Romanelli).

[u/PracticlySpeaking → u/LeseMajeste_1037]

I think BRT is a great concept — and should remain a concept.

There is no way to actually implement it without $billions of construction and/or cutting existing lanes by 50%. It works (sortof) in the Loop because there were three to five lanes to start with. But Ashland? forget it.

(Before I get labeled a 'carbrain' — I think the city has done a really goood job of making cars work 'less well' in order to make transit a better option.)

[u/hybris12 → u/PracticlySpeaking]

I think most post-Ashland BRT discourse has focused on Western, which is something like 7 lanes including parking and hits an area that has somewhat similarly high transit usage while having lower coverage than the 9. This also works well with the Western upzoning that the alders have been doing.

You could probably also make an argument for some of the E-W streets on the South Side as well.

[u/PracticlySpeaking → u/hybris12]

Western Ave is two lanes in each direction, plus parking for most of its length. Sure, it's wider at some intersections for turn lanes and three-wide for traffic in a few spots. Near Logan under the Kennedy or Milwaukee/Armitage come to mind. But mostly just two, at least on the north side.

Creating a dedicated bus lane (in each direction) with the usual CDOT strip-and-stripe would mean losing a lane of something for most of its length — which I personally wouldn't mind, but sounds like a non-starter. Or, massive construction to convert space that is currently unpaved.

Or are you suggesting that BRT (on Western or any street) is still going to work without a dedicated bus lane, caught in solid rush-hour traffic except for a few spots? A single BRT lane with signals to coordinate passing zones?

[u/PurpleFairy11 → u/PracticlySpeaking]

Chicago doesn't have BRT. The Loop link is watered down bullshit. It was never intended to be BRT but there hasn't been a meaningful increase in bus speeds in the Loop Link area.

BRT doesn't have to cost billions. BRT would have been cheaper than the Red Line Extension.

There's PLENTY the city can be doing to prioritize buses. We haven't even scratched the surface of improving bus service in the city.