>> With the Chicago area's transit agencies facing down a 730 million dollar fiscal cliff.

State lawmakers have been working on a plan to preserve and improve public transportation.

Perhaps the boldest idea is the pitch to do away with CTA, Metra Pace and the RTA creating an entirely new Metropolitan Mobility Authority for the last several months.

The Senate Transportation committees held a series of hearings on public transit and how governance reforms a new funding could chart a new course for Chicago land.

Joining us to talk more about that are state Sen around believe of Chicago chair of the Transportation Committee and state Senator Don T with of Saint Charles Minority spokesperson for the Transportation Committee.

Thank you both for joining me.

Appreciated.

Thank you for having So this process got started with a report from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

They laid out some potential paths for reform.

Senator Avila fallen.

You are among the lawmakers who floated a bill this spring that would combine, as we mentioned, CTA, Metra and pace.

Why is that an idea?

You think it's worth considering?

>> Well, given the magnitude of the situation we're in, we must reassess this 40 plus year.

Programmer system that's been in place.

4 different agencies.

21 different pointing authorities.

47 different appointments between RTA, CTA, Metra and Pace.

We are talking about a system that we need for the future out for that system.

That is unprecedented.

So we need to ensure that this new system with this new funding, he's accountable and transparent.

And that's why this is the moment to have that conversation.

>> As you both know, hard better than I A CT a Metra pace, RTA.

They've all been pretty vehemently opposed to the idea of the sort of major governance reforms senator do with have the transit agency's meaningfully been engaging with the work that your committee and other lawmakers have been Absolutely.

Representatives of all the service boards have been regular attendees at virtually all of the public hearings.

We've been holding.

>> On a county by county basis, which I think has been a great move to make sure everybody is hurt.

Everybody has their input as you can imagine, my suburban mayors and even a number of county board chairman are all very concerned about the elimination of their current involvement within that 3 service board process, the CTA, Metra and Pace.

I think we can all agree that the RTA or the MMA as it may be called.

Eventually does have to have control over all 3 of those service boards who up until this point of all operated almost in a silo.

The RTA has only been involved in long-term financing and long-term planning.

Our mayors and county board chairman and the servers want to be sure by maintaining the service port structure.

They will continue to have input into how their revenues that they are generating in the suburbs and the 5 collar counties are used well, and you mentioned the RTA.

They've pitch some, you know, more modest ideas governance changes, more regional coordination for service.

>> For fair policy, for capital projects.

Do you think that, you know, the proposal they've put out there goes far enough?

>> That still is remains to be seen.

You know, as senator mentioned, we've done 5 committee hearings to over 21 hours of testimony throughout the RTA region next week.

We're doing here Springfield to discuss downstate Public Transit needs.

And I think through these hearings, one piece is clear.

There's a consensus that we need a robust public transit system that's good for our economy.

Our public health, mitigate climate impact.

It's good for our quality of life.

And so there's a lot of contests around that.

I think there's also consensus on some of the issues.

Will you laid out weather?

It's talking about the fact that CTA and pace right now to separate procurements making one agency the regional agency have the 40 for Capital Project prioritization at the end of the day, we need a central agency that is going to address safety, reliability, accessibility for the entire region.

And that is what is lacking right now.

And before we take any vote on funding, we need to see from the agencies.

service improvements and expansions will occur and how will they be implemented and how can we hold them accountable for all of that?

>> Yeah, I mean, the transit boards have been making the case for increased funding.

And they've also said that these kinds of government's reforms aren't necessarily going to create this sort of cost savings that that folks hope they will.

You know, Senator, do it.

Do you think there is an appetite for increased funding without the sorts of reforms in Springfield?

Well, I think you have to define what reforms really means what the ironies in this whole process I see, I think is that we all pretty much agree that there needs to be one agency in charge of all 3 of those different service port.

But the service boards a vital from the standpoint that, for instance, Metro and CTA are both in the train business, but they run very different business models, CTA and pace, suburban bus service are both in the bus business, but their very different business models and how they operate.

I think having and over.

over control.

An MMA that oversees all 3 of those agencies is something we pretty much all agree on.

And most of the people we've talked to agree on, of course, but again, it's going to have to be a continued conversation a much longer conversation with the individual service boards.

If the MMA comes into play.

How do each of the service boards and tend to coordinate the services between the 3 of them as we agree to really come up with a regional system.

We're all through service portal working together, course, a key part of the, you know, discussion here is also this idea of perhaps up to a billion and a half dollars of new revenue.

Senator Avila fallen.

Have you started thinking about potential sources for that revenue or is that a little ways off?

I think it's still to be determined.

First and foremost, we're still in the process.

>> Of having care committee hearings and having conversations with the agencies about what level of service will be achieved with what level of funding right?

And that's something very important to note.

The 730 million dollar figure is just too get the service that we have today.

If you talk with the writers write every day, whether it's pace, mattress Eta, they want to see improvement.

They want to see expansions.

We also need to be planning not just to plug a hole for next year.

For 3 decades from now for 2050, where my kids and everybody else kids are going to use the system to get to their job, their school, their hospital in a more interconnected way.

>> You mentioned you're wrapping up the series of hearings.

There's also the working group in the House.

We've got about 30 seconds left.

But Senator, do it.

You have any idea of a timeline for the next steps here?

>> Well, I think the revenue discussion is probably going to be a little bit longer conversation and perhaps the governance conversations that we'd be have we've been having through this public service public hearing process.

>> And I I really don't think we're going to be able to see any legitimate movement currently filed legislation probably till the 25 session.

The speaker, Speaker Welch has already said he doesn't anticipate any action in the House in 2024.

Oviedo session or lame duck session for that matter.

I think slow and steady and this conversation will make a lot more sense.

Moving forward will certainly much more to talk about.

And