Transit funding compromise is fair

The Editorial Board’s validation of the “Suburban Mayors Coalition for Fair Transit” statement blatantly ignores the facts of the NITA bill:

1.The proposed NITA voting system is based on regional consensus: the four “factions” (governor, collars, Suburban Cook, City of Chicago) each get an equal footing on the board (five seats each out of 20). The “easy” way to passage requires at least two votes from each faction for a 60% majority. The 75% supermajority — the “hard” way — is intended only to ensure one faction can’t effectively veto something that the rest of the region otherwise unanimously supports.

2.The CTA accounts for almost 85% of NITA’s ridership and most of Metra’s 10% ridership share travels into and out of the city. In simple math, 25% board representation for the collars is quite generous, which should be good for suburban transit (build Chicagoland’s Purple Line equivalent). Both the collars and the city think NITA gives too much power to the other, bringing to mind the old saying “a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied.”

3.NITA’s development power is in no way a “broadside” to local control, because it doesn’t override local zoning at all. Allowing NITA to develop around stations could actually be the solution to transit funding, using real estate revenue to fund transit is how Japan’s railways remain highly profitable. Self-funding through real estate would avoid future funding battles in Springfield and quell concerns over controversial proposed revenue streams by making them temporary stopgaps.

The suburban mayors complain but offer few solutions. Their goal is not to fund a world-class transit system, but to receive the benefits of transit without having to pay for it and retain local control to block housing around transit stations, further defunding the backbone of Illinois’ economy.

Ben Wolfenstein

Chicago